ReachRxResearch
Home
Research
Sign Up
  1. Home
  2. Research Hub
  3. The future of blood-based biomarkers in…

The future of blood-based biomarkers in liver cancer

Journal of Hepatology·July 2
Gastroenterology & HepatologyPractice changingBiliary Tract CancerCholangiocarcinomaHepatocellular CarcinomaNarrative ReviewCell-Free DNACirculating Tumor DNAExtracellular VesiclesFGFR InhibitorImmunotherapyLiquid BiopsyMethylated DNA PanelMicroRNAProtein Biomarker PanelAdultHelioLiverOncoguard LiverAlpha-FetoproteinAtezolizumabBevacizumabDes-Gamma-Carboxy ProthrombinLenvatinibRamucirumabSorafenib

Summary

View source

What was studied

This review covers blood-based biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and biliary tract cancers (BTC/CCA) across the full cancer care continuum — risk stratification, surveillance, early detection, prognostication, treatment selection, and minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring.

Key findings

Few biomarkers have reached routine clinical practice. AFP (alone or combined with ultrasound) and multi-marker panels (GALAD, GAAD, ASAP) show pooled early-stage HCC sensitivity of 70–74% and specificity of 83–87%. Methylated DNA panels (HelioLiver, Oncoguard® Liver) outperform ultrasound for early-stage HCC detection (sensitivity 48–73% vs. 22–29% for ultrasound). For CCA, ctDNA liquid biopsy detects actionable alterations in ~44% of advanced BTC cases; concordance with tissue for IDH1/BRAF is 87–100%, but complex alterations (fusions, CNVs) are less reliably detected. ctDNA positivity after resection predicts recurrence in HCC (HR 2.2–27) and eCCA (HR 1.8–7.7).

Study limitations

Most candidate biomarkers are validated only in small, retrospective, or case-control cohorts, with significant spectrum bias (exclusion of indeterminate lesions inflates performance). Technical variability across platforms, lack of standardised EV isolation and ctDNA quantification protocols, and biological confounding from underlying chronic liver disease all limit reproducibility and cross-study comparison.

Clinical implications

For HCC surveillance, adding AFP to ultrasound improves sensitivity; methylated DNA panel tests (HelioLiver, Oncoguard® Liver) are promising adjuncts but await prospective RCT validation (TRACER trial ongoing). For advanced BTC, when tissue is unavailable or insufficient, plasma cfDNA with high-quality assays can identify actionable targets (FGFR2, IDH1, BRAF), and liquid biopsy is also useful for detecting acquired resistance mutations during FGFR inhibitor therapy.

Related Questions

Explore related topics

What blood-based biomarkers are currently used for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance?What is the sensitivity and specificity of methylated DNA panels like HelioLiver and Oncoguard for early-stage HCC compared to ultrasound?How does liquid biopsy compare to AFP for early liver cancer detection?How should plasma cfDNA be used to identify actionable mutations in biliary tract cancer when tissue biopsy is insufficient?What is the clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA in hepatocellular carcinoma?What is the clinical utility of ctDNA for detecting minimal residual disease and predicting recurrence after HCC or cholangiocarcinoma resection?

Publication Details

Year
2026
Journal
Journal of Hepatology
Source
View article
Keep scrolling
More content below.
Up Next