What are the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: February 20, 2026View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

European Society Diagnostic Criteria for HCC

For nodules ≥1 cm in cirrhotic patients, the EASL diagnostic criteria require arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) combined with washout on the portal venous phase or delayed phase on multiphasic CT or MRI. 1

Target Population for Non-Invasive Diagnosis

EASL restricts non-invasive diagnostic criteria exclusively to cirrhotic patients, recognizing the high pre-test probability of HCC in this population. 1 Non-cirrhotic patients—even those at risk for HCC—must have pathological confirmation regardless of imaging findings. 2, 3

Imaging Modalities

First-line diagnostic imaging includes:

  • Multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT with extracellular contrast agents 1
  • Multiphasic MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECA) or gadobenate dimeglumine 1
  • Multiphasic MRI with hepatobiliary agents (HBA) such as gadoxetic acid 1

EASL 2018 newly permits contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as a secondary imaging modality for diagnosing hypervascular HCC when first-line imaging is inconclusive. 1 However, CT or MRI should be used first due to higher sensitivity and whole-liver analysis capability. 1

Size-Based Diagnostic Algorithm

Nodules <1 cm

  • Repeat ultrasound at 4-month intervals 1
  • If stable for 12 months (three controls after four months), return to regular 6-month surveillance 1
  • No definite HCC diagnosis is permitted for nodules <1 cm 1

Nodules ≥1 cm

  • Perform multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI 1
  • Diagnosis requires BOTH imaging hallmarks:
    • Arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) 1
    • Washout on portal venous phase or delayed phase 1

Specific Washout Definitions by Contrast Agent

EASL employs a narrow definition of washout compared to other guidelines: 1

  • CT or MRI with extracellular agents: Washout on portal venous phase OR delayed phase 1
  • MRI with hepatobiliary agents (gadoxetic acid): Washout on portal venous phase ONLY 1
  • CEUS: Late-onset washout (>60 seconds) of mild intensity 1

This narrow definition distinguishes EASL from other systems and reflects prioritization of specificity over sensitivity. 1

What EASL Does NOT Permit

EASL provides the narrowest diagnostic scope among international guidelines: 1

  • No diagnosis of arterial phase iso- or hypoenhancing HCC 1
  • No "probable HCC" category 1
  • No use of ancillary features (capsule, mosaic pattern, threshold growth) to modulate diagnosis 1
  • No role for AFP in diagnosis (though AFP may provide prognostic information post-diagnosis) 2

When Biopsy is Required

Biopsy is mandatory when: 1

  • Imaging does not show both diagnostic hallmarks (APHE + washout) 1
  • Patient is non-cirrhotic 2, 3
  • Nodule shows atypical features suggesting non-HCC malignancy 2
  • After using alternative imaging modality, findings remain inconclusive 1

Performance Characteristics

The EASL criteria intentionally prioritize specificity over sensitivity: 1

  • Specificity: 85-100% across studies 1
  • Sensitivity varies by nodule size:
    • 10-20 mm nodules: 70.6% sensitivity, 83.2% specificity 1
    • 20-30 mm nodules: 72.3% sensitivity, 89.4% specificity 1

This design reflects European/North American treatment priorities where high specificity prevents false-positive diagnoses that could lead to inappropriate liver transplantation. 1 The trade-off is lower sensitivity compared to Asian guidelines (APASL, KLCA-NCC), which favor early detection. 1, 4

Common Pitfalls

Critical limitation: Requiring two coincidental imaging techniques (as in older EASL-EORTC 2012 guidelines) dramatically reduces sensitivity to 30% for 1-2 cm nodules, though maintaining 100% specificity. 1 The 2018 EASL guidelines addressed this by accepting one conclusive imaging study in centers with high-end equipment. 1

Contrast agent matters: Recent evidence shows extracellular contrast agents provide higher sensitivity than hepatobiliary agents for EASL criteria (76.2% vs 63.0%), though specificities remain comparable. 5 This finding supports EASL's inclusion of both agent types. 1

References

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Diagnostic Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Non-Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension and Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Research

EASL versus LI-RADS: Intra-individual comparison of MRI with extracellular contrast and gadoxetic acid for diagnosis of small HCC.

Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver, 2021

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.