Clinical calculator summary
Liver & HCC Master Panel
Clinical calculator summary
Liver & HCC Master Panel
This comprehensive calculator integrates the critical scoring systems for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC).
Evidence-based context for fast calculator use
- Purpose:
- Simultaneous calculation of Child-Pugh, ALBI, MELD-Na, BCLC, HKLC, and Milan Criteria.
- Population:
- patients whose clinical question requires the component models displayed in the combined panel
- Factors:
- Total Bilirubin, Albumin, INR, Serum Creatinine, Serum Sodium, Dialysis, Ascites, Encephalopathy
- Reference:
- Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J Hepatol. 2022;76(3):681-693.
Pin your most used calculators here by clicking the star in the dropdown.
Liver & HCC Master Panel
µmol/L
g/L
µmol/L
mmol/L
cm
Clinical Context & Background
This comprehensive calculator integrates the critical scoring systems for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC).
Strict Data Requirements:
Child-Pugh: Requires all 5 inputs (Bilirubin, Albumin, INR, Ascites, Encephalopathy). No assumptions are made for missing values.
BCLC & HKLC: These staging systems strictly depend on the Child-Pugh class. If Child-Pugh cannot be calculated due to missing labs, BCLC and HKLC will not be generated.
MELD-Na: Requires Bilirubin, Creatinine, and INR. If Sodium is missing, the calculator provides the Base MELD score and explicitly notes that Sodium correction was not applied.
Included Tools:
1. Child-Pugh: Cirrhosis severity.
2. ALBI Grade: Objective liver function.
3. MELD-Na: MELD incorporating Sodium (OPTN Standard).
4. BCLC (2022): Standard Western staging.
5. HKLC: Hong Kong Liver Cancer staging.
6. Milan Criteria: Transplant eligibility.
Formula Logic
Parallel liver-function, HCC-stage, and transplant-criteria calculations; each component retains its original formula and interpretation.Reference Data
| System | Score / Stage | Clinical Implication / Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Child-Pugh | Class A (5-6) | Good hepatic function (1y surv ~100%) |
| Child-Pugh | Class B (7-9) | Compromised function (1y surv ~80%) |
| Child-Pugh | Class C (10-15) | Decompensated (1y surv ~45%) |
| ALBI | Grade 1 (≤ -2.60) | Best prognosis |
| ALBI | Grade 2 (-2.60 to -1.39) | Intermediate prognosis |
| ALBI | Grade 3 (> -1.39) | Poor prognosis |
| MELD-Na | Score < 15 | Low transplant priority |
| MELD-Na | Score 15 - 29 | Intermediate mortality / priority |
| MELD-Na | Score 30 - 40 | High 3-mo mortality (>50%) / High priority |
| MELD-Na | Score > 40 | Very High mortality (~71%+) |
| BCLC | Stage 0 (Very Early) | Ablation / Resection |
| BCLC | Stage A (Early) | Resection / Transplant / Ablation |
| BCLC | Stage B (Intermediate) | TACE (or Systemic if diffuse) |
| BCLC | Stage C (Advanced) | Systemic Therapy (Atezo/Bev) |
| BCLC | Stage D (Terminal) | Best Supportive Care |
| HKLC | Stage I (Early) | Resection / Ablation |
| HKLC | Stage IIa (Interm.) | Resection (Survival benefit > TACE) |
| HKLC | Stage IIb (Interm.) | TACE |
| HKLC | Stage IIIa (Loc. Adv) | TACE |
| HKLC | Stage IIIb (Loc. Adv) | TACE (or Resection if feasible) |
| HKLC | Stage IVa (Metastatic) | Systemic Therapy |
| HKLC | Stage IVb (Terminal) | Best Supportive Care |
| Milan | Within Criteria | Transplant Candidate (Excellent outcome) |
| Milan | Outside Criteria | Transplant generally contraindicated |
Clinical Workflow
Use, Interpret, And Continue The Patient Pathway
Expand for workflow guidance, limitations, examples, and related next steps.
Clinical Workflow
Use, Interpret, And Continue The Patient Pathway
Expand for workflow guidance, limitations, examples, and related next steps.
When To Use
- Use Liver & HCC Master Panel when simultaneous calculation of Child-Pugh, ALBI, MELD-Na, BCLC, HKLC, and Milan Criteria.
- Confirm that the patient, diagnosis, disease phase, and available inputs match the cited model before calculation.
How To Interpret
- Interpret the displayed result using the calculator-specific formula and reference table, spanning Child-Pugh through Milan.
- A boundary result should prompt input verification and clinical review rather than false precision.
What To Do Next
- Review every component result separately; if models disagree, verify inputs and follow the more cautious disease-specific pathway rather than averaging scores.
- Document the inputs, result, timing, and clinical context so the assessment can be reproduced.
Limitations
- A panel improves comparison but does not make component models interchangeable or create a new validated composite score.
- The result supports clinician judgment and does not independently determine treatment.
Validated Population
patients whose clinical question requires the component models displayed in the combined panel
How to apply this result
For a representative case, verify Total Bilirubin, Albumin, INR, calculate the result, and confirm that its classification matches the highlighted reference band before continuing the disease-specific pathway.
Related Tools
Frequently Asked Questions
When should Liver & HCC Master Panel be used?
Use it for patients whose clinical question requires the component models displayed in the combined panel when all required inputs and the intended clinical setting are confirmed.
Can Liver & HCC Master Panel determine treatment by itself?
No. Interpret the result with the cited evidence, complete clinical assessment, current guidelines, and patient-specific goals.
Evidence-based oncology decision support. Verify with clinical guidelines.