Page 56 - Read Online
P. 56

Page 2 of 15                                                      Li et al. Hepatoma Res. 2026;12:36





               refinements may help determine how early disease-control gains can be translated more consistently into durable
               OS benefit, particularly for patients with intermediate-stage HCC.



               INTRODUCTION
               Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to pose a major global health burden and is among the most
               common malignancies and leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide . Although vaccination and
                                                                                 [1]
               antiviral treatment have reduced the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC in some regions , the
                                                                                                     [2]
               burden of HCC associated with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is
               increasing . Many patients are diagnosed after the window for curative resection, or ablation has passed ,
                                                                                                         [4]
                       [3]
               making locoregional and systemic therapies the therapeutic backbone for many patients.

               For decades, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) has been the standard option for intermediate-stage
               HCC [5-7] . However, clinical outcomes after TACE are heterogeneous, and recurrence remains common.
               Mechanistically, TACE induces tumor ischemia and immunogenic cell death , but may also trigger hypoxia-
                                                                               [8]
               driven angiogenesis and reinforce an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment [9,10] , thereby limiting
               durable disease control. Systemic treatments, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted
               agents including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody and tyrosine kinase inhibitors
               (TKIs) - can potentially counteract these adaptive changes after TACE, providing a strong biological
               rationale for combination strategies . Accordingly, multiple randomized trials have evaluated TACE in
                                              [11]
               combination with systemic therapy across different sequencing paradigms and endpoint frameworks. Recent
               results from four key trials, including EMERALD-1 , LEAP-012 , TALENTACE , and CAP-ACE , have
                                                                                                    [15]
                                                          [12]
                                                                     [13]
                                                                                    [14]
               demonstrated significant benefits in progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR),
               accelerating guideline discussions and clinical adoption in selected settings . Nevertheless, clinicians now
                                                                               [16]
               face a more complex decision landscape: overall survival (OS) remains immature or not yet definitively
               improved in several trials, and substantial heterogeneity persists regarding when to initiate systemic therapy
               relative to TACE, how to operationalize on-demand TACE in trial protocols, and which endpoints best
               reflect clinically meaningful benefit in the modern era of effective post-progression therapy.


               In contrast to previous reviews that mainly summarized efficacy outcomes, this narrative review interprets
               available evidence from a trial-design perspective. Relevant literature was identified through searches of
               PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 2025 using core terms: “HCC”, “TACE”,
               “systemic therapy”, and “combination therapy”. Randomized trials, landmark studies, and major clinical
               guidelines were prioritized. Trials were highlighted if they impacted clinical practice or illustrated
               methodological issues critical to interpreting TACE-based combination therapy. A preliminary version of
               this study has been published as a preprint .
                                                  [17]

               EVOLUTION OF TACE TECHNIQUES: FROM EMPIRICAL EMBOLIZATION TO PRECISION AND
               PERSONALIZED THERAPY
               The development of TACE is rooted in the hemodynamic hallmark of HCC, in which tumor blood supply
               progressively shifts toward the hepatic artery, whereas the non-tumoral liver parenchyma remains
               predominantly portal venous . This physiological contrast enables selective intra-arterial drug delivery and
                                       [18]
               embolization to achieve a dual effect - tumor starvation and cytotoxic exposure - while limiting collateral
               injury to surrounding liver tissue. Its origins can be traced to the first hepatic artery embolization performed
               by Goldstein in 1976 . Subsequently, Nakakuma in the 1980s innovatively introduced gelatin sponge and
                                 [19]
               iodized oil as a mitomycin carrier, establishing the classic model of conventional TACE (cTACE) . Two
                                                                                                   [20]
               randomized trials published in 2002 subsequently demonstrated a survival advantage of TACE over
   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61