Hepatocellular carcinoma patients are advantaged in the current liver transplant allocation system

Directed solutions to address differences in access to liver transplantation

The United Network for Organ Sharing recently altered current liver allocation with the goal of decreasing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) variance at transplant. Concerns over these and further planned revisions to policy include predicted decrease in total transplants, increased flying and logistical complexity, adverse impact on areas with poor quality health care, and minimal effect on high MELD donor service areas. To address these issues, we describe general approaches to equalize critical transplant metrics among regions and determine how they alter MELD variance at transplant and organ supply to underserved communities. We show an allocation system that increases minimum MELD for local allocation or preferentially directs organs into areas of need decreases MELD variance. Both models have minimal adverse effects on flying and total transplants, and do not disproportionately disadvantage already underserved communities. When combined together, these approaches decrease MELD variance by 28%, more than the recently adopted proposal. These models can be adapted for any measure of variance, can be combined with other proposals, and can be configured to automatically adjust to changes in disease incidence as is occurring with hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Increasing Liver Transplantation Wait-List Dropout for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Widening Geographical Disparities: Implications for Organ Allocation

Given the increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and regional variation in liver transplantation (LT) rates for HCC, we investigated temporal and geographic disparities in LT and wait-list dropout. LT candidates receiving Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception from 2005 to 2014 were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database (n = 14,320). Temporal differences were compared across 2 eras (2005-2009 and 2010-2014). Regional groups were defined based on median wait time as long-wait region (LWR; regions 1, 5, and 9), mid-wait region (MWR; regions 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8), and short-wait region (SWR; regions 3, 10, and 11). Fine and Gray competing risk regression estimated risk of wait-list dropout as hazard ratios (HRs). The cumulative probability of LT within 3 years was 70% in the LWR versus 81% in the MWR and 91% in the SWR (P < 0.001). From 2005-2009 to 2010-2014, median time to LT increased by 6.0 months (5.6 to 11.6 months) in the LWR compared with 3.8 months (2.6 to 6.4 months) in the MWR and 1.3 months (1.0 to 2.3 months) in the SWR. The cumulative probability of dropout within 3 years was 24% in the LWR versus 16% in the MWR and 8% in the SWR (P < 0.001). From 2005-2009 to 2010-2014, the LWR also had the greatest increase in probability of dropout. Risk of dropout was increased in the LWR (HR, 3.5; P < 0.001) and the MWR (HR, 2.2; P < 0.001) compared with the SWR, and year of MELD exception 2010-2014 (HR, 1.9; P < 0.001) compared with 2005-2009. From 2005-2009 to 2010-2014, intention-to-treat 3-year survival decreased from 69% to 63% in the LWR (P < 0.001), 72% to 69% in the MWR (P = 0.008), and remained at 74% in the SWR (P = 0.48). In conclusion, we observed a significant increase in wait-list dropout in HCC patients in recent years that disproportionately impacted LWR patients. Widening geographical disparities call for changes in allocation policy as well as enhanced efforts at increasing organ donation and utilization.

Transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: pushing to the limits?

Milan criteria (MC) represents the cornerstone in the selection of patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) waiting for liver transplantation (LT). MC represent the precursor of the scores based on the idea of "utility": in other terms, the scoring systems typically used in the field of LT oncology present the exclusive aim of selecting the cases with the best post-LT outcomes. However, some other scores have been proposed specifically investigating the risk of death or tumour progression during the waiting list. In this case, the selection process is connected with the idea of "priority": patients at higher risk for drop-out (DO) should be selected, prioritising them or, conversely, deciding to de-list them due to the high risk of post-LT futile transplant. Lastly, models based on the concept of "benefit", namely the balancing between priority and utility, have been recently created. The present review aims to examine these three different types of scoring systems, trying to underline their pro and cons in the allocation process of HCC patients.

Risk Factors for Dropout From the Liver Transplant Waiting List of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Under Locoregional Treatment

BACKGROUND

In new organ allocation policy, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) experience a 6-month delay in being granted Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exception points. However, it may not be fair for patients at risk of early progression of HCC.

METHODS

All patients who were diagnosed as United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) stage 1 or 2 of HCC between January 2004 and December 2012 were included. Patients who received surgical resection or liver transplant (LT) as a primary treatment and who did not receive any treatment for HCC were excluded. Patients with baseline Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥22 were also excluded because they have a higher chance of receiving LT. Patients who developed extrahepatic progression within 1 year were considered as high-risk for early recurrence after LT.

RESULTS

A total of 586 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 59.9 (10.3) years and 409 patients (69.8%) were men. The cumulative incidence of estimated dropout was 8.9% at 6 months; size of the maximum nodule (≥3 cm) and nonachievement of complete response were independent factors. Extrahepatic progression developed in 16 patients (2.7%) within 1 year; size of the maximum nodule (4 cm) and alpha-fetoprotein level (>100 ng/mL) were independent predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated dropout rate from the waiting list within 6 months was 8.9%. Advantage points might be needed for patients with maximum nodule size ≥3 cm or those with noncomplete response. However, in patients with maximum nodule size ≥4 cm or alpha-fetoprotein level >100 ng/mL, caution is needed.

The MTHFR polymorphism affect the susceptibility of HCC and the prognosis of HCC liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Methylenetetrahyfrofolate reductase (MTHFR) is the key enzyme for one carbon and folate metabolism. Previous studies have drawn different conclusions about the relationship between the mutation of MTHFR and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurrence. MTHFR polymorphisms' influence on liver transplantation for HCC recurrence has yet not been reported. Aim of this study was to clarify the impact of MTHFR polymorphism on hepatocarcinogenesis and the prognosis of liver transplant recipient with HCC.

METHODS

This study enrolled 244 HCC patients and 487 healthy individuals in Chinese Han population to analyze the influence of MTHFR polymorphism on HCC susceptibility first. Furthermore, this research choose another 100 donors' and 104 recipients' specimens to detect the association between polymorphism of MTHFR and post-transplant HCC recurrence.

RESULT

rs1801131 polymorphism A to C was associated with the occurrence of HCC in Chinese Han population (p < 0.05), especially in age exceeding 50 years (p < 0.01). No association was observed with rs1801133 polymorphism and HCC occurrence. The mean tumor-free survival for recipients with donor liver graft rs1801133 C to T variants was shorter than CC type (12.63 ± 3.84 vs 22.43 ± 4.74 months, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that Donor rs1801133 and Hangzhou criteria were two independent prognostic factors for tumor-free survival (p < 0.05). Neither donor rs1801131 polymorphism nor recipients' MTHFR polymorphisms was associated with HCC recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that MTHFR polymorphism was associated with HCC occurrence and post-transplant HCC recurrence. rs1801131 mutation A to C is a valuable molecular biomarker for predicting HCC occurrence in Chinese Han population. Donor MTHFR rs1801133 C to T polymorphism could present as a promising prognostic biomarkers for HCC recurrence in liver transplant recipients.

Liver transplantation beyond or downstaging within the Milan criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma

Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common indication for liver transplantation (LT). The Milan criteria became standard criteria but expansion beyond the Milan criteria (tumor size and number) have resulted in similar post-transplant outcomes, thus suggesting LT is a viable treatment option for HCC presenting beyond the Milan criteria Areas covered: Expanded criteria and the use of downstaging therapies to meet Milan criteria are reviewed. Surrogates of tumor biology (including biomarkers and response to therapy) are described in detail. The controversy regarding treatment of HCV infection prior to transplant for HCC is addressed. Predictors of post-transplant recurrence and therapeutic options are explored. English-language manuscripts pertaining to LT criteria for HCC, downstaging, and tumor prognosis were reviewed. Effort was made to include manuscripts from throughout the world to ensure the reader a broad international perspective. Expert commentary: Patients can be successfully transplanted with HCC beyond Milan criteria, or patients beyond Milan criteria can be downstaged to within Milan criteria and achieve successful post-liver transplant outcomes. The current reliance on tumor burden (size and number) alone ignores the mounting data supporting the prognostic use of additional surrogates of tumor biology in identifying appropriate candidates.

Hepatitis C Virus Positive Patients on the Waiting List for Liver Transplantation: Turnover and Characteristics of the Population on the Eve of the Therapeutic Revolution With Direct-Acting Antivirals

INTRODUCTION

Antivirals direct acting (DAA) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have brought a revolution in the field of transplantation. It is likely to think that in the future patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT) will no longer be registered for HCV-related cirrhosis but for liver disease from other causes. On the eve of this change, we show a snapshot of the Italian waiting list for LT.

METHODS

From October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013, we estimated the total number of patients on the liver waiting list as intention to treat (ITT), the number of incident cases, and the delistings, particularly in the HCV positive (HCV+) population. Gender, median age, etiology and prognosis of liver disease, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), reason for delisting, mean waiting time for LT, and rate of death on waiting list were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the time period, there were 517 new patients who were HCV+ (median age, 53 years): 255 (49.3%) mono-infected with HCV, 236 (45.7%) co-infected with HCV and hepatitis B virus (HBV), 11 (2.1%) co-infected with HCV and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and 15 (2.9%) co-infected with HCV, HBV, and HIV. The median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score at listing was 17 and HCC was present in 206 (39.8%) cases. HCV+ patients delisted were 442 (61.9%), 355 (80.3%) for LT. The mean waiting time to transplantation was 1.9 months; the percentage of death was 7.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

This snapshot of the waiting list for LT in the year before the advent of DAA drugs will allow us to assess whether and how they will change the waiting list for LT when we start to look at the impact of new therapies on the waiting list.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: current update on treatment and allocation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the current imaging modalities and criteria used to diagnose, and the role of liver transplantation as well as nonsurgical hepatic-directed therapies to treat hepatocellular carcinoma in the setting of chronic liver disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been continual evolution of guidelines, policies, and algorithms for the imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, particularly the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System. The use of liver-directed therapy as a bridge to transplant is now common practice. Recently, patients have waited 6 months from listing before being granted a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exception score of 28, with an increase every 3 months to a maximum score of 34. This policy change was developed to reduce disparities in outcomes for patients undergoing liver transplantation.

SUMMARY

The use of liver transplantation to treat hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria has good outcomes with a 5-year disease-free survival rate comparable to patients transplanted without malignancy. The development of guidelines both for the radiologic diagnosis and staging of the primary tumor and guidelines for assessing response to treatment allows for a more unified approach to the management of patients. With the partnership of oncologists, hepatologists, radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons, the outcomes of liver transplantation as treatment for hepatocellular continue to improve.

Evaluation of the treatment of the hepatocarcinoma nodules in the patients in waiting list for liver transplant

OBJECTIVE

to compare the outcome of liver transplantation for hepatocarcinoma in submitted or not to locoregional treatment and downstaging regarding survival and risk of recurrence in transplant waiting list patients.

METHODS

retrospective study of patients with hepatocarcinoma undergoing liver transplantation in the metropolitan region of São Paulo, between January 2007 and December 2011, from a deceased donor. The sample consisted of 414 patients. Of these, 29 patients were included in the list by downstaging. The other 385 were submitted or not to locoregional treatment.

RESULTS

the analysis of 414 medical records showed a predominance of male patients (79.5%) with average age of 56 years. Treatment of the lesions was performed in 56.4% of patients on the waiting list for transplant. The most commonly used method was chemoembolization (79%). The locoregional patients undergoing treatment had a significant reduction in nodule size greater (p<0.001). There was no statistical difference between groups with and without locoregional treatment (p=0.744) and on mortality among patients enrolled in the Milan criteria or downstaging (p=0.494).

CONCLUSION

there was no difference in survival and recurrence rate associated with locoregional treatment. Patients included by downstaging process had comparable survival results to those previously classified as Milan/Brazil criteria.

Wait Time of Less Than 6 and Greater Than 18 Months Predicts Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence After Liver Transplantation: Proposing a Wait Time "Sweet Spot"

BACKGROUND

It has been postulated that short wait time before liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) results in the inclusion of tumors with aggressive biology, but prolonged wait time could result in a shift to more aggressive tumor behavior. We therefore test the hypothesis that a wait time "sweet spot" exists with a lower risk for HCC recurrence compared with the other 2 extremes.

METHODS

This multicenter study included 911 patients from 3 LT centers with short, medium, and long wait times (median of 4, 7, and 13 months, respectively) who received Model for End Stage Liver Disease exception listing for HCC from 2002 to 2012.

RESULTS

Wait time, defined as time from initial HCC diagnosis to LT, was less than 6 months in 32.4%, 6 to 18 months in 53.7%, and greater than 18 months in 13.9%. Waitlist dropout was observed in 18.4% at a median of 11.3 months. Probability of HCC recurrence at 1 and 5 years were 6.4% and 15.5% with wait time of less than 6 or greater than 18 months (n = 343) versus 4.5% and 9.8% with wait time of 6 to 18 months (n = 397), respectively (P = 0.049). When only pre-LT factors were considered, wait time of less than 6 or greater than 18 months (HR, 1.6; P = 0.043) and AFP greater than 400 at HCC diagnosis (HR, 3.0; P < 0.001) predicted HCC recurrence in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study provides evidence of an association between very short (<6 months) or very long (>18 months) wait times and an increased risk for HCC recurrence post-LT. The so-called sweet spot of 6 to 18 months should be the target to minimize HCC recurrence.

Bridging patients with hepatocellular cancer waiting for liver transplant: all the patients are the same?

Liver transplant (LT) is considered the best curative treatment for patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within Milan criteria. The possibility to perform LT in HCC patients is limited by the liver grafts supply; indeed, the shortage of donors often leads to a long time on waiting list and then to dropout because of tumor progression. Bridging therapies are neo-adjuvant treatments given to patients on LT waitlist, with the aim to prevent tumor progression and to reduce dropout rate. Many bridging modalities have been proposed. The choice of each treatment is based on the characteristics of the patient, liver function, comorbidities and on the number, dimensions and localization of HCC. This review article describes several types of bridging therapies, focusing on the indications for different kind of patients.

Impact of Pretransplant Bridging Locoregional Therapy for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within Milan Criteria Undergoing Liver Transplantation: Analysis of 3601 Patients From the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of pretransplant bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence and survival after liver transplantation (LT) in patients meeting Milan criteria (MC).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Pre-LT LRT mitigates tumor progression and waitlist dropout in HCC patients within MC, but data on its impact on post-LT recurrence and survival remain limited.

METHODS

Recurrence-free survival and post-LT recurrence were compared among 3601 MC patients with and without bridging LRT utilizing competing risk Cox regression in consecutive patients from 20 US centers (2002-2013).

RESULTS

Compared with 747 LT recipients not receiving LRT, 2854 receiving LRT had similar 1, 3, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (89%, 77%, 68% vs 85%, 75%, 68%; P = 0.490) and 5-year post-LT recurrence (11.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.474). Increasing LRT number [3 LRTs: hazard ratio (HR) 2.1, P < 0.001; 4+ LRTs: HR 2.5, P < 0.001), and unfavorable waitlist alphafetoprotein trend significantly predicted post-LT recurrence, whereas LRT modality did not. Treated patients achieving complete pathologic response (cPR) had superior 5-year RFS (72%) and lower post-LT recurrence (HR 0.52, P < 0.001) compared with both untreated patients (69%; P = 0.010; HR 1.0) and treated patients not achieving cPR (67%; P = 0.010; HR 1.31, P = 0.039), who demonstrated increased recurrence compared with untreated patients in multivariate analysis controlling for pretransplant and pathologic factors (HR 1.32, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Bridging LRT in HCC patients within MC does not improve post-LT survival or HCC recurrence in the majority of patients who fail to achieve cPR. The need for increasing LRT treatments and lack of alphafetoprotein response to LRT independently predict post-LT recurrence, serving as a surrogate for underlying tumor biology which can be utilized for prioritization of HCC LT candidates.

Determination of hepatocellular carcinoma grade by needle biopsy is unreliable for liver transplant candidate selection

The objective of this article is to evaluate the utility of preoperative needle biopsy (PNB) grading of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as a biomarker for liver transplantation (LT) candidate selection. Given the prognostic significance of HCC tumor grade, PNB grading has been proposed as a biomarker for LT candidate selection. Clinicopathologic characteristics of HCC LT recipients (1989-2014) with a PNB were analyzed, and the concordance of PNB grade to explant grade and vascular invasion was assessed to determine whether incorporation of PNB grade to accepted transplant criteria improved candidate selection. Of 965 patients undergoing LT for HCC, 234 (24%) underwent PNB at a median of 280 days prior to transplant. Grade by PNB had poor concordance to final explant pathology (κ = 0.22; P = 0.003), and low sensitivity (29%) and positive predictive value (35%) in identifying poorly differentiated tumors. Vascular invasion was predicted by explant pathologic grade (r_s= 0.24; P < 0.001) but not PNB grade (r_s = -0.05; P = 0.50). Increasing explant pathology grade (P = 0.02), but not PNB grade (P = 0.65), discriminated post-LT HCC recurrence risk. The incorporation of PNB grade to the established radiologic Milan criteria (MC) did not result in improved prognostication of post-LT recurrence (net reclassification index [NRI] = 0%), whereas grade by explant pathology resulted in significantly improved reclassification of risk (NRI = 19%). Preoperative determination of HCC grade by PNB has low concordance with explant pathologic grade and low sensitivity and positive predictive value in identifying poorly differentiated tumors. PNB grade did not accurately discriminate post-LT HCC recurrence and had no utility in improving prognostication compared with the MC alone. Incorporation of PNB to guide transplant candidate selection appears unjustified. Liver Transplantation 23 1123-1132 2017 AASLD.

Comparison of two equivalent model for end-stage liver disease scores for hepatocellular carcinoma patients using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing liver transplant waiting list registry

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been advantaged on the liver transplant waiting list within the United States, and a 6-month delay and exception point cap have recently been implemented to address this disparity. An alternative approach to prioritization is an HCC-specific scoring model such as the MELD Equivalent (MELD_EQ ) and the mixed new deMELD. Using data on adult patients added to the UNOS waitlist between 30 September 2009 and 30 June 2014, we compared projected dropout and transplant probabilities for patients with HCC under these two models. Both scores matched actual non-HCC dropout in groups with scores <22 and improved equity with non-HCC transplant probabilities overall. However, neither score matched non-HCC dropout accurately for scores of 25-40 and projected dropout increased beyond non-HCC probabilities for scores <16. The main differences between the two scores were as follows: (i) the MELD_EQ assigns 6.85 more points after 6 months on the waitlist and (ii) the deMELD gives greater weight to tumor size and laboratory MELD. Post-transplant survival was lower for patients with scores in the 22-30 range compared with those with scores <16 (P = 0.007, MELD_EQ ; P = 0.015, deMELD). While both scores result in better equity of waitlist outcomes compared with scheduled progression, continued development and calibration is recommended.

Same policy, different impact: Center-level effects of share 35 liver allocation

Early studies of national data suggest that the Share 35 allocation policy increased liver transplants without compromising posttransplant outcomes. Changes in center-specific volumes and practice patterns in response to the national policy change are not well characterized. Understanding center-level responses to Share 35 is crucial for optimizing the policy and constructing effective future policy revisions. Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing were analyzed to compare center-level volumes of allocation-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (aMELD) ≥ 35 transplants before and after policy implementation. There was significant center-level variation in the number and proportion of aMELD ≥ 35 transplants performed from the pre- to post-Share 35 period; 8 centers accounted for 33.7% of the total national increase in aMELD ≥ 35 transplants performed in the 2.5-year post-Share 35 period, whereas 25 centers accounted for 65.0% of the national increase. This trend correlated with increased listing at these centers of patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥ 35 at the time of initial listing. These centers did not overrepresent the total national volume of liver transplants. Comparison of post-Share 35 aMELD to calculated time-of-transplant (TOT) laboratory MELD scores showed that only 69.6% of patients transplanted with aMELD ≥ 35 maintained a calculated laboratory MELD ≥ 35 at the TOT. In conclusion, Share 35 increased transplantation of aMELD ≥ 35 recipients on a national level, but the policy asymmetrically impacted practice patterns and volumes of a subset of centers. Longer-term data are necessary to assess outcomes at centers with markedly increased volumes of high-MELD transplants after Share 35. Liver Transplantation 23 741-750 2017 AASLD.

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium Score: The Evolution in the Prioritization of Liver Transplantation

The adoption of the model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score as surrogate marker of liver disease severity has been the greatest change in liver allocation. Since its implementation, waiting time has lost significance. The MELD score calculation was later modified to reflect the contribution of hyponatremia in the estimation of mortality risk. However, the MELD score does not capture accurately the risk of mortality of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Therefore the arbitrary assignment of MELD points has been used for HCC patients. The current allocation system still prioritizes transplantation in HCC patients.

Time of Dropout From the Liver Transplant List in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Clinical Behavior According to Tumor Characteristics and Severity of Liver Disease

BACKGROUND

Prolonged time on the waiting list affects post-transplant survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it is not yet known which patients will be at higher risk for early dropout from the list. We investigate specific risk factors for early waiting list dropout in patients with HCC.

METHODS

This was a single-center, intention-to-treat analysis of adults with HCC, within the Milan criteria, from July 2006 through September 2013. Patients were divided into groups according to waiting list time. The main end point was dropout from the list.

RESULTS

The dropout rates of the study cohort at 3, 6, and 12-months were 6.4%, 12.4%, and 17.7%, respectively. Patients who dropped out from the list tended to be older, with blood types A and O, and with higher Child-Pugh and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. They also had larger nodules, responded poorly to trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE), and had a higher alpha-fetoprotein. Those with blood types B and AB appeared to be protected for dropout (odds ratio [OR] = 0.21, P = .02). Patients who responded to TACE were also protected (OR = 0.22, P < .001). When we looked into time to dropout, the only baseline characteristic that stood out was a higher MELD score (13 for those dropping out up to 90 days vs 10 for those dropping out after 180 days, P = .0025).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that patients who drop out early from the list are primarily driven by the severity of liver disease. Patients who had progressive HCC had a high tumor load and poor response to loco-regional therapies, dropping out from the list after 180 days of inclusion.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: outcomes and novel surgical approaches

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the best treatment option for patients with early-stage tumours and accounts for ∼20-40% of all liver transplantations performed at most centres worldwide. The Milan criteria are the most common criteria to select patients with HCC for transplantation but they can be seen as too restrictive. Several proposals have been made for a moderate expansion of the criteria, which result in good outcomes but with an increase in the risk of tumour recurrence. In this Review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the outcomes after liver transplantation for HCC, focusing on tumour recurrence in terms of surveillance, prevention and treatment. Additionally, novel surgical techniques have been developed to increase the available pool of organs for liver transplantation (such as living donor liver transplantation, donation after circulatory death and split livers), but the effect of these techniques on patients with HCC is still under debate. Thus, we will describe these techniques and expose the benefits and disadvantages of each surgical approach. Finally, we will comment on the limitations of the current priority policies for liver transplantation and the need to further refine them to better serve the population.

Proposal of a novel MELD exception point system for hepatocellular carcinoma based on tumor characteristics and dynamics

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients listed with exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been more likely to be transplanted than those listed for chronic liver failure (LF) based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. The aim of this study was to determine outcomes in the 5-year experience of a scoring system designed to reflect heterogeneity of tumor load of patients listed for HCC.

METHODS

A novel MELD exception point system based on size and number of HCC was implemented in July 2009. This system allows stratification of patients based on risk of dropping out from the waiting list according to Milan criteria. LF patients were listed according to biological MELD sodium score; HCC patients were reassigned points every three months upon repeat imaging.

RESULTS

Among 624 patients listed for liver transplant (LT), 505 were eligible. 94 (18.6%) were assigned MELD HCC points. Only 24.7% required changes in allocated points over time. Transplantation rates (HCC 83% vs. LF 73%, p=0.04) and waiting time in days (HCC 258 vs. LF 325; p=0.07) were similar. The method of competing risk analysis revealed that HCC patients were more likely to be transplanted than LF during the 5-year period preceding implementation, whereas transplant rates became equivalent for HCC and non-HCC in 2009-2014. One- and two-year survivals were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that a novel MELD point system for HCC, taking into account dynamics in tumor size and number, allows for equitable liver allocation without compromising graft and patient survival.

LAY SUMMARY

It has historically been difficult to achieve equitable liver allocation for liver cancer and chronic liver failure with the allocation systems currently in place in many countries worldwide. We designed a new system to help improve access to organs for liver failure patients in Québec, Canada. Our 5-year experience demonstrates that this unique system renders access to transplant similar for both liver cancer and liver failure indications.

Effects of the Share 35 Rule on Waitlist and Liver Transplantation Outcomes for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Introduction

Several studies have investigated the effects following the implementation of the “Share 35” policy; however none have investigated what effect this policy change has had on waitlist and liver transplantation (LT) outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC).

Methods

Data were obtained from the UNOS database and a comparison of the 2 years post-Share 35 with data from the 2 years pre-Share 35 was performed.

Results

In the pre-Share35 era, 23% of LT were performed for HCC exceptions compared to 22% of LT in the post-Share35 era (p = 0.21). No difference in wait-time for HCC patients was seen in any of the UNOS regions between the 2 eras. Competing risk analysis demonstrated that HCC candidates in post-Share 35 era were more likely to die or be delisted for “too sick” while waiting (7.2% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.005) within 15 months. A higher proportion of ECD (p<0.001) and DCD (p<0.001) livers were used for patients transplanted for HCC, while lower DRI organs were used for those patients transplanted with a MELD≥35 between the 2 eras (p = 0.007).

Conclusion

No significant change to wait-time for patients listed for HCC was seen following implementation of “Share 35”. Transplant program behavior has changed resulting use of higher proportion of ECD and DCD liver grafts for patients with HCC. A higher rate of wait list mortality was observed in patients with HCC in the post-Share 35 era.

Independent prognostic factors for posttransplant survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing liver transplantation

The aim of this study was to investigate longitudinal trends in locoregional therapy (LRT) use in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients listed for transplant, and evaluate independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in HCC patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was used to identify HCC patients listed for liver transplantation from 1988 to 2014, and longitudinal rates of bridging LRT were calculated. OLT recipients listed from 2002 to 2013 and transplanted up to 2014, with ≥1 year of follow‐up were further analyzed. OS was compared between patients receiving bridging LRT versus none, high versus low wait times (HWT vs. LWT), and by geographic region. Bridging LRT use in the US has increased dramatically over 25 years, with more than 50% of listed patients receiving at least 1 LRT in 2014. Of 17,291 HCC patients listed for LT from 2002 to 2013, 14,511 received OLT, mean age 57.4 years, 76.8% male; 3889 received bridging LRT. Comparison groups were similar for gender, race, body mass index (BMI), HCC etiology, and biological MELD scores (P > 0.05). Significant differences in mean OS in regions with HWT/high LRT (122.4 months), HWT/low LRT (104.5 months), LWT/high LRT (104.2 months), and LWT/low LRT (102.3 months) were observed, P = 0.0006. Recipient age, donor age, bridging LRT, and longer wait times were independent prognostic factors of survival from OLT. Increasing longitudinal trends in bridging LRT for HCC patients were observed. Younger age, younger donor age, high wait times, and bridging LRT were significant independent prognostic factors for prolonged survival from transplant.

Projected outcomes of 6-month delay in exception points versus an equivalent Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score for hepatocellular carcinoma liver transplant candidates

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) recently implemented a 6-month delay before granting exception points to liver transplantation candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to address disparity in transplantation access between HCC and non-HCC patients. An HCC-specific scoring scheme, the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease equivalent (MELDEQ ), has also been developed. We compared projected dropout and transplant probabilities and posttransplant survival for HCC and non-HCC patients under the 6-month delay and the MELDEQ using UNOS data from October 1, 2009, to June 30, 2014, and multistate modeling. Overall (combined HCC and non-HCC) wait-list dropout was similar under both schemes and slightly improved (though not statistically significant) compared to actual data. Projected HCC wait-list dropout was similar between the MELDEQ and 6-month delay at 6 months but thereafter started to differ, with the 6-month delay eventually favoring HCC patients (3-year dropout 10.0% [9.0%-11.0%] for HCC versus 14.1% [13.6%-14.6%]) for non-HCC) and the MELDEQ favoring non-HCC patients (3-year dropout 16.0% [13.2%-18.8%] for HCC versus 12.3% [11.9%-12.7%] for non-HCC). Projected transplant probabilities for HCC patients were substantially lower under the MELDEQ compared to the 6-month delay (26.6% versus 83.8% by 3 years, respectively). Projected HCC posttransplant survival under the 6-month delay was similar to actual, but slightly worse under the MELDEQ (2-year survival 82.9% [81.7%-84.2%] versus actual of 85.5% [84.3%-86.7%]). In conclusion, although the 6-month delay improves equity in transplant and dropout between HCC and non-HCC candidates, disparity between the 2 groups may still exist after 6 months of wait-list time. Projections under the MELDEQ , however, appear to disadvantage HCC patients. Therefore, modification to the exception point progression or refinement of an HCC prioritization score may be warranted. Liver Transplantation 22 1343-1355 2016 AASLD.

Lower rates of receiving model for end-stage liver disease exception and longer time to transplant among nonalcoholic steatohepatitis hepatocellular carcinoma

Receiving Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception status for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) improves wait-list survival and probability of liver transplantation (LT). We aim to evaluate etiology-specific disparities in MELD exception, LT wait-list times, and post-LT outcomes among patients with HCC listed for LT. Using United Network for Organ Sharing 2004-2013 data, we evaluated adults (age > 18 years) with HCC secondary to hepatitis C virus (HCV), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), alcoholic cirrhosis (EtOH), hepatitis B virus (HBV), combined EtOH/HCV, and combined HBV/HCV. Multivariate regression models evaluated etiology-specific odds of active exception, probability of receiving LT, and post-LT survival. In total, 10,887 HCC patients were listed for LT from 2004 to 2013. Compared with HCV-HCC patients (86.8%), patients with NASH-HCC (67.7%), and EtOH-HCC (64.4%) had a lower proportion with active MELD exception (P < 0.001). On multivariate regression, NASH-HCC and EtOH-HCC patients had significantly lower odds of active MELD exception compared with HCV-HCC (NASH-HCC-odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.93; P = 0.01; EtOH-HCC-OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89; P = 0.002). Compared with HCV-HCC patients, NASH-HCC (HR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.76-0.90; P < 0.001), EtOH-HCC (HR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.81-0.96; P = 0.002), and EtOH/HCV-HCC (HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99; P = 0.03) were less likely to receive LT if they had active exception. Without active exception, these discrepancies were more significant (NASH-HCC-HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18-0.27; P < 0.001; EtOH-HCC-HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18-0.26; P < 0.001; EtOH/HCV-HCC-HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.22-0.32; P < 0.001). In conclusion, among US adults with HCC listed for LT, patients with NASH-HCC, EtOH-HCC, and EtOH/HCV-HCC were significantly less likely to have active MELD exception compared with HCV-HCC, and those without active exception had a lower likelihood of receiving LT. More research is needed to explore why NASH-HCC patients were less likely to have active MELD exception. Liver Transplantation 22 1356-1366 2016 AASLD.

Primary liver resection for patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma: the role of surgery in BCLC early (A) and intermediate stages (B)

AIM

This study aims to report the outcomes following primary liver resection (PLR) in patients with cirrhosis including stratification according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification.

METHODS

Patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had PLR between 2000 and 2013 were examined. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence rate (RR) were analysed. Management after recurrence was reviewed as well as comparison to a series of 116 patients listed directly for liver transplant.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients underwent PLR. Median follow-up was 40 months. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS and DFS for the series were 77, 69 and 61 % and 69, 39 and 28 % respectively. Overall recurrence was 59 % (44/71) and only 36 % (15/44) of those patients had a further potentially curative procedure. The 1-3-5-year OS and DFS in the BCLC-A (44 patients) were 86, 78 and 68 % and 78, 48 and 44 % respectively. The RR in BCLC-A was 45 % (20 patients) with half (11 patients) suitable for further treatment with curative intent. The 1-3-5-year OS and DFS in the BCLC-B (17 patients) were 81, 74 and 60 % and 58, 29 and 7 % respectively. The overall RR in BCLC-B was 76 % (13 patients).

CONCLUSION

Recurrence following PLR for HCC in patients with cirrhosis is high with only a third of patients suitable for further potentially curative procedures. For patients with BCLC-A (or within Milan criteria), PLR provided a 68 % 5-year OS with 44 % of them free of disease. Surgery can offer satisfactory OS in carefully selected patients in the BCLC-B stage.

Patient-reported outcomes in liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The effect of awarding MELD exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. We evaluated the physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms of anxiety and depression in liver transplant recipients with HCC compared to patients without HCC.

METHODS

The single-center sample measured PROs before and after transplant, which included 1521 multisurvey measurement points among 502 adults (67% male, 28% HCC, follow-up time: <1-131 months). Data were analyzed using multivariable mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Longitudinal PRO values did not differ between persons who received HCC exception points and those who did not have HCC. Patients with HCC who did not receive exception points had reduced physical HRQOL (P=.016), a late decline in mental HRQOL, and delayed reduction in anxiety (time-by-outcome interaction P<.050) compared to patients with HCC who received exception points.

CONCLUSION

Transplant recipients who received HCC exception points had PROs that were comparable to those of patients without HCC, and reported better physical HRQOL and reduced symptoms of anxiety compared to patients with HCC who did not receive exception points. These analyses demonstrate the impact of HCC exception points on PROs, and may help inform policy regarding HCC exception point allocation.

HCC-Associated Liver Transplantation - Where Are the Limits and What Are the New Regulations?

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents an increasing health burden worldwide and a challenging disease both in terms of diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

The literature available on PubMed for the period of 1990-2016 was reviewed with reference to liver allocation, HCC, liver transplantation (LT), and prediction, and the allocation rules of the German Transplant Act were reviewed.

RESULTS

Due to etiological and geographical diversity, HCC is not a homogeneous disease. In the vast majority of patients, HCC develops as a complication of chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. While most patients present with advanced HCC for which palliative strategies are the only available option, LT is the best treatment approach as it not only eliminates the diseased liver and the underlying hepatocarcinogenic mechanisms but also the cancer. The decision for LT is not an easy one to make, because outcome prediction, staging, bridging therapy, and recurrence prevention are difficult and are estimated against the background of the scarce resource of donor organs which are also competitively sought after by patients suffering from non-neoplastic terminal liver diseases, raising the issue of equality of chances in a rationed therapeutic modality. Currently, the Milan criteria are the best evaluated decision tool for LT, but many issues such as down-staging, favorable biological behavior during treatment, expansion of the morphological classification, molecular predictors, and individualized approaches are not yet satisfactorily addressed.

CONCLUSION

In order to provide a fair and effective approach to LT in HCC, the employed allocation rules require continuous development and scientific evaluation. Recently, the allocation rules for standard exception priority according to the German Transplant Act have been revised to improve patient selection for LT in HCC.

Impact of MELD Allocation System on Waiting List and Early Post-Liver Transplant Mortality

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

MELD allocation system has changed the clinical consequences on waiting list (WL) for LT, but its impact on mortality has been seldom studied. We aimed to assess the ability of MELD and other prognostic scores to predict mortality after LT.

METHODS

301 consecutive patients enlisted for LT were included, and prioritized within WL by using the MELD-score according to: hepatic insufficiency (HI), refractory ascites (RA) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The analysis was performed to predict early mortality after LT (8 weeks).

RESULTS

Patients were enlisted as HI (44.9%), RA (19.3%) and HCC (35.9%). The major aetiologies of liver disease were HCV (45.5%). Ninety-four patients (31.3%) were excluded from WL, with no differences among the three groups (p = 0.23). The remaining 207 patients (68.7%) underwent LT, being HI the most frequent indication (42.5%). HI patients had the shortest length within WL (113.6 days vs 215.8 and 308.9 respectively; p<0.001), but the highest early post-LT mortality rates (18.2% vs 6.8% and 6.7% respectively; p<0.001). The independent predictors of early post-LT mortality in the HI group were higher bilirubin (OR = 1.08; p = 0.038), increased iMELD (OR = 1.06; p = 0.046) and non-alcoholic cirrhosis (OR = 4.13; p = 0.017). Among the prognostic scores the iMELD had the best predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.66), which was strengthened in non-alcoholic cirrhosis (AUC = 0.77).

CONCLUSION

Patients enlisted due to HI had the highest early post-LT mortality rates despite of the shortest length within WL. The iMELD had the best accuracy to predict early post-LT mortality in patients with HI, and thus it may benefit the WL management.

An early look at the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network explant pathology form data

In April 2012, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) implemented an online explant pathology form for recipients of liver transplantation who received additional wait-list priority for their diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The purpose of the form was to standardize the data being reported to the OPTN, which had been required since 2002 but were submitted to the OPTN in a variety of formats via facsimile. From April 2012 to December 2014, over 4500 explant forms were submitted, allowing for detailed analysis of the characteristics of the explanted livers. Data from the explant pathology forms were used to assess agreement with pretransplant imaging. Explant data were also used to assess the risk of recurrence. Of those with T2 priority, 55.7% were found to be stage T2 on explant. Extrahepatic spread (odds ratio [OR] = 6.8; P < 0.01), poor tumor differentiation (OR = 2.8; P < 0.01), microvascular invasion (OR = 2.6; P < 0.01), macrovascular invasion (OR = 3.2; P < 0.01), and whether the Milan stage based on the number and size of tumors on the explant form was T4 (OR = 2.4; P < 0.01) were the strongest predictors of recurrence. In conclusion, this analysis confirms earlier findings that showed an incomplete agreement between pretransplant imaging and posttransplant pathology in terms of HCC staging, though the number of patients with both no pretransplant treatment and no tumor in the explant was reduced from 20% to <1%. In addition, several factors were identified (eg, tumor burden, age, sex, region, ablative therapy, alpha-fetoprotein, Milan stage, vascular invasion, satellite lesions, etc.) that were predictive of HCC recurrence, allowing for more targeted surveillance of high-risk recipients. Continued evaluation of these data will help shape future guidelines or policy recommendations. Liver Transplantation 22 757-764 2016 AASLD.

Bridging and downstaging therapy in patients suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma waiting on the list of liver transplantation

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common primary malignancy worldwide especially in the patients with the background of chronic liver disease. Liver transplantation (LT) is the only curative treatment effective for both malignancy as well as the cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Unfortunately, living donor is not always possible and the deceased graft is scarce. Neoadjuvant therapies, therefore, have been developed as a downstaging treatment to try to downstage the tumor within the transplant criteria, or as a bridging therapy to control the tumor growth in patients while waiting in the transplant list. This paper reviewed the common modalities used as bridging and downstaging therapies for patients suffering from HCC before undergoing LT.

Advances in liver transplantation allocation systems

With the growing number of patients in need of liver transplantation, there is a need for adopting new and modifying existing allocation policies that prioritize patients for liver transplantation. Policy should ensure fair allocation that is reproducible and strongly predictive of best pre and post transplant outcomes while taking into account the natural history of the potential recipients liver disease and its complications. There is wide acceptance for allocation policies based on urgency in which the sickest patients on the waiting list with the highest risk of mortality receive priority. Model for end-stage liver disease and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scoring system, the two most universally applicable systems are used in urgency-based prioritization. However, other factors must be considered to achieve optimal allocation. Factors affecting pre-transplant patient survival and the quality of the donor organ also affect outcome. The optimal system should have allocation prioritization that accounts for both urgency and transplant outcome. We reviewed past and current liver allocation systems with the aim of generating further discussion about improvement of current policies.

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Status and Future Directions

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second most common cause of cancer death worldwide. This cancer commonly arises against a background of chronic liver disease. As a result, a patient with HCC requires multidisciplinary care. Treatment options vary widely based on tumor burden and metastases. The most widely utilized staging system is the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system, which recommends treatments based on tumor size and the underlying liver disease and functional status of the patient. Treatment options range from surgical resection or transplantation to locoregional therapies with modalities such as radiofrequency ablation and transarterial chemoembolization to systemic chemotherapies. Future care involves the development of combination therapies that afford the best tumor response, further clarification of the patients best suited for therapies and the development of new oral chemotherapeutic agents.

Selection of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation: Past and future

The aim of liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is to ensure a rate of disease-free survival similar to that of patients transplanted due to benign disease. Therefore, we are forced to adopt strict criteria when selecting candidates for LT and prioritizing patients on the waiting list (WL), to have clarified indications for bridging therapy for groups at risk for progression or recurrence, and to establish certain limits for downstaging therapies. Although the Milan criteria (MC) remain the standard and most employed criteria for indication of HCC patients for LT by far, in the coming years, criteria will be consolidated that take into account not only data regarding the size/volume and number of tumors but also their biology. This criteria will mainly include the alpha fetoprotein (AFP) values and, in view of their wide variability, any of the published logarithmic models for the selection of candidates for LT. Bridging therapy is necessary for HCC patients on the WL who meet the MC and have the possibility of experiencing a delay for LT greater than 6 mo or any of the known risk factors for recurrence. It is difficult to define single AFP values that would indicate bridging therapy (200, 300 or 400 ng/mL); therefore, it is preferable to rely on the criteria of a French AFP model score > 2. Other single indications for bridging therapy include a tumor diameter greater than 3 cm, more than one tumor, and having an AFP slope greater than 15 ng/mL per month or > 50 ng/mL for three months during strict monitoring while on the WL. When considering the inclusion of patients on the WL who do not meet the MC, it is mandatory to determine their eligibility for downstaging therapy prior to inclusion. The upper limit for this therapy could be one lesion up to 8 cm, 2-3 lesions with a total tumor diameter up to 8 cm, or a total tumor volume of 115 cm³. Lastly, liver allocation and the prioritization of patients with HCC on the WL should take into account the recently described HCC model for end-stage liver disease, which considers hepatic function, HCC size and the number and the log of AFP values. This formula has been calibrated with the survival data of non-HCC patients and produces a dynamic and more accurate assessment model.

Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients listed for liver transplantation: Current and future allocation policy and management strategies for the individual patient

Liver transplantation can provide definitive cure for patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) when used appropriately. Advances in the management of HCC have allowed improved control of HCC while waiting for liver transplantation and new approaches to candidate selection particularly with regard to tumor burden and downstaging protocols. Additionally, there have been recent changes in allocation policy related to HCC in the U.S. that cap the HCC MELD exception at 34 points and implement a 6-month delay in a HCC MELD exception. This review examines the U.S. liver transplant allocation policy related to HCC, comprehensively details locoregional therapy options in HCC patients awaiting liver transplantation, and considers the impact of an increasing burden of HCC on future liver graft allocation policy.

The relative net health benefit of liver resection, ablation, and transplantation for early hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

There are no conclusive cost-effectiveness studies measuring the efficacy of salvage LT after liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and compensated cirrhosis. The aim of the present study is to compare liver transplantation (LT) versus locoregional therapy plus salvage LT (to treat tumor recurrence) in patients with early HCC and compensated cirrhosis.

METHODS

Reference case: 55-year old male with HCC within Milan criteria and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The analysis was performed in two geographical cost settings: USA and Italy. Survival benefit measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (C) in US$, incremental cost-effectiveness, willingness to pay, and net health benefit (NHB).

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, NHB of LT vs. LR and RFA was -1.7 and -1.3 years for single tumor ≤3 cm, -1.2 and -0.7 for single nodules measuring 3.1-5 cm and -0.7 and -0.7 for multi-nodular tumor ≤3 cm in Italy. In USA, NHB of LT versus LR and RFA were -1.2 and -0.8 years for single tumor ≤3 cm, -0.9 and -0.5 for single nodules measuring 3.1-5 cm, and -0.5 and -0.4 for multi-nodular tumor ≤ 3 cm. On the Monte Carlo simulation, only young patients with multi-nodular HCC and short waiting list time had a positive NHB. Salvage LT proved to be an ineffective cost strategy after RFA or LR.

CONCLUSION

In patients with HCC within Milan criteria and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, LR and RFA were more cost-effective than LT. Salvage LT was not cost-effective.

Optimizing repeat liver transplant graft utility through strategic matching of donor and recipient characteristics

Repeat liver transplantation (LT) is controversial because of inferior outcomes versus primary LT. A minimum 1-year expected post-re-LT survival of 50% has been proposed. We aimed to identify combinations of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), donor risk index (DRI), and recipient characteristics achieving this graft survival threshold. We identified re-LT recipients listed in the United States from March 2002 to January 2010 with > 90 days between primary LT and listing for re-LT. Using Cox regression, we estimated the expected probability of 1-year graft survival and identified combinations of MELD, DRI, and recipient characteristics attaining >50% expected 1-year graft survival. Re-LT recipients (n = 1418) had a median MELD of 26 and median age of 52 years. Expected 1-year graft survival exceeded 50% regardless of MELD or DRI in Caucasian recipients who were not infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) of all ages and Caucasian HCV-infected recipients <50 years old. As age increased in HCV-infected Caucasian and non-HCV-infected African American recipients, lower MELD scores or lower DRI grafts were needed to attain the graft survival threshold. As MELD scores increased in HCV-infected African American recipients, lower-DRI livers were required to achieve the graft survival threshold. Use of high-DRI livers (>1.44) in HCV-infected recipients with a MELD score > 26 at re-LT failed to achieve the graft survival threshold with recipient age ≥ 60 years (any race), as well as at age ≥ 50 years for Caucasians and at age < 50 years for African Americans. Strategic donor selection can achieve >50% expected 1-year graft survival even in high-risk re-LT recipients (HCV infected, older age, African American race, high MELD scores). Low-risk transplant recipients (age < 50 years, non-HCV-infected) can achieve the survival threshold with varying DRI and MELD scores.