Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence and death following living and deceased donor liver transplantation

Can sorafenib increase survival for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation? A pilot study

Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a main detriment to long-term survival in liver transplants (LTx) for HCC. The study aims to review the use of sorafenib in recurrent HCC LTx in the Model End Stage Liver Disease era. Two hundred forty-seven patients with HCC LTx from 2002 to 2013 were included. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method and Cox multivariate model. Twenty-two patients recurred (11%). By KM, overall survival was 27 months (standard deviation [SD], 3.2 months; median, 28.4 months). Mean time to recurrence was 16.9 months (SD, 2.8 months; median, 12 months). Nine patients were treated with sorafenib after recurrence. Median survival for sorafenib-treated patients was 42 months compared with a median of 16.2 months without sorafenib (-2 log likelihood ratio, P = 0.0582). By Cox, only sorafenib (P = 0.0233; hazard ratio, 8.528) and pathologic stage had a significant impact on survival. The recurrence rates of HCC LTx remain acceptable considering understaging and expansion of beyond Stage A. This pilot study of sorafenib in recurrent HCC demonstrates improved survival over historic controls. Many other factors affecting improved survival are explained. However, treatment remains palliative. Quality-of-life years and cost analysis need to be performed in this population.

Waiting time predicts survival after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a cohort study using the United Network for Organ Sharing registry

Recipients of liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have an 8% to 20% risk of HCC recurrence. Single-center studies suggest that a period of waiting after HCC therapy may facilitate the selection of patients at low risk for post-LT HCC recurrence and mortality. We evaluated whether a longer waiting time after Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) prioritization for HCC predicts longer post-LT survival. From the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, we selected 2 groups registered for LT between March 2005 and March 2009: (1) HCC patients receiving MELD prioritization and (2) non-HCC patients. Patients were stratified by their MELD status at LT (a marker of time on the wait list after HCC MELD prioritization) and were followed from LT until death or censoring through October 2012. By comparing post-LT survival to intention-to-treat (ITT) survival from registration, we assessed predictors of post-LT survival and estimated the benefit of LT. The median MELD scores at LT were 22 (HCC) and 24 (non-HCC). A higher MELD score at LT was independently associated with lower post-LT mortality in the HCC group [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73-0.98] and higher post-LT mortality in the non-HCC group (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.15-1.25). Compared with the HCC group, the non-HCC group had lower post-LT mortality [relative risk (RR) = 0.85, log-rank P < 0.01] but higher ITT mortality (RR = 1.25, log-rank P < 0.01) because of a 33 percentage point lower probability of undergoing LT. In conclusion, a longer waiting time before LT for HCC predicted longer post-LT survival in a national transplant registry. Delaying LT for HCC may reduce disparities in ITT survival and access to LT among different indications and thereby improve system utility and organ allocation equity for the overall pool of LT candidates.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Transplantation: State of the Art

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive tumor that often occurs in chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. The incidence of HCC is growing worldwide. With respect to any other available treatment for liver cancer, liver transplantation (LT) has the highest potential to cure. LT allows for removal at once of both the tumor ("seed") and the damaged-hepatic tissue ("soil") where cancerogenesis and chronic liver disorders have progressed together. The Milan criteria (MC) have been applied worldwide to select patients with HCC for LT, yielding a 4-year survival rate of 75%. These criteria represent the benchmark for patient selection and are the basis for comparison with any other suggested criteria. However, MC are often considered to be too restrictive, and recent data show that between 25% and 50% of patients with HCC are currently transplanted beyond conventional indications. Consequently, any unrestricted expansion of selection criteria will increase the need for donor organs, lengthen waiting periods, increase drop-out rates, and impair outcomes on intention-to-treat analysis. Management of HCC recurrence after LT is challenging. There are a few reports available regarding the safety and efficacy of sorafenib for HCC recurrence after LT, but the data are heterogeneous. A multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial comparing placebo with sorafenib is advised. Alternatively, a meta-analysis of patient survival with sorafenib for HCC recurrence after LT could be helpful to characterize the therapeutic benefit and safety of sorafenib. Here, we review the use of LT for HCC, with particular emphasis on the selection criteria for transplantation in patients with HCC and management of HCC recurrence after LT.

Living donor liver transplantation does not increase tumor recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma compared to deceased donor transplantation

AIM: To compare the recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-positive hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).

METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical data from 408 liver cancer patients from February 1999 to September 2012. We used the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test to analyze the characteristics of LDLT and DDLT. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the RFS and OS in HCC.

RESULTS: Three hundred sixty HBV-positive patients (276 DDLT and 84 LDLT) were included in this study. The mean follow-up time was 27.1 mo (range 1.1-130.8 mo). One hundred eighty-five (51.2%) patients died during follow-up. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates for LDLT were 85.2%, 55.7%, and 52.9%, respectively; for DDLT, the RFS rates were 73.2%, 49.1%, and 45.3% (P = 0.115). The OS rates were similar between the LDLT and DDLT recipients, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 81.8%, 49.5%, and 43.0% vs 69.5%, 43.0%, and 38.3%, respectively (P = 0.30). The outcomes of HCC according to the Milan criteria after LDLT and DDLT were not significantly different (for LDLT: 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS: 94.7%, 78.7%, and 78.7% vs 89.2%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, P = 0.50; for DDLT: 86.1%, 68.8%, and 68.8% vs 80.5%, 62.2%, and 59.8% P = 0.53).

CONCLUSION: The outcomes of LDLT for HCC are not worse compared to the outcomes of DDLT. LDLT does not increase tumor recurrence of HCC compared to DDLT.

Current management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer worldwide and leading cause of death among patients with cirrhosis. Treatment guidelines are based according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system. The choice among therapeutic options that include liver resection, liver transplantation, locoregional, and systemic treatments must be individualized for each patient. The aim of this paper is to review the outcomes that can be achieved in the treatment of HCC with the heterogeneous therapeutic options currently available in clinical practice.

Liver transplant for hepatocellular cancer: very small tumors, very large tumors, and waiting time

The role of liver transplant for treatment of early hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is no longer contested. However, its benefit relative to other therapies for patients with very early (<2 cm) HCC is still a matter of debate. Twenty years after the establishment of the Milan criteria, we are beginning to realize that the number and size of tumors may not be the best metric by which to prognosticate outcomes and allocate organs. A better assessment of tumor aggressiveness is clearly needed.

Good longterm survival after primary living donor liver transplantation for solitary hepatocellular carcinomas up to 8 cm in diameter

OBJECTIVES

There is controversy over whether hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) should be primarily treated with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) if liver resection (LR) can be effective. This retrospective study was conducted to compare survival outcomes in patients treated with either modality for solitary HCC measuring ≤8 cm in diameter.

METHODS

Outcomes in patients with solitary HCC primarily treated by LDLT were analysed. Patients with solitary HCC of similar sizes with or without microvascular invasion primarily treated with LR were selected at a ratio of 6 : 1 for comparison.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality amounted to 0% and 1.3% in the LDLT (n = 50) and LR (n = 300) groups, respectively (P = 0.918). Complication rates were 34% and 20% in the LDLT and LR groups, respectively (P = 0.027). Rates of 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year overall survival were 98%, 94%, 89% and 83%, respectively, in the LDLT group and 95%, 85%, 76% and 56%, respectively, in the LR group (P = 0.013). Rates of 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year disease-free survival were 96%, 90%, 87% and 81%, respectively, in the LDLT group and 81%, 64%, 57% and 40%, respectively, in the LR group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Living donor liver transplantation surpassed LR in survival outcomes, achieving a 10-year overall survival rate 1.5 times as high and a 10-year disease-free survival rate twice as high as those facilitated by LR. However, it entailed more complications, in addition to the inevitable risks to the donor.

Time to transplantation as a predictor of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation

In the United States, there are significant geographic disparities in the time to transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); it is possible that rapid transplantation contributes to higher rates of posttransplant HCC recurrence because there is insufficient time for the tumor biology to manifest. In this study, we compared HCC recurrence in rapid transplant patients and their slower transplant counterparts. We identified adult liver transplantation (LT) candidates in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data set who were granted an initial exception for an HCC diagnosis between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2010 and underwent transplantation in the same time window. Patients were followed until HCC recurrence, non-HCC-related death, or last follow-up. The cumulative incidence of HCC recurrence was compared for patients waiting ≤ 120 days and patients waiting >120 days from an HCC exception to LT. The association between the risk of posttransplant recurrence and the wait time was further evaluated via competing risks regression with the Fine and Gray model. For 5002 LT recipients with HCC, the median wait time from an exception to LT was 77 days, and it varied from 30 to 169 days by UNOS region. The cumulative incidence of posttransplant HCC recurrence was 3.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.8%-3.8%] and 5.6% (95% CI = 5.0%-6.3%) within 1 and 2 years, respectively. The rate of observed recurrence within 1 year of transplantation was significantly lower for patients waiting >120 days versus patients waiting ≤ 120 days (2.2% versus 3.9%, P = 0.002); however, the difference did not persist at 2 years (5.0% versus 5.9%, P = 0.09). After we accounted for clinical factors, the HCC recurrence risk was reduced by 40% for patients waiting >120 days (subhazard ratio = 0.6, P = 0.005). In conclusion, the risk of HCC recurrence within the first year after transplantation may be lessened by the institution of a mandatory waiting time after an exception is granted.

Hepatic venous congestion in living donor grafts in liver transplantation: is there an effect on hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence?

A certain degree of graft congestion in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a right liver graft may be inevitable because of the mismatch between the inflow and outflow structures of the liver. The subsequent inflammatory reaction and rapid regeneration of the graft have been suggested as causes of tumor recurrence. Therefore, we investigated the influence of graft congestion on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after LDLT. Two hundred eighty-nine LDLT patients for HCC within the University of California San Francisco criteria between November 1999 and February 2012 were investigated. Patients were assigned to groups on the basis of the degree of congestion (≤10% for group A and >10% for group B), which was determined by 3-dimensional reconstruction of posttransplant multidetector helical computed tomography within 2 weeks. Perioperative characteristics, regeneration rates after 6 months, and recurrence rates were compared between the groups, and a multivariate analysis of the influence of congestion on tumor recurrence was subsequently completed. No significant difference in demographics was found. Group B had more elevated peak posttransplant levels of aspartate aminotransferase (296.26 versus 227.53, P = 0.05), alanine aminotransferase (382.91 versus 276.98, P = 0.04), and highly selective C-reactive protein (5.41 versus 3.55, P < 0.001); a higher noncongestive section regeneration rate (25.8% versus 13.6%, P = 0.012); and a higher recurrence rate (30.4% versus 9.7%, P = 0.01) than group A. Graft congestion > 10% [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-8.35, P = 0.03], microvascular invasion (HR = 5.43, 95% CI = 2.04-14.44, P < 0.01), and an alpha-fetoprotein level > 200 IU/L (HR = 2.98, 95% CI = 1.10-8.03, P = 0.03) were significantly related to tumor recurrence. Liver congestion may promote the recurrence of HCC after LDLT; therefore, it should be minimized.

Section 2. Small-for-size liver graft and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence

Liver transplantation (LT) is the most effective treatment for small and unresectable hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). With scarcity of deceased donor livers, living donor LT (LDLT) is the alternative to deceased donor LT (DDLT). Animal studies have suggested that regeneration of the partial liver graft encourages HCC recurrence. Increased recurrence was observed in a few studies. Thus, there is the belief that the use of small-for-size graft carries the potential risk of disease recurrence. Nevertheless, those studies were retrospective, with sample sizes not large enough for conclusions.Living donor LT can be performed when a suitable donor is available. The fast tracking of patients for transplantation without a period of observation is an issue. Meta-analyses, however, showed no significant increase in HCC recurrence after LDLT. Patients listed for DDLT and without suitable living donors have to endure a long wait, during which the aggressiveness of their HCC is observed. Such observation almost guarantees slow disease progression when they get transplanted. Nevertheless, a long wait has the disadvantage of transplanting patients with more advanced tumors, although still within standard criteria. Judicious use of deceased donor grafts is the responsibility of the transplant community.Living donor LT for HCC should only be performed after careful assessment of the recipient and tumor status. Although tumor size and number are references widely adopted in tumor staging, biological staging of tumors using positron emission tomography could provide additional information of tumor behavior. A high level of serum α-fetoprotein also warns against LT because it is predictive of a high HCC recurrence rate.

Liver transplantation for hepatic tumors: A systematic review

Improvements in the medical and pharmacological management of liver transplantation (LT) recipients have led to a better long-term outcome and extension of the indications for this procedure. Liver tumors are relevant to LT; however, the use of LT to treat malignancies remains a debated issue because the high risk of recurrence. In this review we considered LT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), liver metastases (LM) and other rare tumors. We reviewed the literature, focusing on the past 10 years. The highly selected Milan criteria of LT for HCC (single nodule < 5 cm or up to 3 nodules < 3 cm) have been recently extended by a group from the University of S. Francisco (1 lesion < 6.5 cm or up to 3 lesions < 4.5 cm) with satisfying results in terms of recurrence-free survival and the “up-to-seven criteria”. Moreover, using these criteria, other transplant groups have recently developed downstaging protocols, including surgical or loco-regional treatments of HCC, which have increased the post-operative survival of recipients. CCA may be treated by LT in patients who cannot undergo liver resection because of underlying liver disease or for anatomical technical challenges. A well-defined protocol of chemoirradiation and staging laparotomy before LT has been developed by the Mayo Clinic, which has resulted in long term disease-free survival comparable to other indications. LT for LM has also been investigated by multicenter studies. It offers a real benefit for metastases from neuroendocrine tumors that are well differentiated and when a major extrahepatic resection is not required. If LT is an option in these selected cases, liver metastases from colorectal cancer is still a borderline indication because data concerning the disease-free survival are still lacking. Hepatoblastoma and hemangioendothelioma represent rare primary tumors for which LT is often the only possible and effective cure because of the frequent multifocal, intrahepatic nature of the disease. LT is a very promising procedure for both primary and secondary liver malignancies; however, it needs an accurate evaluation of the costs and benefits for each indication to balance the chances of cure with actual organ availability.

Ethnic disparities and liver transplantation rates in hepatocellular carcinoma patients in the recent era: results from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. After the implementation of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease system, rates of liver transplantation (LT) for HCC patients increased. However, it is not clear whether this trend has continued into recent times. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry (1998-2010), we retrospectively analyzed trends for LT among HCC patients in 3 time periods: 1998-2003, 2004-2008, and 2009-2010. A total of 60,772 HCC patients were identified. In the more recent time periods, the proportion of localized-stage HCC increased (45.0% in 1998-2003, 50.4% in 2004-2008, and 51.7% in 2009-2010; P < 0.001). Although the proportion of HCC patients within the Milan criteria also increased with time (22.8% in 1998-2003, 31.8% in 2004-2008, and 37.1% in 2009-2010; P < 0.001), the proportion of those patients undergoing LT increased from 1998-2003 to 2004-2008 but decreased from 2004-2008 to 2009-2010. However, the actual frequencies of LT were similar in 2004-2008 (208.2 per year) and 2009-2010 (201.5 per year). A multivariate logistic regression, including sex, age, ethnicity, Milan criteria, tumor stage, tumor size and number, and time periods, demonstrated a lower likelihood of LT in 2009-2010 versus 1998-2003 [odds ratio (OR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.57-0.71]. Blacks (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.41-0.56), Asians (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.57-0.73), and Hispanics (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.68-0.85) were all less likely to undergo LT in comparison with non-Hispanic whites. Despite the increasing proportion of patients with HCC diagnosed at an earlier stage, LT rates declined in the most recent era. In addition, ethnic minorities were significantly less likely to undergo LT. The growing imbalance between the number of transplant-eligible HCC patients and the shortage of donor livers emphasizes the need to improve donor availability and curative alternatives to LT.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Outcomes for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Beyond Milan or UCSF Criteria

Liver transplantation (LT) is the most effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that arises from cirrhosis. The Milan and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) selection criteria have resulted in major improvements in patient survival. We assessed our outcomes for patients with HCC that were beyond the Milan and UCSF criteria after living donor liver transplantation. We reviewed the data for 109 patients with cirrhosis and HCC who underwent living donor right lobe liver transplantation (living donor liver transplantation; LDLT) during the period from July 2004 to July 2012. Sixteen (14.7 %) patients had HCC recurrences during a mean follow-up of 35.4 ± 26.2 months (range 4-100 months). The mean time to recurrence was 11 ± 9.4 months (range 4-26 months). Survival rates were not significantly different between patients with HCC that met and were beyond the Milan and UCSF criteria (p = 0.761 and p = 0.861, respectively). The Milan and UCSF criteria were not independent risk factors for HCC recurrence or patient survival. Only poorly differentiated tumors were associated with a lower survival rate (OR = 8.656, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.01-37.16; p = 0.004). Survival rates for patients with HCC that were beyond conventional selection criteria should encourage reconsidering the acceptable thresholds of these criteria so that more HCC patients may undergo LT without affecting outcomes.

Living-donor or deceased-donor liver transplantation for hepatic carcinoma: A case-matched comparison

AIM: To compare the surgical outcomes between living-donor and deceased-donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatic carcinoma.

METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2010, 257 patients with pathologically confirmed hepatic carcinoma met the eligibility criteria of the study. Forty patients who underwent living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) constituted the LDLT group, and deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) was performed in 217 patients. Patients in the LDLT group were randomly matched (1:2) to patients who underwent DDLT using a multivariate case-matched method, so 40 patients in the LDLT group and 80 patients in the DDLT group were enrolled into the study. We compared the two groups in terms of clinicopathological characteristics, postoperative complications, long-term cumulative survival and relapse-free survival outcomes. The modified Clavien-Dindo classification system of surgical complications was used to evaluate the severity of perioperative complications. Furthermore, we determined the difference in the overall biliary complication rates in the perioperative and follow-up periods between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

RESULTS: The clinicopathological characteristics of the enrolled patients were comparable between the two groups. The duration of operation was significantly longer (553 min vs 445 min, P < 0.001) in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group. Estimated blood loss (1188 mL vs 1035 mL, P = 0.055) and the proportion of patients with intraoperative transfusion (60.0% vs 43.8%, P = 0.093) were slightly but not significantly greater in the LDLT group. In contrast to DDLT, LDLT was associated with a lower rate of perioperative grade II complications (45.0% vs 65.0%, P = 0.036) but a higher risk of overall biliary complications (27.5% vs 7.5%, P = 0.003). Nonetheless, 21 patients (52.5%) in the LDLT group and 46 patients (57.5%) in the DDLT group experienced perioperative complications, and overall perioperative complication rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.603). No significant difference was observed in 5-year overall survival (74.1% vs 66.6%, P = 0.372) or relapse-free survival (72.9% vs 70.9%, P = 0.749) between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

CONCLUSION: Although biliary complications were more common in the LDLT group, this group did not show any inferiority in long-term overall survival or relapse-free survival compared with DDLT.

The stratifying value of Hangzhou criteria in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as candidates for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are well studied. In this era of limited deceased donor organs, the value of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for HCC remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to verify the stratification value of the Hangzhou criteria for LDLT.

METHODS

The data of 47 LDLT recipients and 94 matched DDLT recipients at our center were evaluated. Overall survival and tumor-free survival were calculated. Prognostic factors influencing post-liver transplantation (LT) survival were identified. The stratification values of the Hangzhou criteria and Milan criteria were compared.

RESULTS

LDLT recipients spent much less time on the waiting list. The post-LT survival of recipients fulfilling the Milan criteria and recipients fulfilling the Hangzhou criteria were comparable (P>0.05). The overall and tumor-free survival did not differ statistically between the two groups. In both groups, more recipients not meeting the Milan criteria but with a satisfactory outcome were identified by the Hangzhou criteria. Among recipients who did not meet the Hangzhou criteria, tumor-free survival was better for the LDLT recipients than the DDLT recipients (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

The Hangzhou criteria are reliable for stratifying HCC patients in terms of prognosis. HCC patients fulfilling the Hangzhou criteria gain satisfactory survival from LT. Outcomes after LDLT are better than those after DDLT for HCC patients who do not meet the Hangzhou criteria.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma beyond Milan Criteria: Multidisciplinary Approach to Improve Outcome

The implementation of the Milan criteria (MC) in 1996 has dramatically improved prognosis after liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Liver transplantation has, thereby, become the standard therapy for patients with "early-stage" HCC on liver cirrhosis. The MC were consequently adopted by United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) and Eurotransplant for prioritization of patients with HCC. Recent advancements in the knowledge about tumor biology, radiographic imaging techniques, locoregional interventional treatments, and immunosuppressive medications have raised a critical discussion, if the MC might be too restrictive and unjustified keeping away many patients from potentially curative LT. Numerous transplant groups have, therefore, increasingly focussed on a stepwise expansion of selection criteria, mainly based on tumor macromorphology, such as size and number of HCC nodules. Against the background of a dramatic shortage of donor organs, however, simple expansion of tumor macromorphology may not be appropriate to create a safe extended criteria system. In contrast, rather the implementation of reliable prognostic parameters of tumor biology into selection process prior to LT is mandatory. Furthermore, a multidisciplinary approach of pre-, peri-, and posttransplant modulating of the tumor and/or the patient has to be established for improving prognosis in this special subset of patients.

Living-donor liver transplantation associated with higher incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence than deceased-donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is becoming an important tool in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment. However, the oncologic outcome between LDLT and deceased-donor LT (DDLT) for HCC remains controversial. This study aims to compare the HCC recurrence rates after LDLT versus DDLT.

METHODS

Two hundred sixteen patients (166 LDLTs and 50 DDLTs) who underwent LT for HCC within University of California-San Francisco criteria were retrospectively reviewed. LDLT patients were divided into two groups: small living-donor graft (LDG; graft-to-recipient body weight ratio <1.0, n=59) and nonsmall LDG (graft-to-recipient body weight ratio ≥1.0, n=107). Patients were further stratified into low- and high-risk settings by the number of risk factors for recurrence.

RESULTS

The recurrence-free survival was lower in LDLT compared with DDLT (88.6% and 80.7% vs. 96.0% and 94.0% at 1 and 5 years; P=0.045). There was no significant difference between two groups regarding the majority of clinical and tumor characteristics, with the exception of a higher proportion of microvascular invasion presence in LDLT. After the adjustment for microvascular invasion, LDLT was identified as an independent risk factor for recurrence. Moreover, recurrence-free survival between small and nonsmall LDG was not statistically significant. In low-risk setting (≤1 risk factor), LDLT showed comparable outcome with DDLT. However, the risk of recurrence was higher in LDLT than DDLT in high-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, LDLT showed poorer outcome than DDLT. This should be considered to select optimal strategy for HCC.

Post-transplant endothelial progenitor cell mobilization via CXCL10/CXCR3 signaling promotes liver tumor growth

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving living donor liver transplantation appear to possess significantly higher tumor recurrence than the recipients receiving deceased donor liver transplantation. The underlying mechanism for HCC recurrence after transplantation remains unclear. Here, we aim to investigate the impact of small-for-size liver graft injury on HCC recurrence after transplantation.

METHODS

The correlation between tumor recurrence, liver graft injury, CXCL10 expression and endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) mobilization was studied in 115 liver transplant recipients and rat orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) models. The direct role of CXCL10/CXCR3 signaling on EPC mobilization was investigated in CXCL10(-/-) mice and CXCR3(-/-) mice. The role of EPCs on tumor growth and angiogenesis was further investigated in an orthotopic liver tumor model.

RESULTS

Clinically, patients with small-for-size liver grafts (<60% of standard liver weight, SLW) had significantly higher HCC recurrence (p=0.04), accompanied by more circulating EPCs and higher early-phase intragraft and plasma CXCL10 levels, than the recipients with large grafts (≥60% of SLW), which were further validated in rat OLT models. Circulatory EPC mobilization was reduced after liver injury both in CXCL10(-/-) mice and CXCR3(-/-) mice in comparison to wild-type controls. CXCL10 recruited EPCs in dose-dependent and CXCR3-dependent manners in vitro. Early-phase EPC/CXCL10 injection enhanced orthotopic liver tumor growth, angiogenesis and metastasis in nude mice.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-transplant enhanced CXCL10/CXCR3 signaling in small-for-size liver grafts directly induced EPC mobilization, differentiation and neovessel formation, which further promotes tumor growth. Targeting CXCL10/CXCR3 signaling may attenuate early-phase liver graft injury and prevent late-phase tumor recurrence/metastasis after transplantation.

Deceased-donor split-liver transplantation in adult recipients: is the learning curve over?

BACKGROUND

Infants have the highest wait-list mortality of all liver transplantation candidates. Deceased-donor split-liver transplantation, a technique that provides both an adult and pediatric graft, might be the best way to decrease this disproportionate mortality. Yet concern for an increased risk to adult split recipients has discouraged its widespread adoption. We aimed to determine the current risk of graft failure in adult recipients after split-liver transplantation.

STUDY DESIGN

United Network for Organ Sharing data from 62,190 first-time adult recipients of deceased-donor liver transplants (1995-2010) were analyzed (889 split grafts). Bivariate risk factors (p < 0.2) were included in Cox proportional hazards models of the effect of transplant type on graft failure.

RESULTS

Split-liver recipients had an overall hazard ratio of graft failure of 1.26 (p < 0.001) compared with whole-liver recipients. The split-liver hazard ratio was 1.45 (p < 0.001) in the pre-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era (1995-2002) and 1.10 (p = 0.28) in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era (2002-2010). Interaction analyses suggested an increased risk of split-graft failure in status 1 recipients and those given an exception for hepatocellular carcinoma. Excluding higher-risk recipients, split and whole grafts had similar outcomes (hazard ratio = 0.94; p = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of graft failure is now similar between split and whole-liver recipients in the vast majority of cases, which demonstrates that the expansion of split-liver allocation might be possible without increasing the overall risk of long-term graft failure in adult recipients. Additional prospective analysis should examine if selection bias might account for the possible increase in risk for recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma or designated status 1.

Clinical outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after living-donor liver transplantation

AIM: To investigate risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and efficacy of various criteria.

METHODS: From October 2000 to November 2011, 233 adult patients underwent LDLT for HCC at our institution. After excluding nine postoperative mortality cases, we analyzed retrospectively 224 patients. To identify risk factors for recurrence, we evaluated recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS) rate, survival rate, and various other factors which are based on the characteristics of both the patient and tumor. Additionally, we developed our own criteria based on our data. Next, we compared our selection criteria with various tumor-grading scales, such as the Milan criteria, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, TNM stage, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage and Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) scoring system. The median follow up was 68 (6-139) mo.

RESULTS: In 224 patients who received LDLT for HCC, 37 (16.5%) experienced tumor recurrence during the follow-up period. The 5-year DFS and overall survival rates after LDLT in all patients with HCC were 80.9% and 76.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, the tumor diameter {5 cm; P < 0.001; exponentiation of the B coefficient [Exp(B)], 11.89; 95%CI: 3.784-37.368} and alpha fetoprotein level [AFP, 100 ng/mL; P = 0.021; Exp(B), 2.892; 95%CI: 1.172-7.132] had significant influences on HCC recurrence after LDLT. Therefore, these two factors were included in our criteria. Based on these data, we set our selection criteria as a tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm and AFP ≤ 100 ng/mL. Within our new criteria (140/214, 65.4%), the 5-year DFS and overall survival rates were 88.6% and 81.8%, respectively. Our criteria (P = 0.001), Milan criteria (P = 0.009), and UCSF criteria (P = 0.001) showed a significant difference in DFS rate. And our criteria (P = 0.006) and UCSF criteria (P = 0.009) showed a significant difference in overall survival rate. But Milan criteria did not show significant difference in overall survival rate (P = 0.137). Among stages 0, A, B and C of BCLC, stage C had a significantly higher recurrence rate (P = 0.001), lower DFS (P = 0.001), and overall survival rate (P = 0.005) compared with the other stages. Using the CLIP scoring system, the group with a score of 4 to 5 showed a high recurrence rate (P = 0.023) and lower DFS (P = 0.011); however, the overall survival rate did not differ from that of the lower scoring group. The TNM system showed a trend of increased recurrence rate, decreased DFS, or survival rate according to T stage, albeit without statistical significance.

CONCLUSION: LDLT is considered the preferred therapeutic option in patients with an AFP level less than 100 ng/mL and a tumor diameter of less than 5 cm.

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: Enlightening the gray zones

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been continuously evolving during recent years. HCC is a worldwide clinical and social issue and typically a complicates cirrhosis. The incidence of HCC is increasing, not only in the general population of patients with cirrhosis, but particularly in some subgroups of patients, like those with human immunodeficiency virus infection or thalassemia. Since a 3% annual HCC incidence has been estimated in cirrhosis, a bi-annual screening is generally suggested. The diagnostic criteria of HCC has recently had a dramatic evolution during recent years. HCC diagnosis is now made only on radiological criteria in the majority of the cases. In the context of cirrhosis, the universally accepted criteria for HCC diagnosis is contrast enhancement in arterial phase and washout in venous/late phase at imaging, the so called “typical pattern”. However, recently updated guidelines slightly differ in diagnostic criteria. Apart from liver transplantation, the only cure of both HCC and underlying liver cirrhosis, all the other treatments have to match with higher rate of HCC recurrence. The latter can be classified into curative (resection and percutaneous ablation) and palliative treatments. The aim of this paper was to review the current knowledge on management of HCC and to enlighten the areas of uncertainty.

Hepatobiliary malignancies: lessons from Asia

With the higher incidences of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) in the East compared with the West, Asian centers have made significant contributions to the management of these malignancies. The major risk factor for HCC is hepatitis B infection in Asia in contrast to hepatitis C in Western populations. Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging that guides the treatment of patients with HCC in the West is considered too conservative by many Asian centers. In Asia, liver resection is widely offered to patients with multifocal, bilobar tumor or tumor invasion to the portal vein. The criteria for liver transplantation for HCC are also often more extended in Asian centers. Asian surgeons pioneered the development of living donor liver transplantation, which plays a major role in the management of early HCC associated with severe cirrhosis in Asia due to shortage of deceased donor graft. Asian centers have also made significant contributions to the modern management of CCA. A more aggressive surgical approach is generally adopted in Asia, including radical lymphadenectomy for intrahepatic CCA and simultaneous hepatic artery and portal vein resection with hepatectomy for hilar CCA. Eastern and Western centers should collaborate in further studies to establish the optimal treatment strategies for hepatobiliary malignancies.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: It Is All about Donors?

BACKGROUND

Live-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a valuable option for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as compared with deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT); the tumor could be eradicated early.

METHODS

Herein, we reviewed the outcome of adult patients with HCC who underwent LDLT from 1990 to 2009 in the USA, as reported to United Network for Organ Sharing.

RESULTS

Compared to DDLT (n=5858), patients who underwent LDLT for HCC (n=170) were more likely to be female (43.8% vs 23.8%), younger (mean age 48.6 vs 54.9 years) and have more tumors outside Milan criteria (30.7% vs 13.6%). However, the recipients of LDLT for HCC had a significantly shorter mean wait time before transplantation (173 vs 219 days; p=0.04). The overall allograft and patient survival were not different, though more patients in LDLT group were outside Milan criteria. Since implementation of the MELD exception for HCC, DDLT for HCC has increased form 337 (2.3%) cases in 2002 to 1142 (18.7%) in 2009 (p<0.001). However, LDLT for HCC has remained stable from 16 (5.7%) in 2002 to 14 (9.2%) in 2009 (p=0.1). Regions 1, 5 and 9 had the highest rate of LDLT for HCC compared to other regions.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT can achieve the same long-term outcomes compared to DDLT in patients with HCC. The current MELD prioritization for HCC reduces the necessity of LDLT for HCC except in areas with severe organ shortage.

Scoring selection criteria including total tumour volume and pretransplant percentage of lymphocytes to predict recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation

AIM

The selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to undergo liver transplantation should accurately predict posttransplant recurrence while not denying potential beneficiaries. In the present study, we attempted to identify risk factors associated with posttransplant recurrence and to expand the selection criteria.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult patients with HCC who underwent liver transplantation between November 2004 and September 2012 at our centre were recruited into the current study (N = 241). Clinical and pathological data were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who died during the perioperative period or died of non-recurrence causes were excluded from this study (N = 25). All potential risk factors were analysed using uni- and multi-variate analyses.

RESULTS

Sixty-one recipients of 216 qualified patients suffered from recurrence. Similar recurrence-free and long-term survival rates were observed between living donor liver transplant recipients (N = 60) and deceased donor liver transplant recipients (N = 156). Total tumour volume (TTV) and preoperative percentage of lymphocytes (L%) were two independent risk factors in the multivariate analysis. We propose a prognostic score model based on these two risk factors. Patients within our criteria achieved a similar recurrence-free survival to patients within the Milan criteria. Seventy-one patients who were beyond the Milan criteria but within our criteria also had comparable survival to patients within the Milan criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

TTV and L% are two risk factors that contribute to posttransplant recurrence. Selection criteria based on these two factors, which are proposed by our study, expanded the Milan criteria without increasing the risk of posttransplant recurrence.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) may be the best curative treatment that offers a chance of cure for the tumor and the underlying cirrhosis by complete extirpation of both. In Asia, where the supply of cadaveric grafts remains scarce and the incidence of HCC combined with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV)- and hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease is high, adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been settled upon as a practical alternative to deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Even in Western countries, where adequate access to DDLT is feasible for HCC patients satisfying the Milan criteria, the necessity for LDLT is well established in particular for more advanced HCC patients who are disadvantaged by current allocation algorithms for grafts from deceased donors due to organ shortage, increasing waiting lists, and the expectation that many patients listed for LT will die while awaiting a suitable organ. In the field of LDLT in Asia, numerous technical innovations were achieved to secure donor safety, as well as to ensure patient survival. The experience with LDLT for HCC has been progressively increasing in many Asian countries to date. Although there are questions regarding the higher recurrence of HCC after LDLT than after DDLT, the application of the Milan and UCSF criteria to LDLT in high-volume multicenter cohorts from Japan and Korea has resulted in patient survival outcomes very similar to those following DDLT. Recently, inclusion of biologic tumor markers such as alpha fetoprotein (AFP), protein induced by vitamin K antagonist II (PIVKA II), and positive positron emission tomography (PET) in addition to parameters of tumor morphology might be the key to establishing the best criteria for LDLT for HCC. As pretransplant treatments, most LDLT centers in Asia cannot adopt the strategy of bridging therapy under scarcity of cadaveric organ donation but have to use those multi-modality treatments as a salvage intending for primary curative treatment or a downstaging therapy before LDLT. After LDLT, basically there is no difference in the management strategy for HCC recurrence between DDLD and LDLT.

Living vs. deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Experimental studies suggest that the regenerating liver provides a "fertile field" for the growth of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, clinical studies report conflicting results comparing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC. Thus, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared after LDLT and DDLT for HCC in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Twelve studies satisfied eligibility criteria for DFS, including 633 LDLT and 1232 DDLT. Twelve studies satisfied eligibility criteria for OS, including 637 LDLT and 1050 DDLT. Altogether, there were 16 unique studies; 1, 2, and 13 of these were rated as high, medium, and low quality, respectively. Studies were heterogeneous, non-randomized, and mostly retrospective. The combined hazard ratio was 1.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-2.49; I(2) = 50.07%) for DFS after LDLT vs. DDLT for HCC, and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.73-1.27; I(2) = 5.68%) for OS. This analysis provides evidence of lower DFS after LDLT compared with DDLT for HCC. Improved study design and reporting is required in future research to ascribe the observed difference in DFS to study bias or biological risk specifically associated with LDLT.

Chow P. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an appraisal of current controversies

Cost-effective and efficacious approaches to the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) must be developed in response to the rising incidence of this disease worldwide. While surgical resection is the current standard of care, most patients afflicted with HCC are unresectable at diagnosis. Developing good therapy for these patients is thus imperative. Liver transplantation offers the possibility of extirpation of not only the tumor but also the remaining cirrhotic liver. Transplantation is hence an ideal treatment option for early HCC patients with poor liver function. When transplantation occurs within the established Milan criteria, the outcomes are good (5-year survival >60%). Current efforts are under way to expand the indications for transplantation beyond the Milan criteria. The resulting surge of new algorithms may potentially shape a new system of transplantation criteria based on personalized parameter calculations. However, this change in criteria is not without controversy, and data remains inconclusive. Current bridging strategies have been similarly hindered by lack of consensus because of the lack of randomized, controlled trials demonstrating their efficacy. In addition, debate continues on the role of transplantation in early (resectable) HCC with good liver function. Issues of reimbursement, the paucity of available donor livers, and governmental funding (or lack thereof) continue to complicate the situation. In this review, issues preventing or facilitating globally consistent treatment strategies for HCC are discussed.

Outcomes of living and deceased donor liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma: results of the A2ALL cohort

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents an increasing fraction of liver transplant indications; the role of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) remains unclear. In the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, patients with HCC and an LDLT or deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) for which at least one potential living donor had been evaluated were compared for recurrence and posttransplant mortality rates. Mortality from date of evaluation of each recipient's first potential living donor was also analyzed. Unadjusted 5-year HCC recurrence was significantly higher after LDLT (38%) than DDLT (11%), (p = 0.0004). After adjustment for tumor characteristics, HCC recurrence remained significantly different between LDLT and DDLT recipients (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.35; p = 0.04) for the overall cohort but not for recipients transplanted following the introduction of MELD prioritization. Five-year posttransplant survival was similar in LDLT and DDLT recipients from time of transplant (HR = 1.32; p = 0.27) and from date of LDLT evaluation (HR = 0.73; p = 0.36). We conclude that the higher recurrence observed after LDLT is likely due to differences in tumor characteristics, pretransplant HCC management and waiting time.

Recurrence of hepatocellular cancer after liver transplantation: the role of primary resection and salvage transplantation in East and West

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Greater tumor aggressiveness and different management modalities of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) before liver transplantation (LT) may explain the higher recurrence rates reported in Asia. This study investigates the prognostic factors for HCC recurrence in a Western and an Eastern HCC patient cohort in order to analyze the respective roles of tumor- and management-related factors on the incidence of post-LT HCC recurrence.

METHODS

Data of 273 HCC patients, transplanted during the period January 1999-March 2009, were obtained from the Rome Inter-University Liver Transplant Consortium (n=157) and Hong Kong University (n=116) databases. Median follow-up was 4.3 years (range: 0.2-12). Recurrence rate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on the entire population and on Milan criteria-in (MC-in) patients.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis on the entire population identified four independent risk factors for post-LT HCC recurrence: microvascular invasion (odds ratio, OR=4.88; p=0.001), poor tumor grading (OR=6.86; p=0.002), diameter of the largest tumor (OR=4.72; p=0.05), and previous liver resection (LR) (OR=3.34; p=0.04). After removal of LR, only tumor-related variables were independent risk factors for recurrence. When only MC-in patients were analyzed, no difference was observed between the two cohorts in terms of recurrence rate after LR patient removal.

CONCLUSIONS

LR followed by salvage "for HCC recurrence" LT represents the main reason for a higher HCC recurrence rate in the Hong Kong patients, but not LR followed by salvage "for liver failure" LT in the Roman group. This approach towards HCC before LT may not be universally applicable. The precise patient background must be taken into account in order to identify the best pre-LT strategy.

Developments in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a serious health problem worldwide because of its association with hepatitis B and C viruses. In this setting, liver transplantation (LT) has become one of the best treatments since it removes both the tumor and the underlying liver disease. Due to the improvement of imaging techniques and surveillance programs, HCC are being detected earlier at a stage at which effective treatment is feasible. The prerequisite for long term success of LT for HCC depends on tumor load and strict selection criteria with regard to the size and number of tumor nodules. The need to obtain the optimal benefit from the limited number of organs available has prompted the maintenance of selection criteria in order to list only those patients with early HCC who have a better long-term outcome after LT. The indications for LT and organ allocation system led to many controversies around the use of LT in HCC patients. This review aims at giving the latest updated developments in LT for HCC focusing on selection criteria, diagnostic tools, prognostic factors, treatment on the waiting list, role of living donor liver transplantation and adjuvant therapy, and the impact of immunosuppression on HCC recurrence after LT.

Living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Because of the severe organ shortage, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers a timely alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the higher recurrence rate of HCC after LDLT and the indication criteria remain controversial. By conducting a quantitative meta-analysis, we sought to compare the survival outcomes and recurrence rates with LDLT and DDLT for patients with HCC. Comparative studies of LDLT and DDLT for HCC, which were identified by a comprehensive literature search, were included in this study. The evaluated outcomes included patient survival, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and recurrence rates at defined time points. Seven studies with a total of 1310 participants were included in this study. For LDLT and DDLT recipients, we found comparable patient survival rates [1 year, odds ratio (OR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62-1.73; 3 years, OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.77-1.48; and 5 years, OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.33-1.24] and RFS rates (1 year, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.54-1.38; 3 years, OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.69-1.58; and 5 years, OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.70-1.77). Moreover, we found no significant differences in the 1-, 3-, or 5-year recurrence rates between LDLT and DDLT recipients (1 year, OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.36-6.58; 3 years, OR = 2.57, 95% CI = 0.53-12.41; and 5 years, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.44-3.32). A subgroup analysis revealed similar outcomes for patients with HCC meeting the Milan criteria. These findings demonstrate that for HCC patients (especially those within the Milan criteria), LDLT represents an acceptable option that does not compromise patient survival or increase HCC recurrence in comparison with DDLT.

Health-related quality of life of 256 recipients after liver transplantation

AIM: To investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychological outcomes in 256 adults who had undergone liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS: A stratified random sampling method was used in this follow-up multicenter study to select a representative sample of recipients undergoing either living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). HRQoL was measured by using the Chinese version of Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), and psychological outcomes by using the beck anxiety inventory (BAI) and the self-rating depression scale (SDS). Clinical and demographic data were collected from the records of the Chinese Liver Transplant Registry and via questionnaires.

RESULTS: A total of 256 patients were sampled, including 66 (25.8%) receiving LDLT and 190 (74.2%) undergoing DDLT; 15 (5.9%) recipients had anxiety and four (1.6%) developed severe depression after the operation. Compared with LDLT recipients, DDLT patients had higher scores in general health (60.33 ± 16.97 vs 66.86 ± 18.42, P = 0.012), role-physical (63.64 ± 42.55 vs 74.47 ± 36.46, P = 0.048), role-emotional (61.11 ± 44.37 vs 78.95 ± 34.31, P = 0.001), social functioning (78.60 ± 22.76 vs 88.16 ± 21.85, P = 0.003), vitality (70.30 ± 15.76 vs 75.95 ± 16.40, P = 0.016), mental health (65.88 ± 12.94 vs 71.85 ± 15.45, P = 0.005), physical component summary scale (PCS, 60.07 ± 7.36 vs 62.58 ± 6.88, P = 0.013) and mental component summary scale (MCS, 52.65 ± 7.66 vs 55.95 ± 10.14, P = 0.016). Recipients > 45 years old at the time of transplant scored higher in vitality (77.33 ± 15.64 vs 72.52 ± 16.66, P = 0.020), mental health (73.64 ± 15.06 vs 68.00 ± 14.65, P = 0.003) and MCS (56.61 ± 10.00 vs 54.05 ± 9.30, P = 0.037) than those aged ≤ 45 years. MCS was poorer in recipients with than in those without complications (52.92 ± 12.21 vs 56.06 ± 8.16, P = 0.017). Regarding MCS (55.10 ± 9.66 vs 50.0 ± 10.0, P < 0.05) and PCS (61.93 ± 7.08 vs 50.0 ± 10.0, P < 0.05), recipients scored better than the Sichuan general and had improved overall QoL compared to patients with chronic diseases. MCS and PCS significantly correlated with scores of the BAI (P < 0.001) and the SDS (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Age > 45 years at time of transplant, DDLT, full-time working, no complications, anxiety and depression were possible factors influencing postoperative HRQoL in liver recipients.

Is there an advantage of living over deceased donation in liver transplantation?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established strategy to decrease the mortality in the waiting list and recent studies have demonstrated its value even in patients with low MELD score. However, LDLT is still under a high level of scrutiny because of its technical complexity and ethical challenges as demonstrated by a decline in the number of procedures performed in the last decade in Western Countries. Many aspects make LDLT different from deceased donor liver transplantation, including timing of transplantation, procedure-related complications as well as immunological factors that may affect graft outcomes. Our review suggests that in selected cases, LDLT offers significant advantages over deceased donor liver transplantation and should be used more liberally.

Management of HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly prevalent and lethal neoplasia, the management of which has significantly improved during the last few years. A better knowledge of the natural history of the tumor and the development of staging systems that stratify patients according to the characteristics of the tumor, the liver disease, and the performance status, such as the BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) system, have led to a better prediction of prognosis and to a most appropriate treatment approach. Today curative therapies (resection, transplantation, ablation) can improve survival in patients diagnosed at an early HCC stage and offer a potential long-term cure. Patients with intermediate stage HCC benefit from chemoembolization and those diagnosed at advanced stage benefit from sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects. In this article we review the current management in HCC and the new advances in this field.

Multidisciplinary management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Management algorithms continually are increasing in sophistication and involve application of single and multimodality treatments, including liver transplantation, hepatic resection, ablation, transarterial chemoembolization, radioembolization, and systemic chemotherapy. These treatments have been shown to increase survival times. As many as 75% of patients with limited-stage disease who are given curative therapies survive 5 years, whereas less than 20% of untreated patients survive 1 year. Treatment can be optimized based on the patient's tumor stage, hepatic reserve, and functional status. However, because of the heterogeneity in presentation among patients, a multidisciplinary approach is required to treat hepatocellular carcinoma, involving hepatologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and oncologists. We present each specialist's viewpoint on controversies and advances in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparable survival and recurrence

Several studies have reported higher rates of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). It is unclear whether this difference is due to a specific biological effect unique to the LDLT procedure or to other factors such as patient selection. We compared the overall survival (OS) rates and the rates of HCC recurrence after LDLT and DDLT at our center. Between January 1996 and September 2009, 345 patients with HCC were identified: 287 (83%) had DDLT and 58 (17%) had LDLT. The OS rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method, whereas competing risks methods were used to determine the HCC recurrence rates. The LDLT and DDLT groups were similar with respect to most clinical parameters, but they had different median waiting times (3.1 versus 5.3 months, P = 0.003) and median follow-up times (30 versus 38.1 months, P = 0.02). The type of transplant did not affect any of the measured cancer outcomes. The OS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were equivalent: 91.3%, 75.2%, and 75.2%, respectively, for the LDLT group and 90.5%, 79.7%, and 74.6%, respectively, for DDLT (P = 0.62). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year HCC recurrence rates were also similar: 8.8%, 10.7%, and 15.4%, respectively, for the LDLT group and 7.5%, 14.8%, and 17.0%, respectively, for the DDLT group (P = 0.54). A regression analysis identified microvascular invasion (but not the graft type) as a predictor of HCC recurrence. In conclusion, in well-matched cohorts of LDLT and DDLT recipients, LDLT and DDLT provide similarly low recurrence rates and high survival rates for the treatment of HCC.

Incidence and risk factors of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation in the MELD era

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) rates for candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have significantly increased in the MELD era because of the extra priority given to these candidates. We examined the incidence and pre-DDLT radiological and donor factors associated with post-DDLT HCC recurrence in the MELD era.

METHODS

Outcomes of HCC candidates aged ≥18 years that underwent DDLT between 2/28/02 and 6/30/08 (n = 94) were reviewed. The primary outcome was biopsy-proven post-LT HCC recurrence at any site. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the cumulative incidence and Cox regression was used to identify the predictors of post-LT HCC recurrence.

RESULTS

The median age of the 94 candidates who met the study criteria was 54 years, 64% had hepatitis C, median lab MELD was 13, and median pre-LT AFP was 47 ng/dl. Based upon pre-DDLT imaging, 94% candidates met the Milan criteria. The median waiting time to transplant was 47 days and 27% received pre-DDLT loco-regional therapy. Seventeen (18%) developed HCC recurrence after 2.1 median years with a cumulative incidence of 6.8, 12, and 19% at 1, 2, and 3 years post-DDLT. The pre-DDLT number of lesions (p = 0.015), largest lesion diameter (p = 0.008), and higher donor age (p = 0.002) were the significant predictors of HCC recurrence after adjusting for pre-LT loco-regional therapy and waiting time. Post-LT HCC recurrence (p < 0.0001) and higher donor age (p = 0.029) were associated with lower post-LT survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-LT HCC recurrence is higher in our MELD era cohort than the reported rate of 8% at 4 years in Mazzaferro et al.'s study. The risk of HCC recurrence was significantly associated with the number of lesions and size of the largest lesion at the time of DDLT as well as with older donor age. Risk stratification using a predictive model for post-LT HCC recurrence based on pre-LT imaging and donor factors may help guide candidate selection and tailoring of HCC surveillance strategies after LT.

Liver Transplantation for HCC: A Review

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often occurs in patients with chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma has the potential to eliminate both the tumor as well as the underlying cirrhosis and is the ideal treatment for HCC in cirrhotic liver as well as massive HCC in noncirrhotic liver. Limitations in organ availability, necessitate stringent selection of patients who would likely to derive most benefit. Selection criteria have considered tumor size, number, volume as well as biological features. The Milan criteria set the benchmark for tumors that would benefit from liver transplantation but were found to be excessively restrictive. Modest expansion in criteria has also been shown to be associated with equivalent survival. Microvascular invasion is the single most important adverse prognostic factor for survival. Living donor liver transplantation has expanded donor options and has the advantage of lower waiting period and not impacting the non-HCC waiting list. Acceptable outcomes have been obtained with living donor liver transplantation for larger and more numerous tumors in the absence of microvascular invasion. Downstaging of tumors to prevent progression while waiting for an organ or for reduction in size to allow enrolment for transplantation has met with variable success.

Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report

Although liver transplantation is a widely accepted treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), much controversy remains and there is no generally accepted set of guidelines. An international consensus conference was held on Dec 2-4, 2010, in Zurich, Switzerland, with the aim of reviewing current practice regarding liver transplantation in patients with HCC and to develop internationally accepted statements and guidelines. The format of the conference was based on the Danish model. 19 working groups of experts prepared evidence-based reviews according to the Oxford classification, and drafted recommendations answering 19 specific questions. An independent jury of nine members was appointed to review these submissions and make final recommendations, after debates with the experts and audience at the conference. This report presents the final 37 statements and recommendations, covering assessment of candidates for liver transplantation, criteria for listing in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, role of tumour downstaging, management of patients on the waiting list, role of living donation, and post-transplant management.

Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report

Although liver transplantation is a widely accepted treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), much controversy remains and there is no generally accepted set of guidelines. An international consensus conference was held on Dec 2-4, 2010, in Zurich, Switzerland, with the aim of reviewing current practice regarding liver transplantation in patients with HCC and to develop internationally accepted statements and guidelines. The format of the conference was based on the Danish model. 19 working groups of experts prepared evidence-based reviews according to the Oxford classification, and drafted recommendations answering 19 specific questions. An independent jury of nine members was appointed to review these submissions and make final recommendations, after debates with the experts and audience at the conference. This report presents the final 37 statements and recommendations, covering assessment of candidates for liver transplantation, criteria for listing in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, role of tumour downstaging, management of patients on the waiting list, role of living donation, and post-transplant management.

Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report

Although liver transplantation is a widely accepted treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), much controversy remains and there is no generally accepted set of guidelines. An international consensus conference was held on Dec 2-4, 2010, in Zurich, Switzerland, with the aim of reviewing current practice regarding liver transplantation in patients with HCC and to develop internationally accepted statements and guidelines. The format of the conference was based on the Danish model. 19 working groups of experts prepared evidence-based reviews according to the Oxford classification, and drafted recommendations answering 19 specific questions. An independent jury of nine members was appointed to review these submissions and make final recommendations, after debates with the experts and audience at the conference. This report presents the final 37 statements and recommendations, covering assessment of candidates for liver transplantation, criteria for listing in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, role of tumour downstaging, management of patients on the waiting list, role of living donation, and post-transplant management.