Living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation for early irresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) offers the best chance of cure for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as it addresses simultaneously the underlying disease and the tumour. The Milan criteria has been the standard for over 3 decades in selecting patients with HCC who will benefit from LT. While, early studies showed higher recurrence rates for HCC following living donor LT (LDLT), recent series, especially in the past decade have shown LDLT to have equal oncological outcomes as compared to deceased donor LT (DDLT) for HCC, even in patients beyond Milan criteria. Further, the intention to treat analysis data suggests that LDLT may actually provide a survival advantage. In the west, factors such as improved outcomes on par with DDLT, ability to time the LT etc., have led to a steadily increased number of LDLTs being performed for this indication. On the other hand, in the east, given its geo-socio-cultural idiosyncrasies, LDLT has always been the predominant form of LT for HCC, consequently resulting in an increased number of LDLTs being performed for this indication across the world. While LDLT in HCC has its distinctive advantages compared to DDLT, the double equipoise of balancing the donor risk with the recipient outcomes has to be considered while selecting patients for LDLT. There have been several advances including the application of downstaging therapies and the use of biological markers, which have further helped improve outcomes of LDLT for this indication. This review aims to provide an update on the current advances in the field of transplant oncology related to the practice of LDLT in HCC.

Outcomes of liver transplantation for hepatocelluler carcinoma from living donor versus deceased donor within University of Southern California San Francisco criteria: a report from Turkey

Background

Hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer with increasing incidence. Liver transplantation (LT) has been accepted as main curative liver cancer treatment. The effectiveness of LDLT as opposed to Deceased Donor Liver Transplant (DDLT) for patients with HCC is still controversial. There is limited data comparing the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing LDLT or DDLT for HCCs that do not meet the Milan criteria.

Methods

We aimed to compare the perioperative and survival outcomes of LDLT with DDLT in HCC patients.Patients underwent LT between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 137 patients who met the UCSF criteria. Of these, 75 patients received LDLT and 62 patients DDLT.The primary end points in the present study were oncologic outcomes such as the recurrence rate, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of LDLT and DDLT in patients with HCC.

Results

PET-CT SUVmax value, the amount of erythrocyte solution (ES) as blood transfusion of red cells given and the tumor recurrence rate were significantly higher among the deceased patients recurrence, ES, PET-CT SUVmax value and tumor differentiation had significant effects on survival. In the multivariate reduced model, cox regression analysis showed significant effects of recurrence, ES, locoregional treatment response and PET-CT on survival.Albeit not significant, the one-year recurrence rate in the LDLT was similar to that in the DDLT, three- and five-year recurrence rates were higher in DDLT compared to LDLT.

Conclusion

There is less chance of cold ischemia time and better-quality grafts with minimal fatty changes, lower recurrence rates and similar survival rates can be achieved in LDLT compared to DDLT.

Survival benefit of living donor liver transplant for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

With the increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in both the United States and globally, the role of liver transplantation in management continues to be an area of active conversation as it is often considered the gold standard in the treatment of HCC. The use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and the indications in the setting of malignancy, both generally and in HCC specifically, are frequently debated. In terms of both overall survival and recurrence-free survival, LDLT is at least equivalent to DDLT, especially when performed for disease within Milan criteria. Emerging and compelling evidence suggests that LDLT is superior to DDLT in treating HCC as there is a significant decrease in waitlist mortality. As the oncologic indications for liver transplantation continue to expand and the gap between organ demand and organ availability continues to worsen, high volumes centers should consider using LDLT to shrink the ever-expanding waitlist.

Transplant oncology - Current indications and strategies to advance the field

Liver transplantation (LT) was originally described by Starzl as a promising strategy to treat primary malignancies of the liver. Confronted with high recurrence rates, indications drifted towards non-oncologic liver diseases with LT finally evolving from a high-risk surgery to an almost routine surgical procedure. Continuously improving outcomes following LT and evolving oncological treatment strategies have driven renewed interest in transplant oncology. This is not only reflected by constant refinements to the criteria for LT in patients with HCC, but especially by efforts to expand indications to other primary and secondary liver malignancies. With new patient-centred oncological treatments on the rise and new technologies to expand the donor pool, the field has the chance to come full circle. In this review, we focus on the concept of transplant oncology, current indications, as well as technical and ethical aspects in the context of donor organs as precious resources.

Post-transplant inflammatory cytokine signature adds value for predicting tumor recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Cytokines are key regulators of post-transplant inflammation responses which reconstitute post-transplant hepatic and systemic environments to influence the likelihood of tumor relapse. This study investigated the prognostic value of post-transplant cytokines on tumor recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted in prospectively collected 150 adult HCC patients who received liver transplantation from 1997 to 2015. The post-transplant 41 inflammatory cytokines were quantified by multiplexing analysis and determined their prognostic value for predicting post-LT tumor recurrence by receiver operative characteristic analysis. A prediction model for post-LT tumor recurrence was generated by the logistic regression and internally validated Bootstrapping and compared with external prediction models.

RESULTS

Post-transplant circulating CCL11, IFNα2, and IL17A cytokines were identified to be significant predictors of post-LT tumor recurrence and survival. A prediction score composed of the post-transplant 3-cytokine (P3C) signature, UCSF criteria, and pre-LT AFP was established. The P3C-UCSF-AFP score significantly predicted post-LT tumor recurrence and poor survival both in deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The P3C-UCSF-AFP score was validated to significantly predict post-LT 2-year and 5-year tumor recurrence, outperforming the RETREAT score, French AFP model, up-to-seven, UCSF criteria, and Milan criteria. Importantly, the P3C-UCSF-AFP score could cost-effectively stratify high-risk recipients subjected to a refinement of post-recurrence survival.

CONCLUSION

The integrated P3C-UCSF-AFP score not only compensated for the pre-LT unpredictability and predicted post-LT tumor recurrence accurately, but also guided the clinical refinements of post-LT surveillance and therapeutic strategies in transplant oncology.

Living-Donor Liver Transplant and Improved Post-Transplant Survival in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is the leading indication of liver transplantation (LT) among autoimmune liver disease patients. There is a scarcity of studies comparing survival outcomes between living-donor liver transplants (LDLT)s and deceased-donor liver transplants (DDLTs) in this population. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we compared 4679 DDLTs and 805 LDLTs. Our outcome of interest was post-LT patient survival and post-LT graft survival. A stepwise multivariate analysis was performed, adjusting for recipient age, gender, diabetes mellitus, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, cholangiocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, race, and the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score; donor' age and sex were also included to the analysis. According to univariate and multivariate analysis, LDLT had a patient and graft survival benefit compared to DDLT (HR, 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.92; p < 0.002). LDLT patient survival (95.2%, 92.6%, 90.1%, and 81.9%) and graft survival (94.1%, 91.1%, 88.5%, and 80.5%) at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years were significantly better than DDLT patient survival (93.2%, 87.6%, 83.3%, and 72.7%) and graft survival (92.1%, 86.5%, 82.1%, and 70.9%) (p < 0.001) in the same interval. Variables including donor and recipient age, male recipient gender, MELD score, diabetes mellitus, hepatocellular carcinoma, and cholangiocarcinoma were associated with mortality and graft failure in PSC patients. Interestingly, Asians were more protected than Whites (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35-0.99; p < 0.047), and cholangiocarcinoma was associated with the highest hazard of mortality (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.71-2.50; p < 0.001) in multivariate analysis. LDLT in PSC patients were associated with greater post-transplant patient and graft survival compared to DDLT patients.

Can living donor liver transplantation provide similar outcomes to deceased-donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A potential solution to the deceased organ shortage is to include live organ donations and to identify patients with lower rates of HCC recurrence to fairly allocate liver grafts. Our aims were to detect the long-term outcomes of LDLT versus DDLT for HCC and predictors of recurrence after transplantation.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies from inception to July 2021 and a systematic review and meta-analysis were done.

RESULTS

35 studies with a total of 7822 patients were included. The 1-, 3-, 4 year-OS showed trivial improvement for LDLT recipients. However, the two modalities had similar 5-, 6- and 10-year OS. A significant improvement in the ITT-OS was observed for LDLT recipients. Regarding the DFS and recurrence after transplantation, no significant difference was observed between LDLT and DDLT. In addition to that, the pooled hazard ratio of the included studies showed that Milan criteria, level of AFP, presence of vascular invasion, tumor differentiation were significant predictors of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The cancer biology (not the graft type) is the most important determinant of recurrence and survival after LT. However, LDLT provided much better survival benefits to HCC patients especially in regions that suffer from low deceased organ availability.

Low utilization of adult-to-adult LDLT in Western countries despite excellent outcomes: International multicenter analysis of the US, the UK, and Canada

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplant waitlist and reduce waitlist mortality. We sought to compare donor and recipient characteristics and post-transplant outcomes after LDLT in the US, the UK, and Canada.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort-study of adults (≥18-years) who underwent primary LDLT between Jan-2008 and Dec-2018 from three national liver transplantation registries: United Network for Organ Sharing (US), National Health Service Blood and Transplantation (UK), and the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry (Canada). Patients undergoing retransplantation or multi-organ transplantation were excluded. Post-transplant survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable adjustments were performed using Cox proportional-hazards models with mixed-effect modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 2,954 living donor liver transplants were performed (US: n = 2,328; Canada: n = 529; UK: n = 97). Canada has maintained the highest proportion of LDLT utilization over time (proportion of LDLT in 2008 - US: 3.3%; Canada: 19.5%; UK: 1.7%; p <0.001 - in 2018 - US: 5.0%; Canada: 13.6%; UK: 0.4%; p <0.001). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival was 92.6%, 82.8%, and 70.0% in the US vs. 96.1%, 89.9%, and 82.2% in Canada vs. 91.4%, 85.4%, and 66.7% in the UK. After adjustment for characteristics of donors, recipients, transplant year, and treating transplant center as a random effect, all countries had a non-statistically significantly different mortality hazard post-LDLT (Ref US: Canada hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01, p = 0.05; UK hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.59-2.02, p = 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of LDLT has remained low in the US, the UK and Canada. Despite this, long-term survival is excellent. Continued efforts to increase LDLT utilization in these countries may be warranted due to the growing waitlist and differences in allocation that may disadvantage patients currently awaiting liver transplantation.

LAY SUMMARY

This multicenter international comparative analysis of living donor liver transplantation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada demonstrates that despite low use of the procedure, the long-term outcomes are excellent. In addition, the mortality risk is not statistically significantly different between the evaluated countries. However, the incidence and risk of retransplantation differs between the countries, being the highest in the United Kingdom and lowest in the United States.

Prognostic Factors of Liver Transplantation for HCC: Comparative Literature Review

PURPOSE

The aim of the review study is investigation of the prognostic factors of the liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

A literature review has been made, especially in countries where dominantly living donor liver transplantation is performed, such as Turkey. Liver transplantation from deceased donor and from living donor has been evaluated about as advantages and disadvantages, and their effects on prognosis have been compared. In addition, hepatocellular carcinoma series of Koç University Liver Transplantation center has been presented.

RESULTS

Liver transplantation is still the best treatment option with 5-year 50% survival rate for hepatocellular carcinoma even in patient who has locally advanced tumor. The patient's survival is not only an important issue but also the living donor's safety is controversial particularly when expectation of recipient's 5-year survival is below 50% due to donor complication.

CONCLUSION

Detailed preoperative examination, appropriate patient selection, and timing of surgery are seen the most important issues in liver transplant's patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Evaluation of the Intention-to-Treat Benefit of Living Donation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Awaiting a Liver Transplant

Importance

Living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) offers advantages over deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) of improved intention-to-treat outcomes and management of the shortage of deceased-donor allografts. However, conflicting data still exist on the outcomes of LDLT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Objective

To investigate the potential survival benefit of an LDLT in patients with HCC from the time of waiting list inscription.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter cohort study with an intention-to-treat design analyzed the data of patients aged 18 years or older who had an HCC diagnosis and were on a waiting list for a first transplant. Patients from 12 collaborative centers in Europe, Asia, and the US who were on a transplant waiting list between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2017, composed the international cohort. The Toronto cohort comprised patients from 1 transplant center in Toronto, Ontario, Canada who were on a waiting list between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015. The international cohort centers performed either an LDLT or a DDLT, whereas the Toronto cohort center was selected for its capability to perform both LDLT and DDLT. The benefit of LDLT was tested in the 2 cohorts before and after undergoing an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. Data were analyzed from February 1 to May 31, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Intention-to-treat death was defined as a patient death that occurred for any reason and was calculated from the time of waiting list inscription for liver transplant to the last follow-up date (December 31, 2019). Four multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models for intention-to-treat death were created.

Results

A total of 3052 patients were analyzed in the international cohort, of whom 2447 were men (80.2%) and the median (IQR) age at first referral was 58 (53-63) years. The Toronto cohort comprised 906 patients, of whom 743 were men (82.0%) and the median (IQR) age at first referral was 59 (53-63) years. In all the settings, LDLT was an independent protective factor, reducing the risk of overall death by 49% in the pre-IPTW analysis for the international cohort (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P < .001), 33% in the post-IPTW analysis for the international cohort (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.85; P = .001), 43% in the pre-IPTW analysis for the Toronto cohort (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73; P < .001), and 48% in the post-IPTW analysis for the Toronto cohort (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .001). The discriminatory ability of the mathematical models further improved in all of the cases in which LDLT was incorporated.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that having a potential live donor could decrease the intention-to-treat risk of death in patients with HCC who are on a waiting list for a liver transplant. This benefit is associated with the elimination of the dropout risk and has been reported in centers in which both LDLT and DDLT options are equally available.

Glutathione S-transferase A2 promotes hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation through modulating reactive oxygen species metabolism

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation remains a significant clinical problem. Ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) occurred inevitably at the early phase after liver transplantation (LT) spawns a significant risk of HCC recurrence. However, their linkage and IRI-derived risk factors for HCC recurrence remain exclusive. Understanding the mechanism of post-transplantation hepatic injury could provide new strategies to prevent the later event of HCC recurrence. We demonstrated that glutathione S-transferase A2 (GSTA2) expression was significantly associated with early phase hepatic and systemic injury and ROS level after liver transplantation. Early phase circulating GSTA2 (_EPCGSTA2) protein was a significant predictor of HCC recurrence and survival. Heterogeneous single nucleotide polymorphism at G335C of GSTA2 was significantly associated with poor survival of HCC recipients. Enhancement of GSTA2 could protect HCC cells against H₂O₂-induced cell death by compensating for the elevated ROS stress. We also demonstrated that GSTA2 played crucial roles in regulating the ROS-associated JNK and AKT signaling pathways and ROS metabolism in HCCs in responding to a dynamic ROS environment. Functionally, endogenous or exogenous upregulation of GSTA2 could promote HCC growth and invasion through activating the epithelial–mesenchymal-transition process. Targeted inhibition of GSTA2 could suppress HCC growth and metastasis. In conclusion, GSTA2 could be a novel prognostic and therapeutic target to combat HCC recurrence after liver transplantation.

Cytomegalovirus Latency Exacerbated small-for-size Liver Graft Injury through Activation of CCL19/CCR7 in Hepatic Stellate Cells

BACKGROUND

The interplay between cytomegalovirus (CMV) latency and graft malfunction after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains poorly defined due to the complexity of clinical confounding factors. Here, we aimed to investigate the effects of CMV latency on small-for-size graft injury and to get further insight on the pathogenic role of hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) in this process.

METHODS

Rat orthotopic liver transplantation with small-for-size grafts was performed in a CMV latent model developed in immunocompetent Sprague Dawley (SD) rats using Priscott strain. Post-transplant graft injury including hepatocyte damage, stellate cell activation and fibrogenesis were evaluated. Differential gene expression of HSCs in response to CMV latency was screened by cDNA microarray. Clinical validation was further conducted in human biopsies.

RESULTS

CMV latency aggravated hepatocyte apoptosis/necrosis in the early phase, enhanced HSC expansion and graft fibrosis during the middle-late phase in small-for-size liver grafts of the rat model. cDNA microarray mining revealed CCL19/CCR7 as one of the most noteworthy pathways bridging HSC activation and liver graft injury in the presence of CMV latency. Together with CCL19 upregulation, coherent overexpression of CCR7 in accumulated HSCs was confirmed in both rat and human CMV latent recipients. Moreover, addition of CCL19 in vitro promoted HSC migration by increasing the level of matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP2).

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrated that CMV latency aggravated early/late phase liver graft damage and fibrogenesis via CCL19/CCR7/HSCs axis. Blockade of CMV latency-related stellate cell activation may shed light on the strategy of graft protection clinically.

Analysis of Survival Benefits of Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant in High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Hepatorenal Syndrome

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous recommendations suggested living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should not be considered for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) > 25 and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS).

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Patients who were listed with MELD > 25 from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT) basis retrospectively. Patients who had a potential live donor were analyzed as ITT-LDLT, whereas those who had none belonged to ITT-deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group. ITT-overall survival (OS) was analyzed from the time of listing. Three hundred twenty-five patients were listed (ITT-LDLT n = 212, ITT-DDLT n = 113). The risk of delist/death was lower in the ITT-LDLT group (43.4% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.001), whereas the transplant rate was higher in the ITT-LDLT group (78.3% vs. 52.2%, P < 0.001). The 5-year ITT-OS was superior in the ITT-LDLT group (72.6% vs. 49.5%, P < 0.001) for patients with MELD > 25 and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (56% vs. 33.8%, P < 0.001). Waitlist mortality was the highest early after listing, and the distinct alteration of slope at survival curve showed that the benefits of ITT-LDLT occurred within the first month after listing. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year patient survival were comparable for patients with MELD > 25 (88% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.279) and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (77% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.701) after LDLT and DDLT, respectively. The LDLT group has a higher rate of renal recovery by 1 month (77.4% vs. 59.1%, P = 0.003) and 3 months (86.1% vs, 74.5%, P = 0.029), whereas the long-term estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the 2 groups. ITT-LDLT reduced the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.387-0.552) across all MELD strata.

CONCLUSIONS

The ITT-LDLT reduced waitlist mortality and allowed an earlier access to transplant. LDLT in patients with high MELD/HRS was feasible, and they had similar perioperative outcomes and better renal recovery, whereas the long-term survival and eGFR were comparable with DDLT. LDLT should be considered for patients with high MELD/HRS, and the application of LDLT should not be restricted with a MELD cutoff.

Liver transplantation: would it be the best and last chance of cure for hepatocellular carcinoma with major venous invasion?

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumour thrombus (PVTT) signifies advanced disease, whether LT confers any survival superiority over resection remains uncertain.

Methods

A propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of liver transplantation (LT) and liver resection (LR) for HCC with PVTT was performed.

Results

A consecutive series of 88 patients who received either LT (10 DDLTs and 3 LDLTs) or LR (n=75) respectively were recruited. Before PSM, the LT group has a higher MELD score (17.3 vs. 7.8, P<0.001), lower serum AFP levels (96 vs. 2,164 ng/mL, P=0.017) and smaller tumour size (4 vs. 10 cm, P<0.001). The 5-year overall survival for LT and LR were 55.4% and 15.9% respectively (P=0.007). After matching for serum AFP levels and tumour size, 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival for LT were 81 ng/mL, 3.9 cm, 80%, 70% and 70% and the corresponding rates for LR were 1,417 ng/mL, 5.3 cm, 51.8%, 19,6% and 9.8% (P value =0.12, 0.27 and 0.009 respectively).

Conclusions

LT is associated with significantly better oncological outcomes in HCC patients with PVTT involving the lobar or segmental level. A modest expansion of selection criteria to include small HCC with segmental PVTT should be considered.

Monocytic MDSC mobilization promotes tumor recurrence after liver transplantation via CXCL10/TLR4/MMP14 signaling

Tumor recurrence is the major obstacle for pushing the envelope of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. The inflammatory cascades activated by acute liver graft injury promote tumor recurrence. We aimed to explore the role and mechanism of myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) mobilization induced by liver graft injury on tumor recurrence. By analyzing 331 HCC patients who received liver transplantation, the patients with graft weight ratio (GWR, the weight of liver graft divided by the estimated standard liver weight of recipient) <60% had higher tumor recurrence than GWR ≥60% ones. MDSCs and CXCL10/TLR4 levels were significantly increased in patients with GWR <60% or tumor recurrence. These findings were further validated in our rat orthotopic liver transplantation model. In CXCL10^−/− and TLR4^−/− mice of hepatic ischemia/reperfusion injury plus major hepatectomy (IRH) model, monocytic MDSCs, instead of granulocytic MDSCs, were significantly decreased. Importantly, CXCL10 deficiency reduced the accumulation of TLR4⁺ monocytic MDSCs, and CXCL10 increased MDSC mobilization in the presence of TLR4. Moreover, MMP14 was identified as the key molecule bridging CXCL10/TLR4 signaling and MDSC mobilization. Knockout or inhibition of CXCL10/TLR4 signaling significantly reduced the tumor growth with decreased monocytic MDSCs and MMP14 in the mouse tumor recurrent model. Our data indicated that monocytic MDSCs were mobilized and recruited to liver graft during acute phase injury, and to promote HCC recurrence after transplantation. Targeting MDSC mobilization via CXCL10/TLR4/MMP14 signaling may represent the therapeutic potential in decreasing post-transplant liver tumor recurrence.

The Timing of Liver Transplantation Following Downstaging: Wait of Not to Wait?

PURPOSE

HCC is a complex disease that is diagnosed in advanced stage and on the background of cirrhosis. Locoregional therapies provide sufficient downstaging to enable patients suitable for radical procedures such liver transplantation. However, the interval between locoregional therapies and definitive therapy is still controversial. We performed a review of literature to evaluate the role of waiting period between locoregional therapies and liver transplantation or resection from the perspective of cure and recurrence rates.

METHODS

Thorough literature search was performed to evaluate the role of locoregional therapy and the interval to definitive therapies for the treatment of hepatocellular cancer.

RESULTS

Usually, small tumors with lower tumor burden, in other words, tumors within Milan criteria, can be transplanted with an acceptable overall and disease-free survival. However, treating patients with locally advanced tumors is currently a matter of extensive research. Currently, locoregional therapies are applied to downstage the patients. However, the duration of waiting is a crucial point that needs further research. There is a consensus that the waiting interval between down-staging and transplantation should be no less than 3 months. This is important for selection of favorable tumor biology as well as from the point of antitumor immune response.

CONCLUSION

Currently, there are no surrogate markers for surveillance of response to locoregional therapies as well as the antitumor immune response that develops as a result of down-staging.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation: The Optimal Curative Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Even Beyond Milan Criteria

Introduction:

Liver transplantation offers the most reasonable expectation for curative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Living-donor liver transplantation represents a treatment option, even in patients with extended Milan criteria. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients, particularly those extended Milan criteria.

Materials and Patients:

All HCC patients who received liver transplant for HCC were included in this retrospective study. Clinical characteristics including perioperative data and survival data (graft and patient) were extracted from records. Univariate and multivariate analyses was performed to identify significant prognostic factors for survival, postoperative complications and recurrence.

Results:

Two-hundred and two patients were included. The median age was 54.8 years (IQR 53-61). Fifty-one patients (25.3%) underwent deceased donors liver transplantation and 151 patients (74.7%) underwent living donor liver transplantation. Perioperative mortality rate was 5.9% (12 patients). Recurrent disease occurred in 43 patients (21.2%). The overall 1-year and 5-year survival rates were 90.7% and 75.6%, respectively. Significant differences between patients beyond Milan criteria compared to those within Milan criteria were not found. Alpha-fetoprotein level >300 ng/mL, vascular invasion, and bilobar tumor lesions were independent negative prognostic factors for survival.

Conclusion:

Liver transplantation is the preferred treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma and it has demonstrated an excellent potential to cure even in patients with beyond Milan criteria. This study shows that the Milan criteria alone are not sufficient to predict survival after transplantation. The independent parameters for survival prediction are Alpha-Fetoprotein-value and status of vascular invasion.

Comparison between Milan and UCSF criteria for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Liver transplantation is the main treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, because of the limited supply of transplant organs, it is necessary to adopt a criterion that selects patients who will achieve adequate survival after transplantation. The aim of this review is to compare the two main staging criteria of HCC for the indication of liver transplantation (Milan and UCSF) and to analyze the post-transplantation survival rate at 1, 3 and 5 years.

Methods

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis in which scientific articles from 5 databases (PubMed, Lilacs, Embase, Central, and Cinahl) were analyzed. The studies included in the review consisted of liver transplantation in patients with HCC in different subgroups according to donor type (deceased × living), population (eastern × western) and tumor evaluation (radiological × pathological) and adopted the Milan or UCSF criteria for the indication of the procedure.

Results

There was no significant difference between the Milan and UCSF criteria in the overall survival rate at 1, 3 or 5 years, and the overall estimated value found was 1.03 [0.90, 1.17] at 1 year, 1.06 [0.96, 1.16] at 3 years and 1.04 [0.96, 1.12] at 5 years. Regarding the analysis of the subgroups, no significant difference was observed in any of the subgroups with a follow-up of 1, 3 or 5 years.

Conclusions

Both the Milan and UCSF criteria have equivalent survival rate. Thus, less restrictive method would not result in a great loss in the final overall survival rate and would benefit a greater number of patients.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within or Beyond the Milan Criteria: Comparable Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) vs deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain controversial. We compared the long-term outcomes between LDLT and DDLT in patients with HCCs within or beyond the Milan criteria.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 896 patients who underwent liver transplantation (829 LDLTs and 67 DDLTs) for HCC from June 2005 to May 2015. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test.

RESULTS

RFS at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after LDLT was 89.6%, 84.6%, 82.4%, and 79.6%, respectively, and, after DDLT, was 92.4%, 86.2%, 82.4%, and 82.4%, respectively, and OS at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after LDLT was 96.1%, 88.1%, 85.6%, and 82.7%, respectively, and, after DDLT, was 97.0%, 83.6%, 82.1%, and 77.3%, respectively, with no significant differences in RFS (P = .838) or OS (P = .293) between groups. No statistically significant differences after LDLT or DDLT were identified in RFS (89.8% vs 98.1%, respectively, at 5 years; P = .053) or OS (90.4% vs 90.6% , respectively, at 5 years; P = .583) for HCCs meeting the Milan criteria as well as for those beyond the Milan criteria (RFS, 37.8% vs 28.6%, respectively, at 5 years; P = .560 and OS, 57.3% vs 50.0%, respectively, at 5 years; P = .743).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent LDLT for HCCs showed comparable long-term outcomes to patients who underwent DDLT. Patients with HCCs within the Milan criteria demonstrated acceptable long-term outcomes after both LDLT and DDLT.

New advances in the diagnosis and management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the leading causes of cancer related death in the world. Biannual surveillance for the disease in patients with cirrhosis and in high risk carriers of hepatitis B virus allows early stage cancer detection and treatment with good long term outcomes. Liver ultrasonography and serum α fetoprotein are the most commonly used surveillance tests. If suspicious results are found on the surveillance test, multiphasic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging should be undertaken to confirm the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. If radiologic tests show inconclusive results, liver biopsy or repeat imaging could be considered for confirmation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Management of the disease is complex. Patients should be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team, and the selection of treatment should consider factors such as tumor burden, severity of liver dysfunction, medical comorbidities, local expertise, and preference of patients. Early stage hepatocellular carcinoma is best managed by curative treatment, which includes resection, ablation, or transplantation. Patients with intermediate stage disease often receive locoregional treatment. Systemic treatment is reserved for patients with advanced disease. Several positive, phase III, randomized controlled trials have expanded the systemic treatment options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with promising long term outcomes, especially trials using combination treatments, which could also have eventual implications for the treatment of earlier stage disease.

Predictors of outcome after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond Milan criteria

The Milan criteria have been the cornerstone of selection policies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting liver transplantation (LT) globally for over two decades. Many groups have proposed the transplantation of patients with larger and more numerous tumors achieving comparable results. Many of these use radiologic morphometric criteria as surrogates for explant pathology to predict outcomes. Several other indices have been developed both within and beyond Milan incorporating biological indices as well as dynamic markers of response to pre-transplant locoregional treatments and waiting time. These have allowed for successful expansion of transplant selection criteria without compromising outcomes with limited organ supplies. In this review we will discuss the predictors of outcome in patients beyond Milan criteria.

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence in living and deceased donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background:

Although a number of technical problems and donor safety issues associated with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have been resolved, some initial clinical studies showed an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in LDLT. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess differences in tumor recurrence between LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).

Methods:

After systematic retrievals of studies about LDLT and DDLT for HCC, articles were selected with a rationale of emphasizing inter-group comparability. Results from multivariate analyses were combined and discussed together with univariate analyses. In subgroup analysis, the impact of organ allocation policy was taken into consideration.

Results:

Seven articles were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, a salient result that emerged from the seven studies was a significant increased risk of HCC recurrence in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group (P = 0.01). The most significant increase in hazard ratio was found in studies where organs tended to be allocated to non-tumor patients.

Conclusions:

An increased risk for HCC recurrence in LDLT as compared with DDLT patients was found. The relatively shorter preoperative observation windows in LDLT may lead to fewer cases of HCC with invasive features being screened out, which may provide a possible explanation for the high rates of HCC recurrence.

Effect of Institutional Case Volume on In-hospital Mortality After Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Analysis of 7073 Cases Between 2007 and 2016 in Korea

BACKGROUND

The relationship between institutional case volume and clinical outcomes after living donor liver transplantation is not clarified.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study using the database of Korean National Healthcare Insurance Service. Between January 2007 and December 2016, 7073 adult living donor liver transplantations were performed at 50 centers in Korea. Centers were categorized according to the average annual number of liver transplantations: >50, 10 to 50, and <10.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality rates in the high-, medium-, and low-volume centers were 2.8%, 4.1%, and 6.7%, respectively. After adjustment, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in low-volume centers (adjusted odds ratio, 2.287; 95% confidence interval, 1.471-3.557; P < 0.001) and medium-volume centers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.676; 95% confidence interval, 1.089-2.578; P = 0.019) compared with high-volume centers. Long-term survival for up to 9 years was better, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were shorter in high-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Centers with higher case volume (>50 liver transplantations/year) had better outcomes after living donor liver transplantation, including in-hospital mortality and long-term mortality compared with centers with lower case volume (≤50 liver transplantations/year).

Incidence of Occult Intrahepatic Metastasis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Transplantation Corresponds to Early Recurrence Rates After Partial Hepatectomy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the incidence of radiologically unrecognized (occult) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) lesions in explant hepatectomy specimens from orthotopic liver transplants (OLTs) performed for HCC with rates of HCC intrahepatic recurrence after resection.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Resection of HCC is associated with high rates of intrahepatic HCC recurrence. However, it is unclear whether these recurrences represent incomplete resection of unrecognized metastatic lesions from the primary tumor or subsequent de novo tumor formation due to inherent biological proclivity for HCC formation.

METHODS

We collected patient, tumor, and pathology data on HCC patients treated surgically from 3696 OLTs in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation (OPTN) national database, 299 OLTs at a single transplant center, and 232 partial hepatectomies from a hepatobiliary cancer center.

RESULTS

In the OPTN and high-volume transplant center cohorts, 37% and 42% of patients had occult HCC lesions on explant pathology, respectively. Among cancer center patients, the 2-year recurrence rate was 46%, and 74% of patients who recurred presented with liver only recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Although the transplant and resection populations differ, occult multifocality is common in transplant explants and similar to the 46% early recurrence rate following partial hepatectomy. These data suggest that noncurative resection often results from occult intrahepatic multifocality present at the time of resection rather than a malignant predisposition of the remnant liver with de novo tumorigenesis.

Liver transplantation using hepatitis B core positive grafts with antiviral monotherapy prophylaxis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The impact of hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive liver grafts on survival and the risk of de novo hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection after liver transplantation (LT) remain controversial. Therefore, we aimed to analyze this risk and the associated outcomes in a large cohort of patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study that included all adults who underwent LT at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, between 2000 and 2015. Data were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. Antiviral monotherapy prophylaxis was given for patients receiving grafts from anti-HBc positive donors.

RESULTS

A total of 964 LTs were performed during the study period, with 416 (43.2%) anti-HBc positive and 548 (56.8%) anti-HBc negative donors. The median follow-up time was 7.8 years. Perioperative outcomes (hospital mortality, complications, primary nonfunction and delayed graft function) were similar between the 2 groups. The 1-, 5- and 10-year graft survival rates were comparable in anti-HBc positive (93.3%, 85.3% and 76.8%) and anti-HBc negative groups (92.5%, 82.9% and 78.4%, p = 0.944). The 1-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates in anti-HBc positive group were 94.2%, 87% and 79% and were similar to the anti-HBc negative group (93.5%, 84% and 79.7%, p = 0.712). One-hundred and eight HBsAg negative recipients received anti-HBc positive grafts, of whom 64 received lamivudine and 44 entecavir monotherapy prophylaxis. The risk of de novo HBV was 3/108 (2.8%) and all occurred in the lamivudine era. There were 659 HBsAg-positive patients and 308 (46.7%) received anti-HBc positive grafts. The risk of HBV recurrence was similar between the 2 groups. Donor anti-HBc status did not impact on long-term patient and graft survival, or the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after LT.

CONCLUSIONS

De novo HBV was exceedingly rare especially with entecavir prophylaxis. Anti-HBc positive grafts did not impact on perioperative and long-term outcomes after transplant.

LAY SUMMARY

The risk of de novo hepatitis B infection after liver transplantation was rare when using hepatitis B core positive liver grafts with entecavir monotherapy prophylaxis. Hepatitis B core antibody status did not impact on perioperative and long-term outcomes after liver transplantation. This provides support for the clinical use of hepatitis B core positive liver grafts when required.

From a Philosophical Framework to a Valid Prognostic Staging System of the New "Comprehensive Assessment" for Transplantable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The comprehensive assessment of the transplantable tumor (TT) proposed and included in the last Italian consensus meeting still deserve validation. All consecutive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplant (LT) between January 2005 and December 2015 were post-hoc classified by the tumor/patient stage as assessed at the last re-staging-time (ReS-time) before LT as follow: high-risk-class (HRC) = stages TT_DR, TT_PR; intermediate-risk-class (IRC) = TT0_NT, TT_FR, TT_UT; low-risk-class (LRC) = TT1, TT0_L, TT0_C. Of 376 candidates, 330 received LT and 46 dropped-out. Transplanted patients were: HRC for 159 (48.2%); IRC for 63 (19.0%); LRC for 108 (32.7%). Cumulative incidence function (CIF) of tumor recurrence after LT was 21%, 12%, and 8% at 5-years and 27%, 15%, and 12% at 10-years respectively for HRC, IRC, and LRC (P = 0.011). IRC patients had significantly lower CIF of recurrence after LT if transplanted >2-months from ReS-time (28% vs. 3% for <2 and >2 months, P = 0.031). HRC patients had significantly lower CIF of recurrence after-LT if transplanted <2 months from the ReS-time (10% vs. 33% for <2 and >2 months, P = 0.006). The proposed TT staging system can adequately describe the post-LT recurrence, especially in the LRC and HRC patients. The intermediate-risk-class needs to be better defined and further studies on its ability in defining intention-to-treat survival (ITT) and drop-out are required.

Transplantation versus liver resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common solid cancers in the world. Its treatment strategies have evolved significantly over the past few decades but the best treatment outcomes remain in the surgical arena. Especially for early HCCs, the options are abundant. However, surgical resection and liver transplantation provide the best long-term survival. In addition, there are evidence the ablative therapy such as radiofrequency ablation, could provide equivalent outcome as compared to resection. However, HCC is a unique malignancy as the majority of patients develop this cancer in the background of cirrhotic livers. As such, the treatment consideration should not only look at the oncological perspective but also the functional status of the liver parenchyma, i.e., the state of cirrhosis and presence of portal hypertension. Even with the most widely adopted staging systems for HCC such as the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system and many other staging systems, none of them are ideal in including the various considerations for patients with HCCs. In this article, the key issues between choosing surgical resection and liver transplantation are discussed. A comprehensive review of the current surgical options are outlined in order to explore the pros and cons of each option.

Hepatitis B and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after living donor liver transplantation: The role of the Milan criteria

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Milan criteria on the hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation due to HBV-induced cirrhosis and HCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated a total of 142 patients, 88 who underwent transplantation due to HBV-induced cirrhosis and 54 due to HCC, between 2009 and 2014. In the posttranplant period, after the HBsAg seroconversion, 400 IU of hepatitis B immunoglobulin were applied intramuscularly every 2 weeks, and daily nucleos(t)ide analogs were continued as prophylaxis. The HBV recurrence was defined as the presence of HBsAg in serum. Patients were screened for alpha-fetoprotein levels and imaging for evaluation of HCC recurrence.

RESULTS

The average follow-up period was 26 (2-65) months. Fifty-four patients had HCC. The HCC recurrence was observed in 12 patients during the follow-up period. The HBV recurrence was observed in four patients. Three of the patients who developed HBV recurrence had liver transplantation due to HCC. Tumor recurrence was observed 1.4-12 months following the HBV recurrence. The HCC recurrence within the Milan criteria and beyond the Milan criteria was 0% vs. 28.4 % in the first year and 3.4% vs. 47.5% in the third year. The cumulative incidence of the HBV recurrence was 2.8% and 3.7% for the first year and 3.7% for the third year. The HBV recurrence was more frequently detected in patients with HCC (p=0.048), especially with HCC beyond the Milan criteria (p=0.044).

CONCLUSION

The HBV recurrence should be evaluated as a predictor of the HCC recurrence in patients who underwent liver transplantation due to HCC with exceeding Milan criteria.

Living Donation Versus Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation for Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Recipients

In this era of organ scarcity, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to using deceased donors, and in Western countries, it is more often used for recipients with low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. We sought to compare the patient survival and graft survival between recipients of liver transplantation from living donors and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors in patients with low MELD scores. This is a retrospective cohort analysis of adult liver transplant recipients with a laboratory MELD of ≤20 who underwent transplantation between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2016. Recipients were categorized by donor graft type (DCD or LDLT), and recipient and donor characteristics were compared. Ten-year patient and graft survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses, and a mixed-effects model was performed to determine the contributions of recipient, donor, and center variables on patient and graft survival. There were 36,705 liver transplants performed: 32,255 (87.9%) from DBD donors, 2166 (5.9%) from DCD donors, and 2284 (6.2%) from living donors. In the mixed-effects model, DCD status was associated with a higher risk of graft failure (relative risk [RR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.38) but not worse patient survival (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.96-1.67). Lower DCD center experience was associated with a 1.21 higher risk of patient death (95% CI, 1.17-1.25) and a 1.13 higher risk of graft failure (95% CI, 1.12-1.15). LDLT center experience was also predictive of patient survival (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03) and graft failure (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.05-1.06). In conclusion, for liver transplant recipients with low laboratory MELD, LDLT offers better graft survival and a tendency to better patient survival than DCD donors.

Live donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma offers increased survival vs. deceased donation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are conflicting reports on the outcomes after live donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the survival of patients with HCC, with a potential live donor (pLDLT) at listing vs. no potential donor (pDDLT), on an intention-to-treat basis.

METHODS

All patients with HCC listed for liver transplantation between 2000-2015 were included. The pLDLT group was comprised of recipients with a potential live donor identified at listing. Patients without a live donor were included in the pDDLT group. Survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression was applied to identify potential predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 219 patients were included in the pLDLT group and 632 patients in the pDDLT group. In the pLDLT group, 57 patients (26%) were beyond the UCSF criteria whereas 119 patients (19%) in the pDDLT group were beyond (p = 0.02). Time on the waiting list was shorter for the pLDLT than the pDDLT group (4.8 [2.9-8.5] months vs. 6.2 [3.0-12.0] months, respectively, p = 0.02). The dropout rate was 32/219 (14.6%) in the pLDLT and 174/632 (27.5%) in the pDDLT group, p <0.001. The 1-, 3- and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were 86%, 72% and 68% in the pLDLT vs. 82%, 63% and 57% in the pDDLT group, p = 0.02. Having a potential live donor was a protective factor for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.53-0.86). Waiting times of 9-12 months (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.31) and ≥12 months (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.23-2.32) were predictors of death.

CONCLUSION

Having a potential live donor at listing was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of death in patients with HCC in this intention-to-treat analysis. This benefit is related to a lower dropout rate and a shorter waiting period.

LAY SUMMARY

Liver transplantation (LT) offers the best chance of survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and can be performed using grafts from deceased donors or live donors. In this work, we aimed to assess the differences in survival after live donor LT when compared to deceased donor LT. We studied 219 patients listed for live donor LT and 632 patients listed for deceased donor LT. Patients who had a potential live donor at the time of listing had a higher survival rate. Therefore, being listed for a live donor LT was a protective factor against death.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Asian Perspective

Despite advancements in early diagnosis and medico-surgical treatment, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still a major cancer that causes substantial mortality in Asian countries. Liver transplantation (LT) has been accepted worldwide as the most effective treatment modality for patients with HCC; however, with the high incidence of HCC and low organ donation rate, Asia has developed distinctive features of indications and strategies for the application of LT. Unlike Western countries, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) accounts for most LT cases for HCC in Asian countries, and most major transplantation centers perform LDLT for HCC patients with extended criteria. This article reviewed the current practice and outcome of LDLT for HCC from an Asian perspective and summarized the strategies that the high-volume LT centers in Asia use to obtain satisfactory oncologic results.

Living or deceased organ donors in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC patients were not well defined and it was necessary to reassess.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and WanFang database for eligible studies. Perioperative and survival outcomes of HCC patients underwent LDLT were pooled and compared to those underwent DDLT.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies with 5376 HCC patients were included. For HCC patients underwent LDLT and DDLT, there were comparable rates of overall survival (OS) (1-year, RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 1.00-1.09, P = 0.03; 3-year, RR = 1.03, 95%CI = 0.96-1.11, P = 0.39; 5-year, RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 0.95-1.13, P = 0.43), disease free survival (DFS) (1-year, RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.95-1.05, P = 0.99; 3-year, RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.94-1.08, P = 0.89; 5-year, RR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.93-1.09, P = 0.85), recurrence (1-year, RR = 1.41, 95%CI = 0.72-2.77, P = 0.32; 3-year, RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.57-1.39, P = 0.60; and 5-year, RR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.56-1.31, P = 0.47), perioperative mortality within 3 months (RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.50-1.59, p = 0.70) and postoperative complication (RR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.70-1.39, P = 0.94). LDLT was associated with better 5-year intention-to-treat patient survival (ITT-OS) than DDLT (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.01-1.22, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that LDLT was not inferior to DDLT in consideration of comparable perioperative and survival outcomes. However, in terms of 5-year ITT-OS, LDLT was a possibly better choice for HCC patients.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatitis B Virus-related Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Hong Kong

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Curative resection is frequently limited in Hong Kong by hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis, and liver transplantation is the treatment of choice. Liver transplantation has been shown to produce superior oncological benefits, when compared to hepatectomy for HCC. New developments in the context of patient selection criteria, modification of organ allocation, bridging therapy, salvage liver transplantation and pharmaceutical breakthrough have improved the survival of HCC patients. In this article, we will share our experience in transplanting hepatitis B virus-related HCC patients in Hong Kong and discuss the recent progress in several areas of liver transplantation.

Long-term survival comparison between primary transplant and upfront curative treatment with salvage transplant for early stage hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Whether primary liver transplantation (PLT) or upfront curative treatment with salvage liver transplantation (SLT) is a better treatment option for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial. This study aims to compare the long-term survival starting from the time of primary treatment between the two approaches for early HCC using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

From 1995 to 2014, 175 patients with early HCC undergoing either PLT (n = 149) or SLT (n = 26) were retrospectively reviewed in a prospectively collected database. Patients' demographic data, tumor characteristics, short-term and long-term outcome were compared between two groups after PSM.

RESULTS

After matching, the baseline characteristics were comparable between mPLT group (n = 45) and mSLT group (n = 25). The tumor recurrence rate after transplant was significantly higher in mSLT group than mPLT group (28% vs. 15.6%). Calculating from the time of primary treatment, the 1, 3, and 5-year overall survival rates were comparable between mPLT group (97.8%, 91.1% and 86.3%) and mSLT group (100%, 95% and 85%). However, the 1, 3, and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were significantly better in mPLT group than mSLT group (95.6% vs. 90%, 86.6% vs. 80% and 84.3% vs. 70%). SLT approach and high pre-treatment serum alpha-fetoprotein level (>200 ηg/mL) were poor prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival after transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

PLT may be a better treatment option for early HCC, whereas SLT approach for HCC should be cautiously considered under the circumstance of organ shortage.

Surgical Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of cancer-related death worldwide. In select patients, surgical treatment in the form of either resection or transplantation offers a curative option. The aims of this review are to (1) review the current American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/European Association for the Study of the Liver guidelines on the surgical management of HCC and (2) review the proposed changes to these guidelines and analyze the strength of evidence underlying these proposals. Three authors identified the most relevant publications in the literature on liver resection and transplantation for HCC and analyzed the strength of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification. In the United States, the liver allocation system provides priority for liver transplantation to patients with HCC within the Milan criteria. Current evidence suggests that liver transplantation may also be indicated in certain patient groups beyond Milan criteria, such as pediatric patients with large tumor burden or adult patients who are successfully downstaged. Patients with no underlying liver disease may also benefit from liver transplantation if the HCC is unresectable. In patients with no or minimal (compensated) liver disease and solitary HCC ≥2 cm, liver resection is warranted. If liver transplantation is not available or contraindicated, liver resection can be offered to patients with multinodular HCC, provided that the underlying liver disease is not decompensated. Many patients may benefit from surgical strategies adapted to local resources and policies (hepatitis B prevalence, organ availability, etc). Although current low-quality evidence shows better overall survival with aggressive surgical strategies, this approach is limited to select patients. Larger and well-designed prospective studies are needed to better define the benefits and limits of such approach.

Bridging therapies to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A bridge to nowhere?

Backgrounds/Aims

Liver Transplantation (LT) is a recognized treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). The role of Bridging Therapies (BT) remains controversial.

Methods

From January 2001 to October 2012, 192 patients were referred to the National University Hospital, Singapore for consideration of LT for HCC. Sixty-five patients (33.8%) were found suitable for transplant and were placed on the waitlist. Analysis was performed in these patients.

Results

The most common etiology of HCC was Hepatitis B (n=28, 43.1%). Thirty-six patients (55.4%) received BT. Seventeen patients (47.2%) received TACE only, while 10 patients (27.8%) received radiofrequency ablation (RFA) only. The remaining patients received a combination of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and RFA. Baseline tumor and patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The overall dropout rate was 44.4% and 31.0% in the BT and non-BT groups, respectively (p=0.269). The dropout rate due to disease progression beyond criteria was 6.9% (n=2) in the non-bridged group and 22.2% (n=8) in the bridged group (p=0.089). Thirty-nine patients (60%) underwent LT, of which all patients who underwent Living Donor LT did not receive BT (n=4, 21.1%, p=0.030). The median time to LT was 180 days (range, 20–558 days) in the non-BT group and 291 days (range, 17–844 days) in the BT group (p=0.214). There was no difference in survival or recurrence between the BT and non-BT groups (p=0.862).

Conclusions

BT does not influence the dropout rate or survival after LT but it should be considered in patients who are on the waitlist for more than 6 months.

Small-for-size grafts increase recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma in liver transplantation beyond milan criteria

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been reported to have high rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence compared with deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). This has been assumed to be due to the frequent use of small-for-size grafts (SFSGs) in LDLT rather than DDLT, but the relationship between graft size and prognosis remains controversial. This study aimed to clarify the effect of SFSGs on the oncologic outcomes of patients with HCC who underwent LDLT. Between January 2005 and December 2015, 597 consecutive patients underwent LDLT. Among these patients, those with HCC who underwent LDLT were randomly matched at a 1:3 ratio (graft-to-recipient body weight ratio [GRWR] < 0.8%:GRWR > 0.8%) according to propensity score. HCC recurrence and patient survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. In addition, stratified subgroup analysis based on the Milan criteria was performed. SFSG was defined as a GRWR < 0.8%. Using propensity score matching, 82 patients with GRWR < 0.8% and 246 patients with GRWR ≥ 0.8% were selected. For patients with HCC within the Milan criteria, no significant difference of HCC recurrence (P = 0.82) and patient survival (P = 0.95) was found based on GRWR. However, for patients with HCC beyond the Milan criteria, 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 52.4%, 49.3%, and 49.3%, respectively, for patients with GRWR < 0.8%, and 76.5%, 68.3%, and 64.3%, respectively, for patients with GRWR ≥ 0.8% (P = 0.049). The former group exhibited poor patient survival rates (P = 0.047). In conclusion, for patients with HCC within the Milan criteria, no significant difference in oncologic outcomes was found based on liver graft size. However, among the patients with HCC beyond the Milan criteria, SFSG recipients showed poor oncologic outcomes. Because extended criteria are frequently used in LDLT for HCC, a recipient's prognosis can be improved if a liver graft of appropriate size is carefully selected during donor selection. Liver Transplantation 24 35-43 2018 AASLD.

Early-phase circulating miRNAs predict tumor recurrence and survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients after liver transplantation

Post-liver transplantation tumor recurrence is a major challenge for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recipients. We aimed to identify early-phase circulating microRNAs after liver transplantation for predicting tumor recurrence and survival of HCC recipients. Circulating microRNA profiles at early-phase (2-hour after portal vein reperfusion) after liver transplantation were compared between HCC recipients with (n=4) and without tumor recurrence (n=8) by microarray analyses. Candidate microRNAs were validated in 62 HCC recipients by quantitative RT-PCR. The prognostic values of microRNAs for tumor recurrence and survival were examined. Simulated in vitro ischemia-reperfusion injury models were employed to characterize the possible mechanism of up-regulation of circulating microRNAs. Our results showed that up-regulation of circulating miR-148a, miR-1246 or miR-1290 at early-phase was significantly associated with HCC recurrence after liver transplantation. Among them, miR-148a (p=0.030) and miR-1246 (p=0.009) were significant predictors of HCC recurrence. MiR-1246 was an independent predictor of overall (p=0.023) and disease-free survival (p=0.020) of HCC recipients. The level of early-phase circulating miR-1246 was positively correlated with serum AST and ALT levels in HCC recipients after liver transplantation. The expression of hepatic miR-1246 was positively correlated with TNFα mRNA. In vitro experiments indicated that injury-induced activation and differentiation of macrophages significantly elevated the expression and secretion of miR-1246. In conclusion, early-phase circulating miR-1246 is an indicator of hepatic injury and a novel prognostic biomarker for tumor recurrence and survival of HCC recipients after liver transplantation.

The Impact of Liver Graft Injury on Cancer Recurrence Posttransplantation

Liver transplantation is the most effective treatment for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. However, cancer recurrence, posttransplantation, remains to be the critical issue that affects the long-term outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma recipients. In addition to tumor biology itself, increasing evidence demonstrates that acute-phase liver graft injury is a result of hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury (which is an inevitable consequence during liver transplantation) and may promote cancer recurrence at late phase posttransplantation. The liver grafts from living donors, donors after cardiac death, and steatotic donors have been considered as promising sources of organs for liver transplantation and are associated with high incidence of liver graft injury. The acute-phase liver graft injury will trigger a series of inflammatory cascades, which may not only activate the cell signaling pathways regulating the tumor cell invasion and migration but also mobilize the circulating progenitor and immune cells to facilitate tumor recurrence and metastasis. The injured liver graft may also provide the favorable microenvironment for tumor cell growth, migration, and invasion through the disturbance of microcirculatory barrier function, induction of hypoxia and angiogenesis. This review aims to summarize the latest findings about the role and mechanisms of liver graft injury resulted from hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury on tumor recurrence posttransplantation, both in clinical and animal cohorts.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: an (almost) exclusive Eastern procedure?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most prevalent cancer and it is linked with chronic liver disease. Liver transplantation (LT) is the best curative treatment modality, since it can cure simultaneously the underlying liver disease and HCC. Milan criteria (MC) are the benchmark for selecting patients with HCC for LT, achieving up to 91% 1-year survival post transplantation. However, when considering intention-to-treat (ITT) rates are substantially lower, mainly due dropout. Additionally, Milan criteria (MC) are too restrictive and more inclusive criteria have been reported with good outcomes. Mainly, in Eastern countries, deceased donors are scarce, therefore Asian centers have developed living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) to a state-of-art status. There are many eastern centers reporting huge numbers of LDLT with outstanding results. Regarding HCC patients, they have reported many criteria including more advanced tumors achieving reasonable outcomes. Western countries have well-established deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) programs. However, organ shortage and restrictive criteria for listing patients with HCC endorses LDLT as a good option to offer curative treatment to more HCC patients. However, there are some controversial reports claiming higher rates of HCC recurrence after LDLT than DDLT. An extensive review included 30 studies with cohorts of HCC patients who underwent LDLT in both East and West countries. We reported also the results of our Institution, in Brazil, where it was performed the first LDLT. This review also addresses the eligibility criteria for transplanting patients with HCC developed in Western and Eastern countries.

The International Liver Transplantation Society Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipient Guideline

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasingly embraced around the world as an important strategy to address the shortage of deceased donor livers. The aim of this guideline, approved by the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS), is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT. Recommendations were developed from an analysis of the National Library of Medicine living donor transplantation indexed literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Writing was guided by the ILTS Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines (www.ilts.org). Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations support specific approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care of living donor liver transplant recipients.

Compared to cadaveric liver transplantation, live donor LT (LDLT) is challenged by ethical, medical and surgical considerations, many of which are still unresolved. The aim of this guideline is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT.