Loco-regional surgical and nonsurgical treatment procedures reduced by 44% and 34%, respectively or suspended by 44% and 8%, respectively [28]

Declined in patients starting treatment: reported by 27% of respondents [28]

Systemic therapies were stopped by 4% and 34% did not have any major changes in their activity [28]

Delay in the plan of HCC treatments for 2 months: 11 (26%) patients (2 TA, 4 TACE, 3 TARE, and 2 systemic therapies) [29]

Treatment delay: 5 patients [30]

More patients had a more than 1-month treatment delay in 2020 (21.5%) vs. 2019 (9.5%), P < 0.001 [19]

More than 1 month delay rate in patients requiring an interventional procedure vs. those requiring medical treatment was higher (54.3% < 1 month, and 68.8% > 1 month vs. 41.8% < 1 month, and 13.8% > 1 month, respectively) [19]

Treatment delays: 66.7% in BCLC 0/A/B and 63.0% in BCLC C [18]

Higher visit delays in period 2: n = 31 (30%) vs. n = 10 (10%); P = 0.001 [22]

Higher imaging delays in period 2: n = 25 (25%) vs. n = 7 (7%); P = 0.001 [22]

In 45% of the centers, surveillance and follow-up were limited [28]

Systemic therapies were stopped by 4% and 34% did not have any major changes in their activity [28]

No significant decrease in the number of visits for patients with more advanced diseases (P trend = 0.11) [31]

Between February 1 to March 14, 2020 and March 15 to May 1, 2020, the total number of HCC/cirrhosis visits 39.07% decreased (from 883 to 538); overall, 46.62% decreased (from 665 to 355) for the US site and 120 (26.6% decrease) for the Japan site [31]

Gastroenterology and hepatology beds (40.7%), gastroenterologists (24.8%), and residents (58.3%) were allocated to COVID-19 patient care [32]

Outpatient visits, abdominal ultrasounds, and endoscopies were reduced by 81.8–91.9% [32]

Nine large university hospitals had 75% and 89% reductions in therapeutic endoscopies and HCC surgery, respectively, with the cancellation of elective liver transplants and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt [32]

Imaging follow-up in HCC patients after treatment was changed by 73.5% of centers [26]

Surgical treatments were rescheduled by 63.2% of centers [26]

The ability to perform HCC treatments was maintained by 96% of centers [26]

LT activity was not modified by 58.3% (28/48) of centers [26], 60.8% of centers (n = 45/76) were able to perform—surgical resections, 68.9% (n = 51/76) percutaneous treatments, and 81.1% (n = 60/76) loco-regional treatments [26]

The option to initiate systemic treatment was maintained in 93.2% of the centers [26]

In 50% of the centers (n = 38/76), curative and/or palliative treatments for HCC were canceled at least in 1 patient for each center because of SARS-CoV-2 infection [26]

In 19 of 76 centers (51.4%), phone call visit service was modified: an increase in the number of calls (more days and/or more hours/day) was the most frequent modification in 84% of the centers, whereas 7 centers (17.9%) introduced phone call visits as a new practice during the COVID-19 pandemic [26]

In the 58 centers that had nurses integrated into the HCC team, the liver-oncology nurses made decisions regarding face-to-face vs. phone call visits in 30.1% of the centers and organized the visits in 70.3% [26]

The nurses undertook phone call visits 62.5%, to answer questions about treatment or follow-up events [26]

Clinicians [51.4% (341/664)] and surgeons [57.6% (166/288)] reported more than a 60% reduction in the regular workload [33]

During the pandemic, the regular workload reduced in 99.2% (659/664) of hospitals to varying degrees [33]

The surgical approach, with both minor and major resections, has been guaranteed in patients with liver metastases already treated with chemotherapy [34]

Local ablation for primary and metastatic tumors has been performed regularly [34]

TAs were carried out instead of preplanned surgical resection in three patients [29]

Treatment strategy was modified in 13.1% of patients, with no differences between the 2 periods [19]

The rate of treatments (proposed or performed) in patients with active HCC during the inclusion period was 56.7% (n = 377) in 2019 vs. 43.7% (n = 293) in 2020, with a significant decrease during the second half of the period in 2020 (P = 0.018) [19]

A modification in the treatment strategy (between the treatments proposed during MTB and those finally received) was reported in 13.1% (n = 88) of patients, with no differences between the 2 periods [13.3% (n = 39) in 2020 vs. 13% (n = 49) in 2019; P = 0.91] [19]

No differences in the treatment distribution: neither for the treatment intent (curative, palliative, or BSC) nor class (interventional, non-interventional, or BSC) [19]

The main reasons for the modification of treatment strategy in 2020 vs. 2019: COVID-19 infection (46.1% in 2020 and 0% in 2019) and tumor progression (23.1% in 2020 and 65.3% in 2019) [19]

Changes in treatment modality: 33.3% in BCLC 0/A/B and 18.5% in BCLC C [18]

Two (2.2%) patients dropped out of the waiting list [35]

Liver transplants for HCC reduced from 3 in 2019 to 1 in 2020 [29]

For nationwide LT waitlists in Hong Kong (China) and Singapore HCC dropouts at 1 year increased substantially by 31.8%, 107.96%, 176.06%, and 291.00% for a 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month disruption respectively [36]

HCC LTs decreased by 35.7% (18 in 2020 vs. 28 in 2019) [25]

Pre-LT evaluations were maintained in 41/55 (74.5%) of cases [37]

LT activity was reduced by 44.4% (16/36) of centers [37]

Post-LT follow-up reviews were unaffected in 27/38 (71.1%) of the centers [37] and urgent reviews were performed on 10/38 (26.3%) [37]

Outpatient visits reduced from 117 in 2019 to 77 in 2020 [29]

In 19 of 76 centers (51.4%), phone call visit service was modified: an increase in the number of calls (more days and/or more hours/day) was the most frequent modification in 84% of the centers, whereas 7 centers (17.9%) introduced phone call visits as a new practice during the COVID-19 pandemic [26]

In the 58 centers which had nurses integrated into the HCC team, the liver-oncology nurses made decisions regarding face-to-face vs. phone call visits in 30.1% of the centers and organized the visits in 70.3% [26]

The nurses undertook phone call visits in 62.5%, to answer questions about treatment or follow-up events [26]

Outpatient visits decreased by 8.9% (1,416 in 2020 vs. 1,555 in 2019) [25]

Cases discussed in multidisciplinary meetings reduced from 46 in 2019 to 42 in 2020 [29]

A higher rate of consultations canceled, the outpatient models have changed with significantly greater use of teleconsultation during the pandemic [7.8% (n = 21) vs. 1.4% (n = 5), P < 0.001] [19]

The percentage of remote consultations increased during the pandemic [35.9% (n = 105) vs. 1.3% (n = 5), P < 0.001, respectively] [19]

The decline of 27.3% in face-to-face patient consultations [18]

The increase of 18.3% in video/telephonic consultations [18]

HCC patients [56.1% (n = 23/41)] reported significantly less telemedical contact with their hepatology specialist; P < 0.001 [18]

HCC patients [75.6% (n = 31/41)] have fewer personal visits to the hospital [38]

In patients diagnosed with HCC, acute medical help was required by 9/22 (40.9%) during healthcare restrictions related to COVID-19; P = 0.253 [38]

Compared to the situation before COVID-19, 18.5% (4/22) HCC patients reported increased problems in searching for medical help [38]

Face-to-face contact with the treating physician was low among HCC patients: VAS = 8.7 ± 1.7; P = 0.066) [38]

Patient satisfaction with treatment of liver disease during COVID-19-related health care restrictions was minimal in patients with HCC (n = 40: –0.2 ± 0.9; P = 0.159) [38]

Elective HCC admissions increased by +19.6% (P = 0.002) [38]

Personal visits were reduced, and teleconsultation was increased [22]

A median number of elective/non-elective admissions was not different between the periods [22]

The hospitals [82.5% (548/664)] launched a remote consultation service for HCC patients during the COVID-19 outbreak, and most respondents [92.5% (614/664)] used online medical consultation to substitute for the “face-to-face” visits [33]

Surgical resections reduced from 3 in 2019 to 2 in 2020 [29]

The number of surgical procedures for HCC decreased from 12 to 7 [39]

The percentage of surgical procedures for HCC increased from 14.2% to 18.9% [39]

The rate of treatments (proposed or performed) in patients with active HCC during the inclusion period was 56.7% (n =377) in 2019 vs. 43.7% (n = 293) in 2020, with a significant decrease during the second half of the period in 2020 (P =0.018) [19]

Decrease (20.2%) in TACE/TARE procedures: 146 in 2020 vs. 183 in 2019 [25]

Surgical or locoregional treatments for HCC were reduced or stopped in a significant number of centers [29/52 (55.8%) and 25/52 (48.1%), respectively], with similar rates compared to the first wave [37]

Systemic therapies were still prescribed by 36/49 (75.5%) of the centers [37]

Reduction (27.5%) in the number of patients referred to MLTB (from 484 procedures in 2019 to 353 procedures in 2020) [40]

Percutaneous ablations fell by 28.3% (from 60 procedures in 2019 to 43 procedures in 2020) [40]

TACE was stable (63 procedures in 2019 and 64 in 2020) [40]

SIRT increased by 64% (from 25 procedures in 22 patients in 2019 to 41 procedures in 36 patients in 2020) [40]

In 2020, there were 31 (75.6%) primary lesions that were treated (mostly HCC), compared to 14 (56%) procedures in 2019 [40]

Over 50% of HCC patients were in the intermediate stage (BCLC B), while approximately one-third of cases were in the advanced stage (BCLC C) due to intrahepatic macrovascular invasion [40]

No early-stage HCC patients underwent SIRT between March and July 2020, compared to three (25%) cases treated in 2019 (P = 0.04) [40]

Treatment modalities did not differ significantly comparing 2019 and 2020 [40]

In 2020, the number of procedures performed using holmium-166-labeled microspheres increased (19.5% in 2020 compared to 9.1% in 2019) [40]

A considerable amount of experts recommended non-surgical treatment strategies, including RFA (33.4%) and observation (23.6%) [33]

ORR after the latest radiologic treatment: 23.9% in the study group vs. 39.8% in the control group (P = 0.037) [41]

Based on the ROC curve, the cut-off value to divide the follow-up interval into long- and short intervals is 95 days [41]

Independent predictors for the efficacy of TACE treatment: grouping (OR = 2.402; 95% CI, 1.040-5.546; P = 0.040), long interval (OR = 2.573; 95% CI, 1.022–6.478; P = 0.045) and China HCC staging system (OR = 2.500; 95% CI, 1.797–3.480; P < 0.001) [41]

The median follow-up interval: 82.0 days (IQR, 61–109) in the study group vs. 66 days (IQR, 51–94) in the control group (P = 0.004) [41]

For HCC patients who underwent routine postoperative follow-up after liver resection, 62.2% (178/286) of the surgeons recommended a follow-up when it is more than three months from the last review, while 15.4% (44/286) suggested a postponement in any case [33]

For patients who received TACE, 55.4% (46/83) of the interventional oncologists recommended a follow-up delay of up to six months from the previous follow-up, while 20.5% (17/83) did not suggest a follow-up during the pandemic [33]

Suggestion postponement or cancellation of the follow-up for patients who finished their radiotherapies by 86.1% (112/130) of clinicians [33]

Timeframes MDTM-TACE: 15 (2–112) days in 2020 vs. 20 (4–69) days in 2019; P = 0.42 [25]

Timeframes for HCC treatment-radiological evaluation of response: 41 (16–162) days in 2020 vs. 34 (4–77) days in 2019; P < 0.0001 [25]

Timeframes for outpatients’ visit-radiological evaluation of response: 69 (20–198) days in 2020 vs. 64 (26–161) days in 2019; P = 0.0006 [25]