Goal-directed minimally invasive treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma across the disease course: a scenario-based clinical framework
Rui Cao , Xiao You , Yuhan Huang , Yu Zhang , Feng Xia , Qi Cheng
Mini-invasive Surgery ›› 2026, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (1) : 35
Minimally invasive treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is evolving from isolated procedures into a longitudinal pathway linking local control, liver-function preservation, and future treatment options. This review synthesizes recent evidence on positioning these therapies according to treatment intent, technical feasibility, biologic selection, and integration with systemic therapy. The evidence is organized into five scenarios: curative-intent treatment, bridging or downstaging to transplantation, unresectable liver-dominant disease, post-recurrence salvage, and transition to systemic therapy. Randomized studies in mixed liver-tumor populations support faster recovery after laparoscopic resection, whereas HCC-specific randomized data have not demonstrated a survival advantage for surgery over radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for small tumors; this does not establish equivalence. Robotic platforms may extend minimally invasive surgery to selected complex cases. RFA remains the benchmark for small tumors, while microwave ablation and combined locoregional approaches extend the boundary of local radicality. Navigation, software-based margin assessment, and real-time imaging are also moving ablation toward a closed-loop quality-control model. In unresectable liver-dominant disease, selected transarterial chemoembolization (TACE)-based sequences and combinations have improved progression-free survival or disease control in trial-defined populations, but LEAP-012 and EMERALD-1 have not demonstrated an overall-survival benefit. Candidate selection extends beyond tumor geometry to tumor biology and host reserve, although artificial intelligence, biomarkers, histotripsy, and experimental platforms remain at different stages. The central challenge is no longer expansion of technical capability alone. It is disciplined sequencing: choosing the right local therapy for the right patient at the right point in the disease course without prematurely exhausting liver reserve.
Hepatocellular carcinoma / minimally invasive treatment / liver resection / ablation / transplantation / locoregional therapy / treatment transition / liver reserve
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma.J Hepatol2025;82:315-74 |
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
Vitale A, Cabibbo G, Iavarone M, et al.; HCC Special Interest Group of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. Personalised management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multiparametric therapeutic hierarchy concept.Lancet Oncol2023;24:e312-22 |
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
Kodali S, Kulik L, D’Allessio A, et al.; and the ILTS ILCA Consensus 2024 Group. The 2024 ILTS-ILCA consensus recommendations for liver transplantation for HCC and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Liver Transpl2025;31:815-31 |
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
Fichtinger RS, Aldrighetti LA, Abu Hilal M, et al.; ORANGE II PLUS Collaborative. Laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: the ORANGE II PLUS multicenter randomized controlled trial.J Clin Oncol2024;42:1799-809 PMCID:PMC11107897 |
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
Vitale A, Romano P, Cillo U, et al.; Writing Group for the HE.RC.O.LE.S Collaborative Group, Writing Group for the ITA.LI.CA Collaborative Group, HE.RC.O.LE.S and ITA.LI.CA Collaborative Groups. Liver resection vs nonsurgical treatments for patients with early multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma.JAMA Surg2024;159:881-9 PMCID:PMC11097094 |
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
Kudo M, Ren Z, Guo Y, et al.; LEAP-012 investigators. Transarterial chemoembolisation combined with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus dual placebo for unresectable, non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (LEAP-012): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.Lancet2025;405:203-15 |
| [28] |
Sangro B, Kudo M, Erinjeri JP, et al.; EMERALD-1 Investigators. Durvalumab with or without bevacizumab with transarterial chemoembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma (EMERALD-1): a multiregional, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.Lancet2025;405:216-32 PMCID:PMC12282661 |
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
Merck & Co., Inc.; Eisai Co., Ltd. Merck and Eisai provide update on Phase 3 LEAP-012 trial in unresectable, non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. 2025. Available from: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-eisai-provide-update-on-phase-3-leap-012-trial-in-unresectable-non-metastatic-hepatocellular-carcinoma/. [Last accessed on 22 Sep 2026] |
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
Lee IC, Wang HW, Teng W, et al.; TLCA Intermediate Stage HCC Working Group. Taiwan liver cancer association management consensus guidelines for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.Clin Mol Hepatol2025;31:1213-32 PMCID:PMC12538147 |
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
Di Benedetto F, Magistri P, Di Sandro S, et al.; Robotic HPB Study Group. Safety and efficacy of robotic vs open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.JAMA Surg2023;158:46-54 PMCID:PMC9685546 |
| [40] |
Sijberden JP, Hoogteijling TJ, Aghayan D, et al.; International consortium on Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (I-MILS). Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in various settings: an international multicenter propensity score matched study of 10.075 patients.Ann Surg2024;280:108-17 PMCID:PMC11161239 |
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
Liu Q, Zhang W, Zhao JJ, et al.; International Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection Study Group investigators. Propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomies: an international multicenter study of 4822 cases.Ann Surg2023;278:969-75 |
| [43] |
Krenzien F, Schmelzle M, Pratschke J, et al.; International Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection Study Group investigators. Propensity score-matching analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic limited liver resections of the posterosuperior segments: an international multicenter study.Ann Surg2024;279:297-305 PMCID:PMC11293421 |
| [44] |
Chiow AKH, Fuks D, Choi GH, et al.; International Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection Study Group collaborators. International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy.Br J Surg2021;108:1513-20 PMCID:PMC11293421 |
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
Qin S, Chen M, Cheng AL, et al.; IMbrave050 investigators. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance in patients with resected or ablated high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave050): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.Lancet2023;402:1835-47 |
| [52] |
de Baère T, Roux C, Deschamps F, Tselikas L, Guiu B. Evaluation of a new CT-guided robotic system for percutaneous needle insertion for thermal ablation of liver tumors: a prospective pilot study.Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol2022;45:1701-9 PMCID:PMC9626422 |
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
Famularo S, Donadon M, Cipriani F, et al.; HE.RC.O.LE.S. Group. Machine learning predictive model to guide treatment allocation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after surgery.JAMA Surg2023;158:192-202 PMCID:PMC9857766 |
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
|
| [72] |
|
| [73] |
|
| [74] |
|
| [75] |
|
| [76] |
|
| [77] |
|
| [78] |
|
| [79] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |