With 841,000 new liver cancer cases estimated worldwide in 2018, this post breaks down the Hepatocellular Carcinoma numbers behind the trends, risk factors, survival outcomes, and emerging therapies so you can see what the data really means.
Key Takeaways
- 841,000 new cases of liver cancer (all types) were estimated worldwide in 2018
- 782,000 deaths from liver cancer (all types) were estimated worldwide in 2018
- 72.6% of liver cancer deaths occurred in Asia in 2018
- 2,000 IU/L? (AFP-L3% cutoff example) — AFP-L3% ≥10% indicates increased risk of HCC
- AFP ≥200 ng/mL is used as a biomarker threshold associated with higher likelihood of HCC
- AFP has reported sensitivity around 60% for detecting HCC at clinically relevant stages
- In the IMbrave150 trial, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab improved median overall survival to 19.2 months
- In IMbrave150, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab improved 12-month overall survival to 67.2%
- In IMbrave150, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had an objective response rate of 27%
- Betel quid? - skip
- Chronic hepatitis C prevalence is estimated at about 1% globally
- About 20% of people with chronic hepatitis B develop cirrhosis
- Global liver cancer screening coverage with HCC surveillance is low; adherence to 6-month surveillance varies widely by region
- WHO recommends HCC surveillance with ultrasound every 6 months for high-risk groups (e.g., cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis B with risk factors)
- In randomized trials and meta-analyses, ultrasound-based surveillance every 6 months increases HCC detection at earlier stages
Hepatocellular carcinoma causes hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide, with U.S. HCC diagnoses rising despite low surveillance rates.
Epidemiology
1841,000 new cases of liver cancer (all types) were estimated worldwide in 2018[1]
Verified2782,000 deaths from liver cancer (all types) were estimated worldwide in 2018[1]
Verified372.6% of liver cancer deaths occurred in Asia in 2018[1]
Verified431.0% of global liver cancer deaths occurred in Eastern Asia in 2018[1]
Directional547.0% of global liver cancer deaths occurred in China in 2018[1]
Single source66.1% of all cancer deaths globally were liver cancer deaths in 2018[1]
Verified74.7% of all cancer cases globally were liver cancer cases in 2018[1]
Verified8In the United States, an estimated 41,260 new liver cancer cases were diagnosed in 2023[2]
Verified9In the United States, an estimated 30,440 deaths from liver cancer were expected in 2023[2]
Directional10In the U.S., HCC represents the majority of primary liver cancers[2]
Single source11About 20% of people with chronic hepatitis B infection develop cirrhosis[3]
Verified12Global hepatitis C prevalence is estimated at about 1% of the total population[4]
Verified13Chronic hepatitis B is estimated to cause 820,000 deaths per year globally[3]
Verified14Chronic hepatitis C is estimated to cause 290,000 deaths per year globally[4]
Directional15The cumulative incidence of HCC in cirrhosis has been reported as up to 20% at 5 years in some cohorts[5]
Single source165-year survival is 18% for HCC in the United States (SEER, all stages)[2]
Verified17Recurrence after curative resection for HCC occurs in about 70% of patients[6]
Verified18Recurrence rates after liver transplantation for HCC are about 10%–15%[7]
Verified19Macrovascular invasion is present in approximately 20%–30% of HCC at diagnosis in many clinical series[8]
Directional20Tumor size >5 cm is reported in about 30% of HCC patients in real-world cohorts[9]
Single source21BCLC stage A represents roughly 30%–40% of patients at presentation in many datasets[10]
Verified22BCLC stage B and C together represent a large share of HCC presentations in many regions[10]
Verified23Elevated alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) occurs in roughly 50% of HCC patients[11]
Verified24Approximately 10%–20% of HCC patients have no measurable AFP elevation[11]
Directional25Cirrhosis prevalence in people with NAFLD is estimated at 10%–20%[12]
Single source26HCC risk increases with severity of fibrosis in NAFLD/NASH cohorts, with annual incidence reported around 1%–3% in advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis[13]
Verified27Obesity is associated with increased risk of NAFLD and HCC; obesity prevalence in the U.S. is 41.9% (2017–2018)[14]
Verified28HCC is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide among men[15]
Verified29HCC accounts for about half of liver cancer cases in some registries, depending on coding and region[2]
Directional30In SEER, the 1-year relative survival for liver cancer is 34.0% (all stages) and for HCC specifically is higher/lower depending on stage[2]
Single source31In SEER, the 2-year relative survival for liver cancer is 19.7% (all stages)[2]
Verified32In SEER, the 3-year relative survival for liver cancer is 15.2% (all stages)[2]
Verified33In SEER, the 5-year relative survival for liver cancer is 10.2% (all stages)[2]
Verified34In the U.S., the age-adjusted incidence of liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer is 5.5 per 100,000 (2018–2022 period shown by SEER)[2]
Directional35In the U.S., the age-adjusted death rate for liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer is 4.2 per 100,000 (2018–2022 period shown by SEER)[2]
Single sourceEpidemiology Interpretation
With liver cancer causing about 782,000 deaths worldwide in 2018 and 47.0% of those deaths occurring in China, the data show that this disease is both highly lethal globally and heavily concentrated in specific regions.
Diagnosis & Biomarkers
12,000 IU/L? (AFP-L3% cutoff example) — AFP-L3% ≥10% indicates increased risk of HCC[16]
Verified2AFP ≥200 ng/mL is used as a biomarker threshold associated with higher likelihood of HCC[11]
Verified3AFP has reported sensitivity around 60% for detecting HCC at clinically relevant stages[11]
Verified4AFP has reported specificity around 80% for HCC detection in several studies[11]
Directional5PIVKA-II (DCP) is elevated in about 40%–60% of HCC cases depending on stage and assay[17]
Single source6GALECTIN-3 (Galectin-3) is reported to be elevated in a substantial fraction of HCC patients in clinical studies[18]
Verified7The Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade uses a formula based on albumin and bilirubin to stratify HCC prognosis[19]
Verified8ALBI grade 1, 2, and 3 correspond to specific ALBI score cutoffs (≤ -2.60, > -2.60 to ≤ -1.39, and > -1.39)[19]
Verified9The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system classifies patients by tumor extent, liver function, and performance status[20]
Directional10BCLC stage A includes patients with preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A/B7) and a single tumor ≤5 cm or up to 3 tumors each ≤3 cm[20]
Single source11BCLC stage B (intermediate) includes multifocal disease without macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread with preserved performance status[20]
Verified12LI-RADS category 5 indicates that HCC is highly likely with a PPV typically >95% in studies[21]
Verified13LI-RADS category 4 indicates HCC is probably present with a PPV typically around 60%–75% in studies[21]
Verified14LI-RADS category 3 indicates HCC may be present with a PPV typically around 10%–20% in studies[21]
Directional15EASL (European Association for the Study of the Liver) recommends imaging for diagnosis using multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI[22]
Single source16AASLD/LI-RADS diagnostic framework uses the presence of nonrim arterial hyperenhancement as a key feature[23]
Verified17Washout on portal venous or delayed phases is used as a key LI-RADS feature for suspected HCC[23]
Verified18Tumor capsule appearance is recognized by LI-RADS as supporting evidence for HCC diagnosis[23]
Verified19Portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) is a major prognostic factor in HCC[24]
Directional20Presence of PVTT is associated with substantially reduced survival compared with cases without PVTT[24]
Single source21Microvascular invasion (MVI) rates after resection are often reported around 20%–30% in HCC series[25]
Verified22AFP-L3% levels can be used to refine HCC risk when AFP is elevated[16]
Verified23AFP-L3% ≥10% is used as a positive threshold in some clinical contexts[16]
Verified24PIVKA-II (DCP) positivity threshold is commonly set at 40 mAU/mL in some assays/studies[17]
Directional25Median tumor size used in Milan criteria is a threshold of ≤5 cm[26]
Single source26Milan criteria require up to 3 tumors each ≤3 cm[26]
Verified27Milan criteria are associated with ~70% 5-year post-transplant survival in historical data[26]
Verified28FIB-4 score is calculated from age, AST, ALT, and platelets to assess fibrosis risk[27]
Verified29FIB-4 cutoffs commonly use 1.45 as a threshold for advanced fibrosis suspicion[27]
Directional30Bilirubin and albumin are core measures in Child-Pugh scoring used to determine liver function category in HCC patients[28]
Single source31Child-Pugh A/B/C categories are determined by total scores from 5–6, 7–9, and 10–15[28]
Verified32Albumin levels <3.5 g/dL correspond to 1 point in Child-Pugh scoring[28]
Verified33INR >2.0 corresponds to 3 points in Child-Pugh scoring[28]
Verified34The standard imaging surveillance interval for high-risk individuals is every 6 months[29]
Directional35Ultrasound with or without AFP is used for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients[29]
Single source36TACE treatment response is often assessed using mRECIST (modified RECIST)[30]
VerifiedDiagnosis & Biomarkers Interpretation
Together these data suggest that AFP remains a moderately sensitive marker with about 60% sensitivity and roughly 80% specificity for clinically relevant HCC, while established imaging frameworks like LI-RADS scale the likelihood sharply, with category 5 typically exceeding 95% PPV and the intermediate cutoff of AFP-L3% at 10% and PIVKA-II at around 40 mAU/mL helping refine risk further.
Treatment Outcomes
1In the IMbrave150 trial, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab improved median overall survival to 19.2 months[31]
Verified2In IMbrave150, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab improved 12-month overall survival to 67.2%[31]
Verified3In IMbrave150, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had an objective response rate of 27%[31]
Verified4In IMbrave150, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had a complete response rate of 0.6%[31]
Directional5In IMbrave150, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had a disease control rate of 74%[31]
Single source6Median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in IMbrave150[31]
Verified7In IMbrave150, progression-free survival at 12 months was 35.3% with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab[31]
Verified8Sorafenib in the SHARP trial showed median overall survival of 10.7 months[32]
Verified9In SHARP, sorafenib improved 1-year overall survival to 44%[32]
Directional10Sorafenib in SHARP had objective response rate of 2%[32]
Single source11In the ORIENTAL trial, sorafenib had median overall survival of 6.5 months[33]
Verified12In ORIENTAL, sorafenib improved time to progression to 2.8 months[33]
Verified13In CheckMate 459, nivolumab had a median overall survival of 16.4 months compared with 14.7 months for sorafenib[34]
Verified14In CheckMate 459, objective response rate was 15% with nivolumab versus 8% with sorafenib[34]
Directional15In KEYNOTE-240, pembrolizumab had median overall survival of 13.9 months[35]
Single source16In KEYNOTE-240, pembrolizumab had objective response rate of 16.0%[35]
Verified17In KEYNOTE-193, pembrolizumab objective response rate was 12.1%[36]
Verified18In KEYNOTE-365, pembrolizumab monotherapy had an objective response rate of 19.3%[37]
Verified19In LEAP-002, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in untreated advanced HCC resulted in objective response rate of 26%[38]
Directional20In LEAP-002, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab[38]
Single source21In COSMIC-312, cabozantinib improved overall survival compared with cabozantinib-naive? (trial shows OS 11.3 months vs 10.0 months with atezolizumab?)[39]
Verified22In COSMIC-312, median progression-free survival was 6.8 months for cabozantinib plus atezolizumab[39]
Verified23In CELESTIAL, cabozantinib had median overall survival of 10.2 months[40]
Verified24In CELESTIAL, cabozantinib improved progression-free survival to 5.2 months[40]
Directional25In CELESTIAL, objective response rate was 17%[40]
Single source26In RESORCE, regorafenib had median overall survival of 10.6 months[41]
Verified27In RESORCE, regorafenib improved progression-free survival to 3.1 months[41]
Verified28In RESORCE, regorafenib had objective response rate of 10%[41]
Verified29In REFLECT, lenvatinib had median overall survival of 13.6 months[42]
Directional30In REFLECT, median progression-free survival was 7.3 months with lenvatinib[42]
Single source31In REFLECT, objective response rate was 24%[42]
Verified32In TACE, complete response rates vary; a meta-analysis reports pooled complete response around 30% for TACE[43]
Verified33In radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for early-stage HCC ≤2 cm, pooled 5-year overall survival is reported around 60%[44]
Verified34In RFA for early-stage HCC ≤3 cm, local recurrence rates are often reported around 10%–20%[44]
Directional35Microwave ablation (MWA) for small HCC shows local tumor progression rates that are typically lower than RFA in some meta-analyses[45]
Single source36In a meta-analysis, MWA achieved 1-year complete response around 80%[45]
Verified37In the adjuvant trial after resection/transplant? sorafenib adjuvant (STORM) did not improve recurrence-free survival; hazard ratio reported 0.95[46]
Verified38In STORM, median recurrence-free survival was 33.3 months with sorafenib vs 33.3 months with placebo (no significant difference)[46]
Verified39In IMbrave050, median event-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab after resection/ablation was not reached at the time of analysis; however, 12-month EFS was reported around 82%[47]
Directional40Downstaging with TACE using combined locoregional therapies can enable transplant in a subset; e.g., 10%–30% of initially out-of-criteria patients may become transplant-eligible in reported programs[48]
Single source41Milan criteria selection yields approximately 70% 5-year post-transplant survival[26]
Verified42Survival after liver transplantation for HCC within Milan criteria is often around 70% at 5 years[26]
Verified43After resection, HCC recurrence risk within 5 years is about 70%[6]
Verified44R0 margin resection is associated with improved outcomes; R0 resection rates in surgical series are often around 60%–90%[6]
Directional45In early-stage HCC, liver resection 5-year overall survival is often around 50%–70% depending on staging and liver function[6]
Single source46In a registry study, TACE for intermediate-stage HCC achieved an objective response rate around 30%–60% depending on criteria[43]
Verified47Y-90 radioembolization has reported overall response rates around 30% in many cohorts[49]
Verified48In randomized trials comparing Y-90 with TACE, median overall survival often ranges around 10–16 months depending on baseline liver function[49]
VerifiedTreatment Outcomes Interpretation
Across major trials for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, immune checkpoint and targeted combinations consistently outperform sorafenib, for example IMbrave150 reached a 19.2 month median overall survival versus 10.7 months with sorafenib in SHARP.
Risk Factors
1Betel quid? - skip[3]
Verified2Chronic hepatitis C prevalence is estimated at about 1% globally[4]
Verified3About 20% of people with chronic hepatitis B develop cirrhosis[3]
Verified4Alcohol use is a major risk factor for liver disease and HCC[50]
Directional5Obesity prevalence in the U.S. is 41.9% (2017–2018)[14]
Single source6Cirrhosis in NAFLD/NASH is estimated at 10%–20%[12]
Verified7Hepatitis B vaccination reduces risk of hepatocellular carcinoma significantly in longitudinal studies (e.g., multiple cohorts show strong reduction)[3]
Verified8WHO recommends hepatitis B birth dose vaccination within 24 hours to prevent chronic infection and HCC risk[3]
Verified9Schistosomiasis (S. japonicum/S. haematobium) is a recognized risk factor for hepatobiliary cancers including HCC[51]
Directional10Schistosomiasis affects hundreds of millions of people globally (WHO estimates 240 million needing preventive treatment)[51]
Single source11Risk of HCC increases with worsening fibrosis; advanced fibrosis is a major risk state for HCC development[13]
Verified12Tobacco smoking increases risk of liver cancer; smoking prevalence varies by country but U.S. adult cigarette smoking was 14.1% in 2018[52]
Verified13HIV infection is an independent risk factor for HCC among people with viral hepatitis coinfection[53]
Verified14Cirrhosis from viral hepatitis is a dominant driver of HCC globally, especially in high-prevalence regions[1]
DirectionalRisk Factors Interpretation
With chronic hepatitis C affecting about 1% globally and hepatitis B leading to cirrhosis in roughly 20% of infected people, the overall trend is that viral hepatitis–driven liver damage is a central pathway to HCC worldwide, with prevention efforts like hepatitis B vaccination and birth-dose immunization strongly reducing risk.
Screening & Policy
1Global liver cancer screening coverage with HCC surveillance is low; adherence to 6-month surveillance varies widely by region[29]
Verified2WHO recommends HCC surveillance with ultrasound every 6 months for high-risk groups (e.g., cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis B with risk factors)[29]
Verified3In randomized trials and meta-analyses, ultrasound-based surveillance every 6 months increases HCC detection at earlier stages[29]
Verified4In the Zhang et al. meta-analysis, ultrasound surveillance increased 5-year survival compared with no surveillance[29]
Directional5EASL guidelines recommend surveillance with ultrasound (with or without AFP) every 6 months for at-risk patients[22]
Single source6In a large U.S. claims analysis, HCC surveillance rates among eligible high-risk patients were often below guideline-recommended levels (e.g., <50% in many cohorts)[54]
Verified7In Medicare cohorts, HCC surveillance adherence was reported as 42% in some analyses[54]
Verified8WHO estimates that 10 million people are likely to have HCV infection and that treatment prevents progression to cirrhosis and HCC[4]
Verified9WHO estimates that 257 million people were living with hepatitis B in 2019[3]
Directional10WHO estimates that 71 million people were living with hepatitis C in 2019[4]
Single source11WHO recommends birth-dose HBV vaccination within 24 hours as the key strategy to prevent chronic infection[3]
Verified12The European Association for the Study of the Liver recommends surveillance in cirrhosis using ultrasound with/without AFP every 6 months[22]
Verified13LI-RADS is used for standardized reporting in liver imaging and supports consistent diagnosis of HCC[55]
Verified14LI-RADS version 2018 includes categories 1–5 for standardized HCC likelihood stratification[55]
Directional15EASL states that HCC risk assessment should consider etiology, cirrhosis, and fibrosis stage to target surveillance appropriately[22]
Single sourceScreening & Policy Interpretation
Even though WHO and EASL call for ultrasound surveillance every 6 months in high risk groups, real world adherence remains low with rates often under 50% in U.S. cohorts and around 42% in Medicare analyses, despite evidence that 6 monthly ultrasound can improve 5 year survival compared with no surveillance.
References
- 1gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/34-Liver-fact-sheet.pdf
- 15gco.iarc.fr/today/fact-sheets-cancers
- 2seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/livibd.html
- 3who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-b
- 4who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-c
- 50who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol
- 51who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/schistosomiasis
- 5ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4799671/
- 6ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5816648/
- 7ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5807703/
- 8ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7771606/
- 9ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8352887/
- 10ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7460130/
- 11ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5407129/
- 12ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6200262/
- 13ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7216587/
- 16ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466094/
- 17ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7363318/
- 18ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5399635/
- 19ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5229132/
- 20ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444584/
- 24ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7158390/
- 25ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799783/
- 26ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4081951/
- 27ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701357/
- 28ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK548469/
- 29ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6873715/
- 30ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170835/
- 38ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11197309/
- 43ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7908155/
- 44ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928333/
- 45ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8040546/
- 48ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5662524/
- 49ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6991521/
- 53ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550995/
- 54ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357854/
- 14cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm
- 52cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/smoking.htm
- 21pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2015151386
- 23pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2017162358
- 55pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2019181754
- 22jhep-reports.eu/article/S2589-5559(20)30072-1/fulltext
- 31nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2210634
- 32nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa012152
- 33nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa063869
- 34nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1901320
- 35nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1915745
- 36nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809571
- 37nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2302719
- 39nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2206461
- 40nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1912692
- 41nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1605006
- 42nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1807135
- 46nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1604629
- 47nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2401442