Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2026 Feb 13;57(1):43. doi: 10.1007/s12029-026-01406-0

Nonoperative Management of Hepatic Adenomas: A Review

Ian C Garbarine 1, Jordan M Cloyd 2,
PMCID: PMC12901198  PMID: 41680345

Abstract

Hepatic adenomas (HAs) are relatively common benign liver tumors that carry small risks of hemorrhage and malignant transformation, both of which increase with tumor size. While traditionally linked to estrogen-containing oral contraceptives (OCPs), other risk factors including obesity have been associated with HA formation and growth. Treatment strategies depend on the risk of malignant transformation or hemorrhage, tumor size, histological subtype, and patient-specific factors. While traditionally, surgical resection has been the standard recommendation for large, symptomatic, or high-risk tumors, several non-operative strategies are now available to minimize morbidity and optimize outcomes. Active surveillance is recommended for patients with small (< 5 cm), asymptomatic HAs without other risk factors. Loco-regional therapies, including transarterial embolization and radiofrequency ablation, have been used effectively, particularly for small tumors. Mounting evidence suggests that interventions aimed at weight loss, either through lifestyle modifications or bariatric surgery, are efficacious in reducing HA size. Recent data support expanding non-operative management for even large tumors (> 5 cm), as they can respond to lifestyle interventions. Several subgroups of patients warrant special consideration, such as pregnant patients, males, and patients with hepatic adenomatosis. A personalized, multidisciplinary approach remains essential as non-operative strategies continue to expand along with emerging targeted therapies.

Keywords: Hepatic adenoma, Hepatocellular adenoma, Hepatic adenomatosis, Liver cell adenoma, Liver adenoma, Non-operative management

Introduction

Hepatic adenomas (HA), also known as hepatocellular adenomas or liver cell adenomas, are rare, benign neoplasms arising from hepatic epithelial cells. Histologically, HAs are broadly characterized by uniform sheets of hepatocytes with the absence of bile ducts and portal tracts [1]. Landmark studies from the 1970 s determined an association between the use of estrogen-containing oral contraceptives (OCPs) and the development of HAs [2, 3]. At that time, the incidence of HAs in individuals using OCPs was reported to be 3–4 per 100,000 compared with 0.1 per 100,000 for those not using OCPs [2]. The next large-scale epidemiological studies of HA did not occur until the 2010 s, when a Danish study suggested an incidence of 0.07 per 100,000, regardless of OCP use [4]. Despite these recent studies, the incidence of HA is likely underestimated, as most HAs are found incidentally on cross-sectional imaging obtained for another indication [5].

Although linked to OCP use, the introduction of lower estrogen-containing OCPs and alternative contraceptives has not significantly decreased the incidence of HAs, suggesting other drivers of HA formation. Additional recognized risk factors for HA include obesity, metabolic syndrome, elevated androgens (endogenous or exogenous), and genetic disorders, such as glycogen storage disease and mature-onset diabetes of the young-3 (MODY3) [6]. Obese patients have elevated estrogen levels compared to normal-weight individuals, likely due to increased peripheral aromatization of circulating androgens contributing to HA formation in these patients [7]. Additionally, both obesity and HA formation are independently associated with elevated levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokine, interleukin-6 (IL-6) [8].

HAs are classically associated with women of reproductive age, with a reported female-to-male predominance of 9:1, in case series out of Western countries [9]. However, recent studies from China, Japan, and Taiwan have demonstrated a male predominance [9, 10]. These geographic differences may reflect variations in molecular drivers underlying HA formation. In fact, HAs can be divided into six subtypes based on transcription and protein-level findings that correspond to distinct genetic alterations. These subtypes differ in prevalence, risk factors, imaging and histologic features, and prognosis (Table 1). Although usually benign, HAs may rupture or undergo malignant transformation into hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The risk of these complications increases with increasing HA size. Adenomas > 5 cm have a reported risk of hemorrhage of approximately 25% and malignant transformation of approximately 4.2% [10]. Exophytic tumors, inflammatory and sonic hedgehog subtypes of HA, high androgen states such as pregnancy, and male gender are associated with increased risk of rupture [6, 14]. Similarly, male gender and tumors harboring a β-catenin mutation are independent risk factors for malignant transformation regardless of HA size [18, 19] (Table 1).

Table 1.

Six major molecular subtypes of HA and their associated characteristics

Subtype Prevalence Genetic Alteration Risk Factors Malignant Potential Immunohistochemistry MRI Findings
HNF-1α (inactivated hepatocyte nuclear factor 1α) 30–35% [11] Biallelic inactivation of HNF1A tumor suppressor gene [11] Obesity, MODY type 3 [6] Lowest of any subtype [12] Downregulation of LFABP, β-catenin, and glutamine synthase [11] Decreased signal intensity at T1-weighted opposed-phase (reflects increased intracellular fat [13]
Inflammatory (IHA) 35–40% [14] Activating mutation of IL-6/JAK/STAT pathway [6, 11] Obesity (strong association), alcohol use, glycogen storage disorders [13] Highest risk of hemorrhage [1] Strong expression of serum amyloid A and C-reactive protein [15] Marked T2 hyperintensity; persistent enhancement during portal venous phase [13]
β-catenin-activated (βHA) 15–20% [12] Missense mutation in CTNNB1 at exon 3 or exon 7/8 [6] Glycogen storage disease, vascular disease, androgen exposure [6, 12]; male sex predominance [4, 12] Highest malignant potential (especially exon 3 mutations) [16] Strong, homogeneous cytoplasmic glutamine synthetase expression; nuclear β-catenin positivity in exon 3 mutations only [17] Most exon 3 mutations show iso- or hyperintense signal intensity [13]
Sonic Hedgehog 4% [11] Activating mutations of sonic hedgehog pathway [11] Obesity, estrogen-containing OCP use [6]; hepatic steatosis Elevated risk: resection generally preferred [11] Hypervascularity [11, 13, 14] No definitive imaging characteristics [13]
Unclassified (UHA) Remaining cases Diagnosis of exclusion [6, 11, 13]

MODY Mature onset diabetes of the young, LFABP Liver-type Fatty Acid-Binding Protein, IL-6 interleukin-6, JAK Janus kinase, STAT Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription, OCP Oral contraceptive pills

Surgical Resection

While the majority of HAs will not require intervention, surgical resection should be considered for patients at higher risk of rupture, malignant transformation, disabling symptoms, or inability to rule out HCC. Specifically, traditional indications for resection include size > 5 cm, prior rupture, male sex, rising aminotransferase levels, underlying genetic metabolic diseases, or tumors that carry a β-catenin mutation [1820]. Given advances in perioperative medicine and surgical technique, elective liver surgery can now be performed at experienced centers with increasingly low morbidity and mortality [21]. In addition, hepatic resection is increasingly performed in a minimally invasive fashion [22]. Nevertheless, patients can still experience complications [23] and/or diminished long-term quality of life after hepatic resection for HA [24]. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to provide an overview of HA management options, highlighting key aspects of non-surgical interventions.

Methods

A comprehensive review of the English literature was performed utilizing PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The following search terms were used: liver cell adenoma, liver adenoma, adenoma, hepatic adenoma, hepatocellular adenoma, and adenomatosis. The initial search was completed on September 30, 2025. References from relevant articles were reviewed to identify additional publications. An expert review of the relevant literature was performed, and the most relevant publications were included.

Active Surveillance and Cessation of OCPs

Both the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) have published guidelines for the workup and care of patients with HAs (Table 2) [20, 25]. Both guidelines suggest a broad workup for patients with incidentally detected liver lesions, including obtaining baseline laboratory studies (liver function tests, circulating tumor markers, and viral hepatitis panel) and contrast-enhanced imaging. In patients with cirrhosis, any new lesion should be presumed HCC until conclusive information suggests an alternative etiology. Both ACG and EASL guidelines suggest reserving biopsies for cases in which a hepatic adenoma has an atypical appearance on imaging or concerning findings for malignant transformation. Similarly, both societies suggest multidisciplinary discussion for diagnostic dilemmas. Recent advances in understanding the genetic makeup of HA have enabled the identification of distinct subtypes, leading to improved prognoses and risk stratification. Enhanced imaging techniques have enabled the pairing of imaging findings from high-quality MRI with subtypes [9, 12].

Table 2.

Overview of EASL and ACG guidelines for hepatic adenomas

Category EASL (2016) [25] ACG (2024) [20]
Initial Imaging MRI preferred as first-line assessment Multiphasic MRI preferred
Lifestyle Modifications Discontinue OCPs and weight loss advised Discontinue OCPs/hormone IUDs and weight loss for overweight/obese
Resection in Men Recommended irrespective of size Implied high-risk approach
β-catenin Mutated HCA Resection recommended irrespective of size High-risk approach
Women with HCA < 5 cm - Initial Management 6-month observation after lifestyle changes Discontinue hormones and weight loss with surveillance imaging
Women with HCA < 5 cm - Surveillance Reassess at 1 year, then annual imaging CT/MRI every 6–12 months for 2 years, then annually
Women with HCA ≥ 5 cm Resection after 6 months of lifestyle changes if still ≥ 5 cm Resection typically indicated
Long-term Surveillance Annual imaging can extend to every 2 years if stable after 5 years Annual imaging after initial 2-year period
Alternative to Surgery Not significantly featured Embolization or ablation suggested when surgery not feasible

Active surveillance is recommended for patients who do not meet criteria for surgical resection. In the absence of worrisome characteristics, close follow-up with multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI is recommended every six months for the first two years, then annually. Initial treatment for patients with HAs who take exogenous steroid hormones (e.g., estrogen, androgens), such as for the treatment of aplastic anemia, gender-affirming care, hyperandrogenism, or contraception, consists of immediate cessation of these agents. HA size reduction after stopping the offending agent has been well described and can often obviate surgical intervention [20, 25, 26]. Repeat imaging and clinical follow-up should be pursued in six months. Both ACG and EASL guidelines suggest that surgical resection should be considered if a lesion increases by ≥ 20% in size during this timeframe [20, 25]. The timing of resection after cessation of OCP, however, is debated, with evidence from several case reports and series suggesting that for selected patients, an extended observation period may be appropriate [2730]. For example, a 2017 retrospective study by Klomepner et al., which included 194 patients with HA greater than 5 cm over 16 years, found that the median time for adenoma to regress to less than 5 cm was approximately 21.3 months (IQR 20–32 months) [28]. Within the follow-up period, no complications were reported. Similarly, a 2019 study by Haring et al. of 78 patients with HAs found that approximately 98% of HA remained stable or regressed after cessation of OCP, with a median follow-up of 1.3 years (IQR 0.6–2.6 years) [29]. Both studies reported no HA-induced complications and suggested an increased rate of regression associated with larger HA [28, 29]. These findings support extended observation of large HAs if regression is reserved after OCP cessation.

Weight Loss, Metabolic Control, and Lifestyle Interventions

Given the association of obesity with HA formation, interventions aimed at weight loss can be effective for patients with HAs not using OCPs [20, 25, 31, 32] (Fig. 1). In fact, ACG guidelines strongly recommend weight loss for overweight or obese patients with HAs as part of an initial management strategy [20]. Beegle et al. reported on a case series of eight individuals with HAs in the setting of glycogen storage disease who had significant regression after strict metabolic control [31]. Dokmak et al. reported two cases of female patients with HAs greater than 5 cm without recent OCP use. These two patients had significant regression of their HAs (> 50%) to sizes < 5 cm after significant weight loss (average of 31% reduction in BMI) obtained through diet and exercise [32].

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Representative cross-sectional images from a patient with HA pre- and post-bariatric surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass). (A) MRI showing hepatic adenoma in segment II (1.8 cm x 1.4 cm) (B) CT captured during post-operative follow-up without evidence of HA in segment II. Patient’s BMI pre-op was 38.03 kg/m2 and at time of follow-up imaging was 23.73 kg/m2

The recent widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for weight loss has transformed the treatment of obesity. These medications function by stimulating endogenous insulin release, while also inhibiting gastric emptying and endogenous glucagon release [33]. Several large clinical trials have demonstrated that these medications can result in a mean weight loss of more than 10% [34, 35]. Additionally, several studies have shown an improvement in transaminitis and even resolution of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with the use of these agents [24, 26]. Considering the association between weight loss and reduced HA size in obese patients, GLP-1 receptor agonists may be attractive therapeutic options for treating HA, with potential for hepatoprotective effects. However, to date, no studies have investigated the role of these medications in treating HAs.

Bariatric surgery, most commonly through gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy, has been shown to cause significant and sustained weight loss more commonly than conservative efforts, such as diet and exercise. In fact, bariatric surgery remains the most effective targeted obesity treatment, offering the highest rates of sustained weight loss and is associated with the resolution of obesity-related comorbidities in many patients [36, 37]. Several small case series and systematic reviews have shown an association between a reduction in the size of HA, and the percentage of excess weight loss after bariatric surgery [3840]. These findings, along with the lower rates of weight regain after bariatric surgery compared to more conservative weight loss interventions, suggest that bariatric surgery may be considered for the initial management of HA, especially for patients who are unable to sustain weight loss with conservative measures, or for HA > 5 cm without other high-risk features.

Local-regional Therapies

Local-regional therapies, including transarterial embolization (TAE) and radiofrequency or microwave ablation (RFA/MWA), enable control of HAs with less invasive measures than surgical resection. While TAE has shown significant benefits in controlling hemorrhage from ruptured HAs in hemodynamically stable patients, the use of TAE as well as RFA/MWA, in the elective setting has increased over recent years [4143]. These modalities are particularly beneficial for patients with multiple adenomas, those unable to undergo surgery (e.g., comorbidity or pregnancy), or with tumors that are not amenable to resection (e.g., due to anatomic location) [18, 44, 45]. In fact, EASL guidelines do recommend considering local-regional therapies for patients who are poor surgical candidates [25].

Several large multinational case series have suggested that TAE is safe for the elective treatment of HAs, and reported perioperative morbidity ranging from 7.9% to 11.9%, with serious morbidity of 5.3% to 8.5% [42, 46]. Rosmalen et al. reported on 56 patients who underwent elective TAE and showed a significant average decrease in HA size from 70 mm to 51 mm (p < 0.001). Among patients with HAs > 5 cm, 75% had tumor regression < 5 cm. However, approximately one-third of patients initially treated with TAE required surgical resection [46]. In a meta-analysis of 151 patients, 45% were able to avoid further surgical resection and 75% of patients experienced tumor regression after TAE. For those patients undergoing elective TAE (49 patients), 84% did not require further surgical intervention. This study reported an overall and major complication rate of 7.9% and 5.3% respectively [42]. No tumor growth or malignant transformations were noted. Complications of TAE include acute renal injury, intrahepatic cysts, and postembolization syndrome [18, 42].

The use of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for HA has not been well studied, although small case series have suggested efficacy in the treatment of HAs, including hepatic adenomatosis [47, 48]. Although HAs have malignant potential, adding chemotherapeutic agents exposes patients to the risk of chemotherapy-related adverse effects, without significant benefits over bland embolization [49].

Thermal ablation has been used extensively and successfully to treat small (< 3 cm) localized primary and secondary liver cancers [50, 51]. However, the role of thermal ablation in HA is less well studied. Van Vladder et al. described a series of 18 patients (HAs 1–14 cm) who underwent percutaneous (n = 28) or open (n = 4) RFA ablation using a single probe. Patients had a median size of 3 cm. The primary technical efficacy rate (defined as successful ablation at the index ablation) was 57.8%. In contrast, Laimer et al. reported a single-institutional experience with RFA comprising 14 patients, with a primary technical efficacy rate of 97.4% [52]. Mironov et al. reported a single-institution retrospective cohort study consisting of 36 patients with 58 tumors [53]. Median tumor size was 2.1 cm, and single-probe RFA was performed under ultrasound guidance. The authors report a primary technique efficacy of 88%, a complication rate of 4.5%, and no evidence of malignant transformation during the follow-up period. These data suggest that thermal ablation is safe and effective, particularly for those HAs < 3 cm. Nevertheless, because most small, solitary, asymptomatic HAs do not require intervention, the role of RFA/MWA in patients with HAs is limited.

Special Populations

Pregnancy

Pregnancy is associated with elevated levels of estrogen and androgens, which can promote HA growth and lead to rupture [54]. Traditionally, due to the higher mortality associated with ruptured HA during pregnancy, patients with HA were advised to avoid pregnancy or undergo HA resection beforehand [44]. However, recent data have suggested that a more conservative approach, especially for small HAs, may be feasible [45]. A systematic review by Haring et al. comprising 90 patients with 99 pregnancies, reported that 53.4% of HAs remained stable, 15.1% regressed, and 31.5% progressed. Eight patients (8.1%) experienced HA bleeding during pregnancy, two during labor (2.0%), and five (5.1%) postpartum, although all these patients had HA > 6.5 cm [55]. These findings suggest that the presence of small, asymptomatic HAs without other high-risk features should not automatically prompt the need for surgical resection prior to or during early pregnancy [56]. In these cases, observation with ultrasounds every 6–12 weeks has been proposed [57]. A prospective study by Gaspersz et al. followed 48 patients with imaging-confirmed HA < 5 cm during 51 pregnancies. Patients were followed with liver ultrasounds at 14, 20, 26, 32, 38 weeks of gestation and 6–12 weeks postpartum. HA growth > 20% was seen in 25% of participants, with a median increase of 1.4 cm. 53% of patients had stable lesion size, 22% had lesions that regressed. One patient experienced a 2.7 cm growth and was successfully treated with TAE. These data support monitoring HA with serial ultrasounds during pregnancy [54]. Those HAs increasing in size during pregnancy, are symptomatic, or carry other risk factors for rupture, should still be considered for intervention. When indicated, societal guidelines suggest resection before 24 weeks of gestation or local-regional treatment, such as TAE, after 24 weeks [25].

Male Gender

Approximately 10–20% of HAs occur in males, with a higher proportion reported in Eastern compared to Western countries [9, 5860]. Risk factors more common in males include the use of anabolic steroids and glycogen storage disease [58]. Rising rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome likely underlie the increasing incidence in male patients over the recent decades.

Of note, HAs in male patients have higher rates, reported up to approximately 50%, of malignant transformation to HCC, presumed to be driven by a higher proportion of underlying β-catenin exon 3 mutations [4, 12, 60]. Due to this risk, EASL and ACG recommend surgical resection in all males regardless of HA size. However, recent work has suggested that a more nuanced approach based on the subtype of HA may be more appropriate. González et al. analyzed the molecular subtypes of HAs in 27 male patients in the U.S., finding that inflammatory-HCA was the most common subtype (37%), followed by β-catenin-activated HAs (b-HA; 14.8%). Of the patients studied, only those with b-HAs and those described as unclassified HA were associated with concomitant HCC [61]. These studies report a lower proportion of β-catenin than previously reported, suggesting that the risk of malignant transformation observed in males is due to other risk factors, such as underlying liver disease, or to misdiagnosis of already transformed HCC as β-HA.

A recent single-center study by Jain et al. of seven male patients (86% were obese) showed a high percentage (57.1%) of patients harbored an inflammatory subtype HA. No patients had a subtype with a high risk of malignant transformation [59]. These data suggest that risk stratification based on HA subtype and underlying risk factors, a low-risk subgroup of males, may warrant non-surgical approaches initially, particularly HAs in obese males [62]. For male patients with HAs harboring β-catenin mutations, underlying risk factors, or an uncertain HA vs. HCC, upfront resection remains warranted. Mauro and Forner have proposed a schema for the management of male HAs. If an uncomplicated HA (e.g., no exophytic features, no evidence of hemorrhage) is identified on cross-sectional imaging, a biopsy of the lesion is subsequently performed. If the biopsy is negative for β-catenin mutations and there is an absence of patient-level risk factors for HCC (e.g., MAFLD, viral hepatitis infection, cirrhosis), the patient can be observed with serial imaging along with lifestyle changes (e.g., weight loss, cessation of offending agents) with cross-sectional imaging every six months. If the tumor grows, shows an appreciable change on imaging, remains > 5 cm despite lifestyle interventions, or becomes symptomatic, then resection is pursued [63].

Hepatic Adenomatosis

Hepatic adenomatosis is a variant of HA, traditionally defined as ≥ 10 HAs, though some authors suggest ≥ 4 adenomas as the threshold [64]. In addition to associations with glycogen storage disease, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, hepatic adenomatosis is associated with hepatic steatosis and vascular abnormalities, such as portal vein agenesis, unlike isolated HAs. Reported complication rates vary considerably, with hemorrhage risk ranging from comparable to isolated HA to more than two-fold higher (25–62.5.5%), and malignant transformation risk similarly estimated at 4–10% [20, 56, 65]. This variability likely reflects heterogeneity in molecular subtype distribution across small studies of this rare condition, given that risk for both complications correlates more strongly with molecular subtype than with number of lesions [66]. Barbier et al. described the largest cohort of hepatic adenomatosis, comprising 40 cases at a single center. This cohort had a female predominance (90%), with most patients (80%) presenting with symptomatic (e.g., bleeding, persistent abdominal pain), large nodules > 5 cm. On pathologic assessment, HAs shared the same molecular classification in 87%. In this case series, malignant transformation to HCC occurred in 2.5% and hemorrhage occurred in 15% although overall complications were not more frequent than in isolated HA. Long-term follow-up of this cohort showed either the development of new lesions or the growth of preexisting lesions in 23% of patients [66].

EASL and ACG guidelines suggest that intervention for hepatic adenomatosis be based on the size of the largest lesion or the presence of risk factors [56], although generally resection is not feasible given the number and bilobar location of the tumors. Lifestyle interventions, including OCP cessation and weight loss, led to regression in approximately 33% of patients [65]. For patients who are unable to undergo resection, local-regional interventions such as TAE are often recommended after cessation of OCPs. While there have not been large, prospective studies on local-regional control of hepatic adenomatosis, several case studies have shown improvement in multiple lesions after TAE or RFA [52, 67]. For instance, van Vledder et al. described 10 patients with multiple tumors (median of two tumors, range of one to 12 tumors), with three patients having 10 or more lesions and two patients undergoing successful ablation of 75–90% of lesions. One of three patients had follow-up and was noted to have regression of ablated lesions. For patients with hepatic adenomatosis, liver transplantation could be considered when refractory to other nonoperative measures and/or concern for malignancy transformation, especially in the setting of underlying liver disease such as glycogen storage disease [64].

Emerging Targeted Therapies

Several medical therapies have been studied in the treatment of HA, especially in the setting of hepatic adenomatosis (Table 3). These drugs target recurrent activating mutations such as in Fyn-related Src kinase (FRK), STAT3, interleukin-6 signal transducer (IL6ST), and Janus kinase (JAK)1 pathways [72]. Several pre-clinical studies have demonstrated that inflammatory HAs (IHAs) harboring genetic mutations in IL6ST affecting protein gp130, which leads to constitutive activation of STAT3 (present in approximately 70% of IHAs), respond to JAK/STAT inhibition with agents such as ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2-selective inhibitor [68, 69]. Tofacitinib, another small molecule JAK inhibitor, has demonstrated similar effects on IL-6-mediated signaling in hepatocytes and may represent an alternative therapeutic option, although it has not been directly studied in HA [78].

Table 3.

Emerging medical therapies for hepatic adenomas

Target Mechanism of Action HA Subtype Agents
JAK1/JAK2 [68, 69] Selective JAK inhibition; blocks constitutive STAT3 activation in IHAs with gp130 mutations IHA Ruxolitinib, tofacitinib
IL-6/IL-6 Receptor [70, 71] Monoclonal antibody blockade of IL-6 signaling; inhibits downstream JAK/STAT activation IHA Tocilizumab, siltuximab
FRK/STAT3 [72] Non-specific Src kinase inhibition; blocks oncogenic FRK signaling and STAT3 activation HAs with FRK mutations Dasatinib
GLI1/GLI2 [73, 74] Direct or indirect GLI inhibition; blocks sonic hedgehog pathway transcription shHA GANT61, MEK/Raf inhibitors
PPARα [75, 76] PPARα agonism; suppresses IL-6-mediated acute phase response and hepatic inflammation IHA Fenofibrate
GLP-1 Receptor [34, 35, 77] GLP-1R agonism; promotes weight loss, reduces hepatic steatosis, decreases systemic inflammation Obesity-associated HA, IHA Semaglutide, liraglutide, tirzepatide

Agents in bold have preclinical or clinical evidence in hepatic adenomas

HA hepatic adenoma, IHA inflammatory hepatic adenoma, shHA sonic hedgehog hepatic adenoma, JAK Janus kinase, STAT signal transducer and activator of transcription, FRK Fyn-related Src kinase, GLI glioma-associated oncogene, PPARα peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha, IL-6 interleukin-6, IL-6R interleukin-6 receptor, GLP-1R glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor

Likewise, dasatinib, a non-specific Src kinase inhibitor may be effective in the treatment of HAs through blockade of STAT3 and FRK. In fact, in one preclinical study, dasatinib administration significantly reduced the oncogenic activity of FRK mutant cells lines. Additionally, mice with orthotopically transferred constitutively active FAK mutant tumor cells had improved tumor control compared to controls [72]. A subset of HAs has sonic hedgehog activating mutations (shHA). These tumors can be targeted with small molecule inhibitors targeting GLI1 either directly, such as with GANT61 or indirectly via MEK and Raf inhibitors [73, 74].

Fenofibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) alpha agonist, has been shown to reduce IL-6-mediated acute inflammation [75]. In a case report, Poupon et al. described a 52-year-old obese woman with multiple biopsy-proven IHA lesions who declined surgical intervention. The patient experienced regression of her lesions after initiation of fenofibrate therapy, suggesting a potential role for fenofibrate in treating IHAs [76]. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-6 (siltuximab) or IL-6 receptors (tocilizumab) represent additional possible approaches to target IL-6 driven inflammation in IHAs although these agents have not been studied in the context of HAs [70, 71]. Genomic-based medical therapy is promising, but further preclinical and prospective clinical trials are needed.

Conclusions

Hepatic adenomas are rare, benign tumors of the liver, but carry a risk of hemorrhage and malignant transformation into hepatocellular carcinoma that increases with size. While surgical resection has traditionally been considered the definitive option for at-risk HAs, recent evidence suggests that conservative measures (e.g., cessation of estrogen-containing OCPs, weight loss, etc.) and active surveillance should be the initial step for most patients. Furthermore, non-operative interventions can be useful for patients at prohibitively high risk for surgery or who are not candidates, given the number or location of HAs. These strategies can minimize the use of complex liver surgery in low-risk HAs, reserving resection for those with the highest risk of malignant transformation, rupture, or other complications. Continued refinement of HA subtypes and patient-level risk factors will improve risk stratification and prognostication. Ongoing research is not only investigating the pathogenesis of HAs but also the role of local-regional and targeted medical therapies.

Author Contributions

Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Ian C Garbarine and Jordan M Cloyd. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Ian C Garbarine and both authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that no funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. The authors also have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. JMC is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Barthelmes L, Tait IS. Liver cell adenoma and liver cell adenomatosis. HPB (Oxford). 2005;7(3):186–96. 10.1080/13651820510028954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rooks JB, Ory HW, Ishak KG, Strauss LT, Greenspan JR, Hill AP, et al. Epidemiology of hepatocellular adenoma. The role of oral contraceptive use. JAMA. 1979;242(7):644–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Baum JK, Bookstein JJ, Holtz F, Klein EW. Possible association between benign hepatomas and oral contraceptives. Lancet. 1973;2(7835):926–9. 10.1016/s0140-6736(73)92594-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bossen L, Grønbaek H, Lykke Eriksen P, Jepsen P. Men with biopsy-confirmed hepatocellular adenoma have a high risk of progression to hepatocellular carcinoma: a nationwide population-based study. Liver Int. 2017;37(7):1042–6. 10.1111/liv.13423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chang CY, Hernandez-Prera JC, Roayaie S, Schwartz M, Thung SN. Changing epidemiology of hepatocellular adenoma in the United States: review of the literature. Int J Hepatol. 2013;2013:604860. 10.1155/2013/604860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bioulac-Sage P, Gouw ASH, Balabaud C, Sempoux C. Hepatocellular adenoma: what we know, what we do not know, and why it matters. Histopathology. 2022;80(6):878–97. 10.1111/his.14605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bioulac-Sage P, Taouji S, Possenti L, Balabaud C. Hepatocellular adenoma subtypes: the impact of overweight and obesity. Liver Int. 2012;32(8):1217–21. 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2012.02786.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Calderaro J, Nault JC, Balabaud C, Couchy G, Saint-Paul MC, Azoulay D, et al. Inflammatory hepatocellular adenomas developed in the setting of chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(1):43–50. 10.1038/modpathol.2015.119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nault JC, Bioulac-Sage P, Zucman-Rossi J. Hepatocellular benign tumors-from molecular classification to personalized clinical care. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(5):888–902. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.02.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Silva TS, Sung M, Nelson DW, DiFronzo AL, O’Connor VV. A multicenter, 10-year experience with hepatocellular adenoma: risk factors and disease course. Am Surg. 2022;88(9):2345–50. 10.1177/00031348211011084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zulfiqar M, Sirlin CB, Yoneda N, Ronot M, Hecht EM, Chernyak V, et al. Hepatocellular adenomas: understanding the pathomolecular lexicon, MRI features, terminology, and pitfalls to inform a standardized approach. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;51(6):1630–40. 10.1002/jmri.26902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nault JC, Couchy G, Balabaud C, Morcrette G, Caruso S, Blanc JF, et al. Molecular classification of hepatocellular adenoma associates with risk Factors, Bleeding, and malignant transformation. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(4):880–e946. 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.11.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tse JR, Felker ER, Naini BV, Shen L, Shen J, Lu DSK, et al. Hepatocellular adenomas: molecular basis and multimodality imaging update. Radiographics. 2023;43(3):e220134. 10.1148/rg.220134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bioulac-Sage P, Sempoux C, Frulio N, Le Bail B, Blanc JF, Castain C, et al. Snapshot summary of diagnosis and management of hepatocellular adenoma subtypes. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2019;43(1):12–9. 10.1016/j.clinre.2018.07.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Koehne de Gonzalez AK, Salomao MA, Lagana SM. Current concepts in the immunohistochemical evaluation of liver tumors. World J Hepatol. 2015;7(10):1403–11. 10.4254/wjh.v7.i10.1403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Di Tommaso S, Dourthe C, Dupuy JW, Dugot-Senant N, Cappellen D, Cazier H, et al. Spatial characterisation of β-catenin-mutated hepatocellular adenoma subtypes by proteomic profiling of the tumour rim. JHEP Rep. 2024;6(2):100913. 10.1016/j.jhepr.2023.100913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Aziz H, Underwood PW, Gosse MD, Afyouni S, Kamel I, Pawlik TM. Hepatic adenoma: evolution of a more individualized treatment approach. J Gastrointest Surg. 2024;28(6):975–82. 10.1016/j.gassur.2024.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Krause K, Tanabe KK. A shifting paradigm in diagnosis and management of hepatic adenoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(9):3330–8. 10.1245/s10434-020-08580-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dokmak S, Paradis V, Vilgrain V, Sauvanet A, Farges O, Valla D, et al. A single-center surgical experience of 122 patients with single and multiple hepatocellular adenomas. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(5):1698–705. 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.07.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Frenette C, Mendiratta-Lala M, Salgia R, Wong RJ, Sauer BG, Pillai A. ACG clinical guideline: focal liver lesions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2024;119(7):1235–71. 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cloyd JM, Mizuno T, Kawaguchi Y, Lillemoe HA, Karagkounis G, Omichi K, et al. Comprehensive complication index validates improved outcomes over time despite increased complexity in 3707 consecutive hepatectomies. Ann Surg. 2020;271(4):724–31. 10.1097/sla.0000000000003043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Beane JD, Hyer M, Mehta R, Onuma AE, Gleeson EM, Thompson VM, et al. Optimal hepatic surgery: are we making progress in North America? Surgery. 2021;170(6):1741–8. 10.1016/j.surg.2021.06.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gavriilidis P, Roberts KJ, Aldrighetti L, Sutcliffe RP. A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(7):1214–24. 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.03.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Armstrong MJ, Gaunt P, Aithal GP, Barton D, Hull D, Parker R, et al. Liraglutide safety and efficacy in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (LEAN): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet. 2016;387(10019):679–90. 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00803-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of benign liver tumours. J Hepatol. 2016;65(2):386–98. 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Svrcek M, Jeannot E, Arrivé L, Poupon R, Fromont G, Fléjou JF, et al. Regressive liver adenomatosis following androgenic progestin therapy withdrawal: a case report with a 10-year follow-up and a molecular analysis. Eur J Endocrinol. 2007;156(6):617–21. 10.1530/eje-07-0020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sinclair M, Schelleman A, Sandhu D, Angus PW. Regression of hepatocellular adenomas and systemic inflammatory syndrome after cessation of estrogen therapy. Hepatology. 2017;66(3):989–91. 10.1002/hep.29151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Klompenhouwer AJ, Bröker MEE, Thomeer MGJ, Gaspersz MP, de Man RA, JNM IJ. Retrospective study on timing of resection of hepatocellular adenoma. Br J Surg. 2017;104(12):1695–703. 10.1002/bjs.10594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Haring MPD, Gouw ASH, de Haas RJ, Cuperus FJC, de Jong KP, de Meijer VE. The effect of oral contraceptive pill cessation on hepatocellular adenoma diameter: a retrospective cohort study. Liver Int. 2019;39(5):905–13. 10.1111/liv.14074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Moors G, Poels H, Vandecaveye V, Roskams T, Verslype C. Regression of multiple hepatocellular adenomas after cessation of oral contraceptive pills: a case report and review of the current literature. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2021;84(3):505–8. 10.51821/84.3.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Beegle RD, Brown LM, Weinstein DA. Regression of hepatocellular adenomas with strict dietary therapy in patients with glycogen storage disease type I. JIMD Rep. 2015;18:23–32. 10.1007/8904_2014_344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dokmak S, Belghiti J. Will weight loss become a future treatment of hepatocellular adenoma in obese patients? Liver Int. 2015;35(10):2228–32. 10.1111/liv.12925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Drucker DJ. Mechanisms of action and therapeutic application of glucagon-like peptide-1. Cell Metab. 2018;27(4):740–56. 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rubino DM, Greenway FL, Khalid U, O’Neil PM, Rosenstock J, Sørrig R, et al. Effect of weekly subcutaneous semaglutide vs daily liraglutide on body weight in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes: the STEP 8 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327(2):138–50. 10.1001/jama.2021.23619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jensterle M, Rizzo M, Haluzík M, Janež A. Efficacy of GLP-1 RA approved for weight management in patients with or without diabetes: a narrative review. Adv Ther. 2022;39(6):2452–67. 10.1007/s12325-022-02153-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Barte JC, ter Bogt NC, Bogers RP, Teixeira PJ, Blissmer B, Mori TA, et al. Maintenance of weight loss after lifestyle interventions for overweight and obesity, a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2010;11(12):899–906. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00740.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mocanu V, Mihajlovic I, Dang JT, Birch DW, Karmali S, Switzer NJ. Evolving trends in North American gastric bypass delivery: a retrospective MBSAQIP analysis of technical factors and outcomes from 2015 to 2018. Obes Surg. 2021;31(1):151–8. 10.1007/s11695-020-04889-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gevers TJG, Marcel Spanier BW, Veendrick PB, Vrolijk JM. Regression of hepatocellular adenoma after bariatric surgery in severe obese patients. Liver Int. 2018;38(12):2134–6. 10.1111/liv.13934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Goonawardena J, Ratnayake C, Cheung KT, Fox A. Should bariatric surgery be offered for hepatocellular adenomas in obese patients? Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020;16(12):2117–24. 10.1016/j.soard.2020.06.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Garbarine IC, Walsh AK, Pawlik TM, Noria SF, Cloyd JM. Hepatic adenoma regression after bariatric surgery: a case series and systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2025. 10.1007/s00464-025-12350-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Huurman VA, Schaapherder AF. Management of ruptured hepatocellular adenoma. Dig Surg. 2010;27(1):56–60. 10.1159/000268427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.van Rosmalen BV, Coelen RJS, Bieze M, van Delden OM, Verheij J, Dejong CHC, et al. Systematic review of transarterial embolization for hepatocellular adenomas. Br J Surg. 2017;104(7):823–35. 10.1002/bjs.10547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Smolock AR, Cristescu MM, Potretzke TA, Ziemlewicz TJ, Lubner MG, Hinshaw JL, et al. Microwave ablation for the treatment of hepatic adenomas. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(2):244–9. 10.1016/j.jvir.2015.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.van Aalten SM, Bröker ME, Busschbach JJ, de Koning HJ, de Man RA, Steegers EA, et al. Pregnancy and liver adenoma management: PALM-study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012;12:82. 10.1186/1471-230x-12-82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Noels JE, van Aalten SM, van der Windt DJ, Kok NF, de Man RA, Terkivatan T, et al. Management of hepatocellular adenoma during pregnancy. J Hepatol. 2011;54(3):553–8. 10.1016/j.jhep.2010.07.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.van Rosmalen BV, Klompenhouwer AJ, de Graeff JJ, Haring MPD, de Meijer VE, Rifai L, et al. Safety and efficacy of transarterial embolization of hepatocellular adenomas. Br J Surg. 2019;106(10):1362–71. 10.1002/bjs.11213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lee SH, Hahn ST. Treatment of multiple hepatic adenomatosis using transarterial chemoembolization: a case report. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004;27(5):563–5. 10.1007/s00270-003-2758-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kim YI, Chung JW, Park JH. Feasibility of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatic adenoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18(7):862–7. 10.1016/j.jvir.2007.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Deodhar A, Brody LA, Covey AM, Brown KT, Getrajdman GI. Bland embolization in the treatment of hepatic adenomas: preliminary experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(6):795–9. 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.02.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Simo KA, Sereika SE, Newton KN, Gerber DA. Laparoscopic-assisted microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: safety and efficacy in comparison with radiofrequency ablation. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104(7):822–9. 10.1002/jso.21933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mogahed MM, Zytoon AA, Eysa B, Manaa M, Abdellatif W. Outcome of laparoscopic assisted percutaneous microwave ablation for exophytic versus non-exophytic hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2021;52(3):892–8. 10.1007/s12029-020-00477-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.van Vledder MG, van Aalten SM, Terkivatan T, de Man RA, Leertouwer T, Ijzermans JN. Safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular adenoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(6):787–93. 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.02.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mironov O, Jaberi A, Beecroft R, Kachura JR. Retrospective single-arm cohort study of patients with hepatocellular adenomas treated with percutaneous thermal ablation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41(6):935–41. 10.1007/s00270-018-1893-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gaspersz MP, Klompenhouwer AJ, Broker MEE, Thomeer MGJ, van Aalten SM, Steegers E, et al. Growth of hepatocellular adenoma during pregnancy: a prospective study. J Hepatol. 2020;72(1):119–24. 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Haring MPD, Spijkerboer CS, Cuperus FJC, Duiker EW, de Jong KP, de Haas RJ, et al. Behavior and complications of hepatocellular adenoma during pregnancy and puerperium: a retrospective study and systematic review. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23(8):1152–63. 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.04.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tsilimigras DI, Rahnemai-Azar AA, Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I, Gavriatopoulou M, Moris D, Spartalis E, et al. Current approaches in the management of hepatic adenomas. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(1):199–209. 10.1007/s11605-018-3917-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Bröker ME, Ijzermans JN, van Aalten SM, de Man RA, Terkivatan T. The management of pregnancy in women with hepatocellular adenoma: a plea for an individualized approach. Int J Hepatol. 2012;2012:725735. 10.1155/2012/725735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ronald M, Woodfield J, McCall J, Koea J. Hepatic adenomas in male patients. HPB (Oxford). 2004;6(1):25–7. 10.1080/13651820310020846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Jain E, Anderson SA, Ollila E, Johnson DB, Chandrashekar DS, Osme A, et al. Hepatic adenomas in males: is molecular characterization helpful in guiding its management? Hum Pathol. 2025;159:105795. 10.1016/j.humpath.2025.105795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.van Rosmalen BV, Furumaya A, Klompenhouwer AJ, Tushuizen ME, Braat AE, Reinten RJ, et al. Hepatocellular adenoma in men: a nationwide assessment of pathology and correlation with clinical course. Liver Int. 2021;41(10):2474–84. 10.1111/liv.14989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.González IA, Torbenson M, Sharifai N, Byrnes K, Chatterjee D, Kakar S, et al. Clinicopathologic characterization of hepatocellular adenomas in men: a multicenter experience. Hum Pathol. 2023;138:24–33. 10.1016/j.humpath.2023.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Sempoux C, Balabaud C, Gouw AS, Bioulac-Sage P. Letter to the editor there are benefits of subtyping hepatocellular adenoma also in men. Following-up on the publication by González IA et al. Clinicopathologic characterization of hepatocellular adenomas in men: a multicenter experience. Hum Pathol. 2023;149:77–8. 10.1016/j.humpath.2024.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Mauro E, Forner A. Hepatocellular adenoma in men: is it time for a precision approach? Liver Int. 2021;41(10):2246–8. 10.1111/liv.15050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Meyer C, Lisker-Melman M. Treatment of hepatic adenomatosis. Curr Hepatol Rep. 2015;14(2):139–43. 10.1007/s11901-015-0265-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Bioulac-Sage P, Laumonier H, Couchy G, Le Bail B, Sa Cunha A, Rullier A, et al. Hepatocellular adenoma management and phenotypic classification: the Bordeaux experience. Hepatology. 2009;50(2):481–9. 10.1002/hep.22995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Barbier L, Nault JC, Dujardin F, Scotto B, Besson M, de Muret A, et al. Natural history of liver adenomatosis: a long-term observational study. J Hepatol. 2019;71(6):1184–92. 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Nasser F, Affonso BB, Galastri FL, Odisio BC, Garcia RG. Minimally invasive treatment of hepatic adenoma in special cases. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2013;11(4):524–7. 10.1590/s1679-45082013000400021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Poussin K, Pilati C, Couchy G, Calderaro J, Bioulac-Sage P, Bacq Y, et al. Biochemical and functional analyses of gp130 mutants unveil JAK1 as a novel therapeutic target in human inflammatory hepatocellular adenoma. Oncoimmunology. 2013;2(12):e27090. 10.4161/onci.27090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Sommer J, Effenberger T, Volpi E, Waetzig GH, Bernhardt M, Suthaus J, et al. Constitutively active mutant gp130 receptor protein from inflammatory hepatocellular adenoma is inhibited by an anti-gp130 antibody that specifically neutralizes Interleukin 11 signaling. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(17):13743–51. 10.1074/jbc.M111.349167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.van Rhee F, Fayad L, Voorhees P, Furman R, Lonial S, Borghaei H, et al. Siltuximab, a novel anti-interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody, for Castleman’s disease. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(23):3701–8. 10.1200/jco.2009.27.2377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Blay JY, Brahmi M, Dufresne A, Swalduz A, Avrillon V, Assaad S, et al. Anti-IL-6R Ab tocilizumab to treat paraneoplastic inflammatory syndrome of solid cancers. ESMO Open. 2025;10(1):104088. 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.104088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Pilati C, Letouzé E, Nault JC, Imbeaud S, Boulai A, Calderaro J, et al. Genomic profiling of hepatocellular adenomas reveals recurrent FRK-activating mutations and the mechanisms of malignant transformation. Cancer Cell. 2014;25(4):428–41. 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Harada K, Ohashi R, Naito K, Kanki K. Hedgehog signal inhibitor GANT61 inhibits the malignant behavior of undifferentiated hepatocellular carcinoma cells by targeting non-canonical GLI signaling. Int J Mol Sci. 2020. 10.3390/ijms21093126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Maresca L, Crivaro E, Migliorini F, Anichini G, Giammona A, Pepe S, et al. Targeting GLI1 and GLI2 with small molecule inhibitors to suppress GLI-dependent transcription and tumor growth. Pharmacol Res. 2023;195:106858. 10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Gervois P, Kleemann R, Pilon A, Percevault F, Koenig W, Staels B, et al. Global suppression of IL-6-induced acute phase response gene expression after chronic in vivo treatment with the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-alpha activator fenofibrate. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(16):16154–60. 10.1074/jbc.M400346200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Poupon R, Cazals-Hatem D, Arrivé L. Fenofibrate-induced massive regression of mutiple inflammatory hepatocellular adenoma. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2016;40(1):e1–3. 10.1016/j.clinre.2015.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Kojima M, Takahashi H, Kuwashiro T, Tanaka K, Mori H, Ozaki I, et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist prevented the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma in a mouse model of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Int J Mol Sci. 2020. 10.3390/ijms21165722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Wang H, Feng X, Han P, Lei Y, Xia Y, Tian D, et al. The JAK inhibitor tofacitinib ameliorates immune‑mediated liver injury in mice. Mol Med Rep. 2019;20(6):4883–92. 10.3892/mmr.2019.10750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.


Articles from Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES