Skip to content

MASLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma

Scope. This page covers only what is distinctive about hepatocellular carcinoma arising in MASLD. Staging, systemic therapy, locoregional treatment and transplant criteria for HCC in general belong to the hepatocellular carcinoma condition, which is curated separately. The border is deliberate: this condition owns the liver disease through cirrhosis; the tumour stays with HCC.

TL;DR — Three things are different about HCC in this setting, and each breaks an assumption imported from viral hepatitis. First, it frequently arises before cirrhosis: 38.5% (95% CI 27.9–50.2) of NAFLD-related HCC occurred in non-cirrhotic livers versus 14.6% (8.7–23.4) for other aetiologies (p<0.0001) (Tan 2022, PMID 35255263). Since surveillance programmes are indexed on cirrhosis, a large fraction of these tumours are outside the surveillance net by construction — and indeed only 32.8% of NAFLD-HCC patients had undergone surveillance versus 55.7% of others (p<0.0001). Second, the per-patient incidence is low but the denominator is enormous: 0.5–2.6% per year in MASH cirrhosis, but only 0.1–1.3 per 1,000 patient-years in non-cirrhotic MASLD (Huang 2021, PMID 33349658) — screening the whole non-cirrhotic population is not feasible, which is what makes risk stratification the operative problem. Third, immunotherapy may work less well: a meta-analysis of three randomised phase 3 PD1/PDL1 trials in >1,600 patients with advanced HCC found no survival improvement in non-viral HCC, and in two further cohorts patients with NASH-driven HCC on anti-PD1/PDL1 had reduced overall survival, mechanistically linked to CD8⁺PD1⁺ T cells that promote rather than police the tumour (Pfister 2021, PMID 33762733). Overall survival is otherwise similar to non-NAFLD HCC (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92–1.20, p=0.43) (PMID 35255263).

How it differs at presentation

Systematic review and meta-analysis of 61 studies (January 1980 – May 2021, 94,636 patients) comparing NAFLD-related HCC with HCC of other causes (Tan 2022, PMID 35255263):

Feature NAFLD-related HCC vs other causes
Proportion of all HCC 15.1% (95% CI 11.9–18.9)
Non-cirrhotic 38.5% (27.9–50.2) vs 14.6% (8.7–23.4), p<0.0001
Underwent surveillance 32.8% (12.0–63.7) vs 55.7% (24.0–83.3), p<0.0001
Age older, p<0.0001
BMI higher, p<0.0001
Diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia more common, all p<0.0001
Cardiovascular disease at presentation more common, p=0.0055
Tumour diameter larger, p=0.0087
Uninodular lesions more likely, p=0.0003
BCLC stage, TNM stage, AFP, ECOG status no significant difference
Treatment allocation (curative / palliative / supportive) no significant difference
Overall survival HR 1.05 (0.92–1.20), p=0.43 — no difference
Disease-free survival HR 0.79 (0.63–0.99), p=0.044 — longer

Heterogeneity was substantial (I²>75% in most analyses) and all included articles carried low-to-moderate risk of bias.

The combination — larger tumours at diagnosis, half the surveillance rate, yet equal overall survival and better disease-free survival — is not a contradiction. Slower tumour biology and uninodular presentation plausibly offset later detection, and competing cardiometabolic mortality truncates the survival window in which HCC would otherwise dominate.

The attribution problem

How much HCC is "MASLD HCC" depends heavily on whether concurrent aetiologies are allowed. Using MAFLD criteria — which explicitly permit concurrent liver disease — across 22 studies and 56,565 individuals with HCC (Crane 2024, PMID 38623613):

Definition Prevalence in HCC cohorts (95% CI)
Total MAFLD (sole or contributory) 48.7% (34.5–63.0)
Single-MAFLD (sole aetiology) 12.4% (8.3–17.3)
Mixed-MAFLD within chronic hepatitis B HCC 40.0% (30.2–50.3)
Mixed-MAFLD within hepatitis C HCC 54.1% (40.4–67.6)
Mixed-MAFLD within alcohol-related HCC 64.3% (52.7–75.0)

Mixed-MAFLD HCC was more likely cirrhotic and less likely to have metastasised than single-MAFLD HCC, and had higher platelet counts and less macrovascular invasion than non-MAFLD HCC. The 12.4% single-aetiology figure is close to Tan's 15.1% for NAFLD-defined HCC; the 48.7% total figure describes how often metabolic dysfunction is present in HCC of any cause. The two numbers answer different questions and should never be substituted for one another. See nomenclature and definitions.

Incidence: the denominator problem

Population HCC incidence Source
MASH cirrhosis 0.5–2.6% per year Huang 2021, PMID 33349658
Non-cirrhotic MASLD 0.1–1.3 per 1,000 patient-years PMID 33349658
NAFLD overall (pooled cohort incidence) 3.39 per 1,000 person-years Le 2024, PMID 38281814
NASH CRN prospective cohort, F0–F2 / F3 / F4 0.04 / 0.34 / 0.14 per 100 person-years Sanyal 2021, PMID 34670043
Asia (pooled) 1.8 per 1,000 person-years (0.8–3.1) Li 2019, PMID 30902670

NAFLD is already the fastest-growing cause of HCC in the USA, France and the UK, and NASH incidence is projected to rise by up to 56% over a decade (PMID 33349658). The arithmetic that follows is the core of the surveillance problem: a very low per-person risk multiplied by a third of the adult population produces a large absolute number of tumours occurring outside any programme designed to find them.

Surveillance, and why the standard logic fails

Surveillance in chronic liver disease is anchored on cirrhosis because that is where per-person risk justifies six-monthly ultrasound. In MASLD, nearly two-fifths of tumours arise before cirrhosis (PMID 35255263), which has been put directly as "the paradox of nearly half the cases arising in non-cirrhotic low risk patients" (Machado 2023, PMID 37116966). Three lines of work attempt to solve the stratification problem rather than abandon the anchor:

Approach Performance Source
Polygenic risk scores (PNPLA3, TM6SF2, GCKR, MBOAT7; ±HSD17B13) Predicted HCC better than single variants (p<10⁻¹³); association mainly mediated through severe fibrosis but independent of fibrosis in clinically relevant subgroups and present in individuals without cirrhosis (p<0.05); in UK Biobank independent of classical risk factors and cirrhosis (p<10⁻⁷); high cut-offs detected HCC at ~90% specificity with limited sensitivity Bianco 2021, PMID 33248170
Prognostic liver signature (PLS-NAFLD), 133 genes 15-year HCC incidence 22.7% in high-risk vs 0% in low-risk, HCC-naïve; de novo recurrence at 5 years 71.8% vs 42.9% in HCC-experienced. Four-protein secretome version (PLSec-NAFLD) validated in HCC-naïve NAFLD cirrhosis: 15-year incidence 37.6% vs 0%. Modified by bariatric surgery, lipophilic statin and IDO1 inhibitor Fujiwara 2022, PMID 35731891
Deep learning on H&E biopsy slides Accuracy 81.0%, AUC 0.80 (training), 82.3% and 0.84 (validation) — comparable to a fibrosis-stage model, but detected HCC development in patients with mild fibrosis Nakatsuka 2025, PMID 38768142
AI fibre morphology (FibroPC4, reticular fibres) Associated with an incident-HCC gene signature, and with HCC-promoting stellate cells adjacent to senescent periportal endothelial cells Fujiwara 2026, PMID 40262132
Liver stiffness measurement Under evaluation for HCC risk stratification in MASLD John 2026, PMID 40810411

The PLS-NAFLD zero-percent 15-year incidence in the low-risk stratum is the single most striking stratification result in this literature; it also comes from a defined multicentre cohort of 409 patients and awaits prospective validation as a surveillance-selection tool.

Immunotherapy responsiveness

This is the one area where MASLD aetiology may change treatment rather than detection, and it is why the border with the HCC condition is porous here.

Pfister and colleagues reported progressive accumulation of exhausted, unconventionally activated CD8⁺PD1⁺ T cells in NASH-affected livers. In preclinical NASH-HCC models, anti-PD1 expanded activated CD8⁺PD1⁺ T cells within tumours without tumour regression; given prophylactically, anti-PD1 increased NASH-HCC incidence and tumour number and size, correlated with hepatic CD8⁺PD1⁺CXCR6⁺, TOX⁺ and TNF⁺ T cells, and this increase was prevented by CD8⁺ T-cell depletion or TNF neutralisation. Similar phenotypes were found in human hepatic CD8⁺PD1⁺ T cells from people with NAFLD or NASH. A meta-analysis of three randomised phase 3 PD1/PDL1 trials in more than 1,600 patients with advanced HCC found no survival improvement in non-viral HCC, and in two additional cohorts NASH-driven HCC treated with anti-PD1/PDL1 showed reduced overall survival versus other aetiologies (PMID 33762733).

The proposal that follows — stratifying HCC immunotherapy trials by underlying aetiology — is a claim about HCC treatment and therefore belongs to the hepatocellular carcinoma condition; it is recorded here because the mechanism is a property of the MASLD liver, and it connects directly to the T-cell exhaustion described in pathogenesis.

The clinical side of this is contested

The mechanistic work is not in dispute; whether it produces worse clinical outcomes in treated patients is. Two prospective clinical datasets using the modern atezolizumab–bevacizumab regimen (which the 2021 meta-analysis largely predates) find no survival penalty:

Study Cohort Finding
Copil 2024, PMID 38291735 295 patients treated with atezolizumab–bevacizumab from 2020; MASLD 13%, viral 47%, alcohol 45%; MASLD defined by metabolic risk factors with no other cause and alcohol ≤30 g/d (men) / ≤20 g/d (women) Median PFS 6.5 months and OS 15.6 months, similar with or without MASLD; neither MASLD nor the number of metabolic risk factors (0–4) was associated with PFS or OS on univariate analysis. Independent predictors of PFS were ALBI grade 3 (HR 1.60, p=0.03), AFP (HR 1.01, p=0.01) and metastasis (HR 1.77, p<0.001). Immune-related adverse events (10%) were predicted by age and female sex, not by metabolic status
Stefanini 2026, PMID 40567390 multicentre prospective, 420 patients on atezolizumab–bevacizumab (MASLD n=88, 21.0%), plus a historical sorafenib cohort Time to progression was shorter in MASLD, driven by a specific pattern — increased intrahepatic growth (HR 1.739, 95% CI 1.206–2.507, p=0.003). But neither aetiology nor intrahepatic growth predicted post-progression survival, and overall survival did not differ by aetiology. Aetiology did not influence progression pattern under sorafenib, so the effect is checkpoint-specific. The authors conclude explicitly that "MASLD should not be seen as a contraindication to immunotherapy"

The three positions suggest a testable reconciliation. Pfister's mechanism predicts impaired intrahepatic immune surveillance; Stefanini reported an intrahepatic-growth progression signal without a survival difference; Copil found no progression or survival signal in a cohort where MASLD was 13% and defined by metabolic risk factors rather than histology. The original clinical evidence was a post-hoc aetiology-stratified meta-analysis of trials using PD1/PDL1 monotherapy or older combinations in a "non-viral" category that pools MASLD with alcohol-related disease. As of the dated search recorded in the audit log, no prospective trial had randomised treatment by liver-disease aetiology. The mechanistic signal is established in models, one prospective cohort supports the predicted progression pattern, and a survival penalty under current first-line therapy is not established.

Chemoprevention: the drugs already being taken

Because MASLD patients are heavily statin-, aspirin- and metformin-exposed for cardiometabolic indications, the chemoprevention question is answerable observationally and has been attacked repeatedly. The answers are not equal across agents:

Agent Estimate Population Source
Statins, any HR 0.52 (0.37–0.72), 10 studies, n=1,774,476 mixed aetiology; significant in NAFLD, cirrhosis and hepatitis B/C subgroups, and in analyses restricted to lipophilic statins and to studies accounting for concurrent aspirin/metformin Zeng 2023, PMID 36625733
Statin initiation HR 0.47 (0.36–0.60); adjusted for FIB-4, HR 0.44 (0.30–0.65) 272,431 adults with NAFLD (Optum), IPTW Zou 2023, PMID 35158055
Statin, dose–response >600 cumulative defined daily doses: HR 0.30 (0.20–0.43) same PMID 35158055
Statin, lipophilic vs hydrophilic 0.49 (0.37–0.65) vs 0.40 (0.21–0.76) — no clear class separation same PMID 35158055
Aspirin, any HR 0.48 (0.27–0.87), 11 studies, n=2,190,285 — but not significant once concurrent statin and metformin use was accounted for mixed aetiology PMID 36625733
Aspirin, MASLD-specific adjusted subdistribution HR 0.86 (0.75–0.99), p=0.036 1,723,435 patients with MASLD within a 6,584,155-patient Korean NHIS cohort; 3-year landmark, PSM and IPTW Ahn 2026, PMID 41287437
Aspirin, Mendelian randomisation ASHR 0.47 (0.29–0.76), p=0.002 in MASLD UK Biobank, genomic risk score for salicylic acid metabolism as an instrument PMID 41287437
Metformin HR 0.57 (0.31–1.06) — null, 3 studies, n=125,458 mixed aetiology PMID 36625733

Three observations. The statin association is large, dose-dependent, persists after fibrosis adjustment and survives adjustment for the other two drugs. The aspirin association is weaker within MASLD (HR 0.86) than in the mixed-aetiology meta-analysis (HR 0.48), and disappears in the meta-analysis once co-medication is handled. The Korean study's genetic-instrument analysis gives a larger estimate (0.47) than its observational arm (0.86), but Mendelian-randomisation estimates depend on instrument validity and do not automatically resolve confounding. Metformin is null. None of these agents has been tested in a randomised chemoprevention trial in MASLD.

What this page does not cover

Staging systems (BCLC, TNM), resection and ablation criteria, transplant eligibility (Milan and beyond), locoregional therapy, and first- and second-line systemic regimens are all covered under hepatocellular carcinoma. Where NAFLD-related HCC is concerned, Tan's meta-analysis found no significant difference in treatment allocation between curative, palliative and best supportive care (PMID 35255263) — that is, once the tumour is found, the management pathway is the same.

Open questions

  • Should non-cirrhotic MASLD be surveilled, and if so, whom? No trial of any surveillance strategy in the pre-cirrhotic MASLD population has been conducted. The candidate stratifiers — polygenic scores (PMID 33248170), transcriptomic and secretome signatures (PMID 35731891), digital pathology (PMID 38768142) — are all retrospectively validated. Query run 2026-09-02: (NASH OR MASH OR NAFLD OR MASLD) AND ("hepatocellular carcinoma") AND (cirrhosis OR "non-cirrhotic" OR surveillance OR incidence) — 5,216 records; no randomised surveillance trial in a non-cirrhotic MASLD population retrieved.
  • Why is surveillance uptake half that of other aetiologies? 32.8% versus 55.7% (PMID 35255263). Whether this reflects the cirrhosis-anchored eligibility rule, care fragmentation between hepatology and primary care, or under-recognition of MASLD as a cancer risk has not been decomposed.
  • Do the approved MASH drugs change HCC incidence? Neither resmetirom nor semaglutide has reported HCC as an endpoint; observational GLP-1 data show benefit before, not after, cirrhosis (Kanwal 2024, PMID 39283612), and SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with lower HCC in diabetic MASLD (HR 0.76, 0.62–0.93) (Mao 2024, PMID 39122360) — both observational.
  • Is the immunotherapy signal causal? The mechanistic and clinical evidence is coherent (PMID 33762733) but the clinical component is a post-hoc aetiology-stratified meta-analysis plus two cohorts, not a prospective aetiology-stratified trial — and two prospective atezolizumab–bevacizumab cohorts contradict it on survival (PMIDs: 38291735, 40567390), with one reproducing an intrahepatic-growth progression signal that does not carry through to overall survival. The question is now specifically whether the mechanism produces a detectable clinical penalty under current first-line regimens, and no aetiology-stratified randomised trial exists.
  • Should statins be given for HCC prevention in MASLD? The observational case is strong, dose-dependent and fibrosis-adjusted (HR 0.30 at >600 cumulative DDD; PMIDs: 35158055, 36625733), and statins are already indicated in most of this population for cardiovascular reasons (cardiovascular and extrahepatic outcomes). No randomised chemoprevention trial has been conducted, and the effect size is exactly what healthy-adherer bias would produce.
  • Why do the observational and Mendelian-randomisation aspirin estimates disagree? The same study reports ASHR 0.86 (0.75–0.99) from a propensity-matched national cohort and 0.47 (0.29–0.76) from a genetic instrument in the same disease (PMID 41287437). A genetic instrument being further from null than the observational estimate is the opposite of the usual confounding direction and is unexplained.
  • Can PLS-NAFLD's zero-incidence low-risk stratum be reproduced prospectively? A validated rule-out with 15-year zero incidence would transform surveillance economics; it currently rests on a single multi-region cohort of 409 patients (PMID 35731891).

References

  1. Tan DJH, Ng CH, Lin SY, et al. Clinical characteristics, surveillance, treatment allocation, and outcomes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(4):521-530. PMID 35255263
  2. Crane H, Eslick GD, Gofton C, et al. Global prevalence of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease-related hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2024;30(3):436-448. PMID 38623613
  3. Huang DQ, El-Serag HB, Loomba R. Global epidemiology of NAFLD-related HCC: trends, predictions, risk factors and prevention. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18(4):223-238. PMID 33349658
  4. Machado MV. Hepatocellular carcinoma screening in NAFLD: The paradox of nearly half the cases arising in non-cirrhotic low risk patients. Ann Hepatol. 2023;28(3):101101. PMID 37116966
  5. Pfister D, Núñez NG, Pinyol R, et al. NASH limits anti-tumour surveillance in immunotherapy-treated HCC. Nature. 2021;592(7854):450-456. PMID 33762733
  6. Bianco C, Jamialahmadi O, Pelusi S, et al. Non-invasive stratification of hepatocellular carcinoma risk in non-alcoholic fatty liver using polygenic risk scores. J Hepatol. 2021;74(4):775-782. PMID 33248170
  7. Fujiwara N, Kubota N, Crouchet E, et al. Molecular signatures of long-term hepatocellular carcinoma risk in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Sci Transl Med. 2022;14(650):eabo4474. PMID 35731891
  8. Nakatsuka T, Tateishi R, Sato M, et al. Deep learning and digital pathology powers prediction of HCC development in steatotic liver disease. Hepatology. 2025;81(3):976-989. PMID 38768142
  9. Fujiwara N, Matsushita Y, Tempaku M, et al. AI-based phenotyping of hepatic fiber morphology to inform molecular alterations in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Hepatology. 2026;83(3):575-590. PMID 40262132
  10. John BV, Bastaich D, Ferreira J, et al. Use of liver stiffness measurement for HCC risk stratification in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Hepatology. 2026;83(6):1456-1468. PMID 40810411
  11. Sanyal AJ, Van Natta ML, Clark J, et al. Prospective Study of Outcomes in Adults with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(17):1559-1569. PMID 34670043
  12. Le MH, Le DM, Baez TC, et al. Global incidence of adverse clinical events in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2024;30(2):235-246. PMID 38281814
  13. Li J, Zou B, Yeo YH, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and outcome of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Asia, 1999-2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(5):389-398. PMID 30902670
  14. Kanwal F, Kramer JR, Li L, et al. GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Risk for Cirrhosis and Related Complications in Patients With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184(11):1314-1323. PMID 39283612
  15. Mao X, Zhang X, Kam L, et al. Synergistic association of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor and metformin on liver and non-liver complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Gut. 2024;73(12):2054-2061. PMID 39122360
  16. Copil FD, Campani C, Lequoy M, et al. No correlation between MASLD and poor outcome of Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab therapy in patients with advanced HCC. Liver Int. 2024;44(4):931-943. PMID 38291735
  17. Stefanini B, Piscaglia F, Marra F, et al. Etiology of Hepatocellular Carcinoma May Influence the Pattern of Progression under Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab. Liver Cancer. 2026;15(1):10-23. PMID 40567390
  18. Zeng RW, Yong JN, Tan DJH, et al. Meta-analysis: Chemoprevention of hepatocellular carcinoma with statins, aspirin and metformin. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023;57(6):600-609. PMID 36625733
  19. Zou B, Odden MC, Nguyen MH. Statin Use and Reduced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(2):435-444.e6. PMID 35158055
  20. Ahn J, Hur MH, Shin H, et al. Aspirin and hepatocellular carcinoma risk in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: nationwide cohort study with genetic risk analysis. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2026;32(1):339-352. PMID 41287437