Salvage living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after hepatectomy: Quantitative prediction using ADV score

Early identification of hepatocellular carcinoma patients at high-risk of recurrence using the ADV score: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative recurrence is a vital reason for poor 5-year overall survival in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. The ADV score is considered a parameter that can quantify HCC aggressiveness. This study aimed to identify HCC patients at high-risk of recurrence early using the ADV score.

METHODS

The medical data of consecutive HCC patients undergoing hepatectomy from The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (TFAHNJMU) and Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (NJDTH) were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the status of microvascular invasion and the Edmondson-Steiner grade, HCC patients were divided into three groups: low-risk group (group 1: no risk factor exists), medium-risk group (group 2: one risk factor exists), and high-risk group (group 3: coexistence of two risk factors). In the training cohort (TFAHNJMU), the R package nnet was used to establish a multi-categorical unordered logistic regression model based on the ADV score to predict three risk groups. The Welch's T-test was used to compare differences in clinical variables in three predicted risk groups. NJDTH served as an external validation center. At last, the confusion matrix was developed using the R package caret to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the model.

RESULTS

350 and 405 patients from TFAHNJMU and NJDTH were included. HCC patients in different risk groups had significantly different liver function and inflammation levels. Density maps demonstrated that the ADV score could best differentiate between the three risk groups. The probability curve was plotted according to the predicted results of the multi-categorical unordered logistic regression model, and the best cut-off values of the ADV score were as follows: low-risk ≤ 3.4 log, 3.4 log < medium-risk ≤ 5.7 log, and high-risk > 5.7 log. The sensitivities of the ADV score predicting the high-risk group (group 3) were 70.2% (99/141) and 78.8% (63/80) in the training and external validation cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ADV score might become a valuable marker for screening patients at high-risk of HCC recurrence with a cut-off value of 5.7 log, which might help surgeons, pathologists, and HCC patients make appropriate clinical decisions.

Validation of quantitative prognostic prediction using ADV score for resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: A Korea-Japan collaborative study with 9200 patients

BACKGROUND

A score derived from the concentrations of α-fetoprotein (AFP) and des-γ-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) and tumor volume (TV), called ADV score, has been shown to be prognostic of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence following hepatic resection (HR) or liver transplantation.

METHODS

This multicenter, multinational validation study included 9200 patients who underwent HR from 2010 to 2017 at 10 Korean and 73 Japanese centers, and were followed up until 2020.

RESULTS

AFP, DCP, and TV showed weak correlations (ρ ≤ .463, r ≤ .189, p < .001). Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and post-recurrence survival rates were dependent on 1.0 log and 2.0 log intervals of ADV scores (p < .001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that ADV score cutoffs of 5.0 log for DFS and OS yielded the areas under the curve ≥ .577, with both being significantly prognostic of tumor recurrence and patient mortality at 3 years. ADV score cutoffs of ADV 4.0 log and 8.0 log, derived through K-adaptive partitioning method, showed higher prognostic contrasts in DFS and OS. ROC curve analysis showed that an ADV score cutoff of 4.2 log was suggestive of microvascular invasion, with both microvascular invasion and an ADV score cutoff of 4.2 log showing similar DFS rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This international validation study demonstrated that ADV score is an integrated surrogate biomarker for post-resection prognosis of HCC. Prognostic prediction using ADV score can provide reliable information that can assist in planning treatment of patients with different stages of HCC and guide individualized post-resection follow-up based on the relative risk of HCC recurrence.

Quantitative Prediction of Posttransplant Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prognosis Using ADV Score: Validation with Korea-Nationwide Transplantation Registry Database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to validate the prognostic impact of ADV score (α-fetoprotein [AFP]-des-γ-carboxyprothrombin [DCP]-tumor volume [TV] score) for predicting prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following liver transplantation (LT).

BACKGROUND

ADV score has been reported as a prognostic surrogate biomarker of HCC following LT and hepatectomy.

METHODS

The study patients were 1599 LT recipients selected from the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry database.

RESULTS

Deceased-donor and living-donor LTs were performed in 143 and 1456 cases, respectively. Weak correlation was present among AFP, DCP, and TV. The viable HCC group showed ADV score-dependent disease-free survival (DFS) and overall patient survival (OS) rates from 1log to 10log (p<0.001). Prognosis of complete pathological response group was comparable to that of ADV score <1log (p≥0.099). ADV score cutoff of 5log (ADV-5log) for DFS and OS was obtained through receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with area under the curve ≥0.705. Both ADV-5log and Milan criteria were independent risk factors for DFS and OS, and their prognostic impacts were comparable to each other. Combination of these two factors resulted in further prognostic stratification, showing hazard ratios for DFS and OS as 2.98 and 2.26 respectively for one risk factor and 7.92 and 8.19 respectively for two risk factors (p<0.001). ABO-incompatible recipients with ADV score ≥8log or two risk factors showed higher recurrence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This validation study revealed that ADV score is a reliable surrogate biomarker for posttransplant HCC prognosis, which can be used for selecting LT candidates and guiding risk-based posttransplant follow-up surveillance.

Network meta-analysis of the prognosis of curative treatment strategies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) is a common outcome after curative treatment. Retreatment for rHCC is recommended, but no guidelines exist.

AIM

To compare curative treatments such as repeated hepatectomy (RH), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and liver transplantation (LT) for patients with rHCC after primary hepatectomy by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

From 2011 to 2021, 30 articles involving patients with rHCC after primary liver resection were retrieved for this NMA. The Q test was used to assess heterogeneity among studies, and Egger’s test was used to assess publication bias. The efficacy of rHCC treatment was assessed using disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

From 30 articles, a total of 17, 11, 8, and 12 arms of RH, RFA, TACE, and LT subgroups were collected for analysis. Forest plot analysis revealed that the LT subgroup had a better cumulative DFS and 1-year OS than the RH subgroup, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.96 (95%CI: 0.31-2.96). However, the RH subgroup had a better 3-year and 5-year OS compared to the LT, RFA, and TACE subgroups. Hierarchic step diagram of different subgroups measured by the Wald test yielded the same results as the forest plot analysis. LT had a better 1-year OS (OR: 1.04, 95%CI: 0.34-03.20), and LT was inferior to RH in 3-year OS (OR: 10.61, 95%CI: 0.21-1.73) and 5-year OS (OR: 0.95, 95%CI: 0.39-2.34). According to the predictive P score evaluation, the LT subgroup had a better DFS, and RH had the best OS. However, meta-regression analysis revealed that LT had a better DFS (P < 0.001) as well as 3-year OS (P = 0.881) and 5-year OS (P = 0.188). The differences in superiority between DFS and OS were due to the different testing methods used.

CONCLUSION

According to this NMA, RH and LT had better DFS and OS for rHCC than RFA and TACE. However, treatment strategies should be determined by the recurrent tumor characteristics, the patient’s general health status, and the care program at each institution.

Salvage versus Primary Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Twenty-Year Experience Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Primary liver transplantation (PLT) for HCC represents the ideal treatment. However, since organ shortage increases the risk of drop-out from the waiting list for tumor progression, a new surgical strategy has been developed: Salvage Liver Transplantation (SLT) can be offered as an additional curative strategy for HCC recurrence after liver resection. The aim of this updated meta-analysis is to compare surgical and long-term outcomes of SLT versus PLT for HCC. (2) Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the published papers comparing SLT and PLT up to January 2022. (3) Results: 25 studies describing 11,275 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed no statistical difference in intraoperative blood loss, overall vascular complications, retransplantation rate, and hospital stay in the SLT group compared with the PLT group. However, the SLT group showed a slightly significant lower 5-year OS rate and 5-year disease-free survival rate. (4) Conclusion: meta-analysis advocates the relative safety and feasibility of both Salvage LT and Primary LT strategies. Specifically, SLT seems to have comparable surgical outcomes but slightly poorer long-term survival than PLT.

Salvage living donor liver transplantation versus repeat liver resection for patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis: A propensity score-matched comparison

Following curative liver resection (LR), resectable tumor recurrence in patients with preserved liver function leads to deciding between a repeat LR and a salvage liver transplantation (LT), if a donor's liver is available. This retrospective study compared survival outcomes and recurrence pattern following salvage living donor LT (LDLT) and repeat LR in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent repeat LR (n = 163) or LDLT (n = 84) for recurrent HCC following curative resections, between January 2005 and December 2017 at a single institution. A 1:1 propensity score matching led to 42 patients per group. Disease-specific and recurrence-free survival were significantly better in the salvage LDLT group than in the repeat LR group (p = .042; HR = 2.40; 95% CI, 0.69-6.00 and p < .001; HR = 4.23; 95% CI, 2.05-8.71, respectively). Despite significant differences in recurrence patterns between the two groups (p = .019), the patient death rates, after recurrence, were similar for both groups (p = .760). This study indicates that salvage LDLT is superior to repeat LR for treating patients with transplantable, intrahepatic HCC recurrence, even in patients with Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis.

Recipient hepatectomy under total hepatic vascular exclusion to prevent hepatocellular carcinoma spread in living donor liver transplantation

We present a case of recipient hepatectomy under total hepatic vascular exclusion (THVE) and venovenous bypass for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in a patient with multiple hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) closely located to the retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC). A 19-year-old male patient diagnosed with multiple HCCs underwent left lateral sectionectomy 14 months before and received four sessions of transarterial chemoembolization due to post-hepatectomy tumor recurrence. These pretransplant sequences implicated high risk of posttransplant HCC recurrence. However, LDLT was performed with expectation of prolonged survival. During recipient operation, the portal vein was transected and active venovenous bypass was performed. Supra- and infra-hepatic portions of the retrohepatic IVC were then clamped. Under THVE and portal vein bypass, recipient hepatectomy was meticulously performed. A modified right liver graft recovered from his brother was implanted according to standard procedures of LDLT. The patient recovered uneventfully from LDLT operation. However, multiple pulmonary metastasis occurred. The patient has been doing well for 12 months after LDLT, with administration of chemotherapeutic agents. Although early pulmonary metastasis occurred in this patient, we suggest that recipient hepatectomy under THVE and venovenous bypass can be a feasible technical option to cope with risk of iatrogenic tumor cell spread during LDLT operation.