Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death, and most patients with HCC are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Before 2017, tyrosine kinase inhibitors were the main drugs for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. With the emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), immunotherapy has gradually brought new hope to such patients. At present, the combination of ICIs and other systemic or local treatments has become a potential strategy for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, and some of these combinations have been included in large-scale clinical trials. The main challenges of immunotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma include the exploration of predictive biomarkers, management of immune-related adverse events, and exploration of effective combination regimens. This article provides the latest research progress on the single or combined use of ICIs and other immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma and discusses the limitations of current research and clinical application and the future development direction.

OBJECTIVE： To investigate current status and quality of domestic pharmacoeconomic literatures， and to provide reference for the standardization of pharmacoeconomic research. METHODS： Retrieved from CNKI， Wanfang， VIP and other database， the pharmacoeconomic literatures published from Jan. 2017 to May 2018 were collected. The qualities of literatures were evaluated with Guidelines for Quality Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomics Evaluation Reports （“PEERs” for short）. RESULTS： Totally 160 domestic pharmacoeconomic research literatures were included. The results of PEERs evaluation showed of which the coincidence rate was 32.5％ （52/160）. The literatureswhich were in full compliance （the report had a certain reference value） accounted for 1.3％ （2/160）， which were in basic compliance （the report had certain reference value after being revised） accounted for 31.3％（50/160），which were in non-conformity （the report did not had reference value） accounted for 67.5％（108/160）. Domestic pharmacoeconomic researches were of high quality in terms of research object， evaluation method and content，research purpose，  research design and design type， etc.； but the researches were of low quality in terms of research angle， incremental cost/incremental output analysis， sensitivity analysis and other aspects， and there was no explanation or unclear elaboration. CONCLUSIONS： The quality of domestic pharmacoeconomic research literatures are uneven， and their research quality needs to be further improved. It is recommended to standardize the evaluation of pharmacoeconomics， making the evaluation of pharmacoeconomics more scientific and objective.