A new priority policy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma awaiting liver transplantation within the model for end-stage liver disease system

Long term results of down-staging and liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the conventional criteria

The objective of the study is to evaluate 10 years of down-staging strategy for liver transplantation (LT) with a median follow-up of 5 years. Data on long-term results are poor and less information is available for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) non-responder patients or those ineligible for down-staging. The outcome of 308 HCC candidates and the long-term results of 231 LTs for HCC performed between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. HCCs were divided according to tumor stage and response to therapy: 145 patients were T2 (metering Milan Criteria, MC), 43 were T3 successfully down-staged to T2 (Down-Achieved), 20 were T3 not fully down-staged to T2 (Down-not Achieved), and 23 patients were T3 not receiving down-staging treatments (No-Down). The average treatment effect (ATE) of LT for T3 tumors was estimated using the outcome of 535 T3 patients undergoing non-LT therapies, using inverse probability weighting regression adjustment. The 24-month drop-out rate during waiting time was significantly higher in the down-staging groups: 27.6% vs. 9.2%, p < 0.005. After LT, the tumor recurrence rate was significantly different: MC 7.6%, Down-Achieved 20.9%, Down-not Achieved 31.6%, and No-Down 30.4% (p < 0.001). The survival rates at 5 years were: 63% in Down-Achieved, 62% in Down-not Achieved, 63% in No-Down, and 77% in MC (p = n.s.). The only variable related to a better outcome was the effective down-staging to T2 at the histological evaluation of the explanted liver: recurrence rate = 7.8% vs. 26% (p < 0.001) and 5-year patient survival = 76% vs. 67% (p < 0.05). The ATE estimation showed that the mean survival of T3-LT candidates was significantly better than that of T3 patients ineligible for LT [83.3 vs 39.2 months (+44.6 months); p < 0.001]. Long term outcome of T3 down-staged candidates was poorer than that of MC candidates, particularly for cases not achieving down-staging. However, their survival outcome was significantly better than that achieved with non-transplant therapies.

Stratifying Mortality in a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Waiting List: A Brazilian Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) system reliably predicts mortality in cirrhotic patients. However, the etiology of liver disease and presence of portal vein thrombosis are not directly taken into account in MELD score. Its impact on the outcomes of patients on the waiting list is still unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate mortality and access to transplantation regarding etiology of liver disease and portal vein thrombosis (PVT).

METHODS

A total of 465 adult patients on the liver waiting list from August 2015 to August 2016 were followed up until August 2017. Patients were divided into groups according to the etiology of liver disease and presence of PVT.

RESULTS

The most frequent etiologies were hepatitis C (26.88%), alcoholic cirrhosis (26.02%) and cryptogenic cirrhosis (10.75%). Death while on the waiting list occurred in 168 patients (36.1%) and was more frequent in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH, 65.4%) and alcoholic cirrhosis (41.3%). A total of 142 (30.5%) patients underwent transplantation and viral, autoimmune, and biliary diseases showed higher proportion of transplantation (36.3%, 53.8%, and 34%, respectively; P < .01). Mean delta-MELD at the study endpoint was higher in patients with autoimmune hepatitis, biliary diseases, and NASH (8.3 ± 7.2, 8.3 ± 9.1, and 7.5 ± 9.1, respectively; P < .01). A total 77 patients (16.7%) presented PVT. There was no significant difference in outcomes between patients with and without PVT.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with NASH and alcoholic liver disease had higher mortality while on the waiting list, whereas patients with viral and autoimmune hepatitis had higher transplantation rate. Outcomes were not influenced by PVT.

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

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

Liver transplantation for intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma: An adaptive approach

Hepatocellular carcinoma is becoming an increasing indication for liver transplantation, but selection and allocation of patients are challenging because of organ shortages. Conventional Milan criteria are the reference for the selection of patients worldwide, but many expanded criteria, like University of California San Francisco criteria and up-to-7 criteria, have demonstrated that survival and recurrence results are lower than those for restricted indications. Correct staging is crucial and should include surrogate markers of biological aggressiveness (α-fetoprotein, response to loco-regional treatments). Successful down-staging can select between patients with tumor burden initially beyond transplantation criteria those with a more favorable biology, provided a 3-mo stability in meeting the transplantation criteria. Allocation rules are constantly adjusted to minimize the imbalance between the priorities of candidates with and without hepatocellular carcinoma, and take into account local donor rate and waitlist dynamics. Recently, Mazzaferro et al proposed a benefit-oriented “adaptive approach”, in which the selection and allocation of patients are based on their response to non-transplantation treatments: low priority for transplantation in case of complete response, high priority in case of partial response or recurrence, and no listing in case of progression beyond transplantation criteria.

Transplant-related survival benefit should influence prioritization for liver transplantation especially in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Transplant-related survival benefit is calculated as the difference between life expectancy with transplantation and life expectancy without transplantation. Determining eligibility and prioritization for liver transplantation based on the highest survival benefit is a superior strategy to prioritization based on the highest urgency (ie, the highest wait-list mortality) or the highest utility (ie, the highest posttransplant survival) because prioritization based on the highest survival benefit maximizes the overall life expectancy of all patients in need of liver transplantation. Although the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based prioritization system was designed as an urgency-based system, in practice it functions to a large extent as a survival benefit-based system, when the natural MELD score is used without exceptions. Survival benefit considerations should be used to determine the consequences of deviating from prioritization based on the natural MELD score, such as when exception points are awarded to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that are independent of MELD score or tumor burden, or the appropriateness of expanding eligibility for transplantation. The most promising application of survival benefit-based prioritization would be to replace the current system of prioritization of patients with HCC by one that uses their natural MELD score and tumor characteristics such as HCC tumor burden, serum alpha fetoprotein level, and response to locoregional therapies to predict the impact on survival benefit caused by the presence of HCC and adjust the natural MELD score for prioritization accordingly. Liver Transplantation 23 652-662, 2017 AASLD.

Succinct guide to liver transplantation for medical students

Literature on liver transplantation for use in medical education is limited and as yet unsatisfactory. The aim of this article is to help medical students gain enough insight into the reality of being a liver transplant recipient. This is crucial so in the future they can feel confident in approaching these patients with adequate knowledge and confidence. The knowledge-tree based learning core topics are designed for a 2-h class including indication/contraindication in the real-world setting, model for end stage liver disease scoring and organ allocation policy, liver transplantation for hepatic malignancy, transplantation surgery, immunosuppression strategy in practical consideration, and management of viral hepatitis. The rationales of each topic are discussed comprehensively for better understanding by medical students. Recipient candidates may have reversible contraindications that halt the surgery temporarily and therefore, it warrants re-evaluation before transplant. Organ allocation policy is primarily based on disease severity instead of waiting time. Transplant surgery usually involves resection of the whole liver, in situ implantation with reconstruction of the hepatic vein, the portal vein, the hepatic artery and the biliary duct in sequence. The primary goal of artificial immunosuppression is to prevent graft rejection, and the secondary one is to reduce its complication or side effects. Life-long oral nucleoside/nucleotide analogues against hepatitis virus B is needed while short course of direct acting agents against hepatitis viral C is enough to eradicate the virus. Basic understanding of the underlying rationales will help students prepare for advanced learning and cope with the recipients confidently in the future.

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

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

Strategies to improve outcome of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving a liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is the only therapeutic option which allows to treat both, the hepatocellular carcinoma and the underlying liver disease. Indeed, liver transplantation is considered the standard of care for a subset of patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. However, tumour recurrence rates are as high as 20%, and once the recurrence is established the therapeutic options are scarce and with little impact on prognosis. Strategies to minimize tumour recurrence and thus to improve outcome may be classified into 3 groups: (1) An adequate selection of candidates for liver transplantation by using the Milan criteria; (2) An optimized management within waiting list including prioritization of patients at high risk of tumour progression, and the implementation of bridging therapies, particularly when the expected length within the waiting list is longer than 6 mo; and (3) Tailored immunosuppression comprising reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors, particularly early after liver transplantation, and the addition of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors. In the present manuscript the available scientific evidence supporting these strategies is comprehensively reviewed, and future directions are provided for novel research approaches, which may contribute to the final target: to cure more patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and with an improved long term outcome.

Excess mortality on the liver transplant waiting list: unintended policy consequences and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) inflation

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) allocation system for liver transplantation provides "exceptions" for diseases such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It was the aim of this study to assess equipoise between exception candidates and nonexception candidates on the waiting list and to assess if the exception system contributes to steadily increasing regional MELD at transplant. In all, 78,595 adult liver transplant candidates between January 2005 and December 2012 were analyzed. Yearly trends in waiting list characteristics and transplantation rates were analyzed for statistical association with MELD exceptions. Regional variations in these associations and the effect of exceptions on regional MELD scores at transplant were also analyzed. 27.29% of the waiting list was occupied by candidates with exceptions. Candidates with exceptions fared much better on the waiting list compared to those without exceptions in mean days waiting (HCC 237 versus non-HCC 426), transplantation rates (HCC 79.05% versus non-HCC 40.60%), and waiting list death rates (HCC 4.49% versus non-HCC 24.63%). Strong regional variation in exception use occurred but exceptions were highly correlated with waiting list death rates, transplantation rates, and MELD score at removal in all regions. In a multivariate model predicting MELD score at transplant within regions, the percentage of HCC MELD exceptions was the strongest independent predictor of regional MELD score at transplant.

CONCLUSION

Liver transplant candidates with MELD exceptions have superior outcomes compared to nonexception candidates and the current MELD exception system is largely responsible for steadily increasing MELD scores at transplant independent of geography.

Toward a better liver graft allocation that accounts for candidates with and without hepatocellular carcinoma

In some countries where the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is used for graft allocation, selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receive a fixed number of exception points at listing, and increasing priority on the list by accruing additional exception points at regular time intervals. This system originally aimed at balancing the risks of HCC patients of developing contraindications and of non-HCC patients of dying before transplantation, is not ideal because it appears to offer an advantage to HCC patients, regardless of tumor characteristics and response to loco-regional treatment. Scores modulated by HCC characteristics have been proposed. They are based on a more refined estimate of the risk of pretransplant drop-out or of the posttransplant transplant benefit expressed as the life-years gained for each graft. This review describes the newly proposed systems, and discusses their advantages and drawbacks. We believe that the current exception points allocation should be revised and that drop-out-equivalent or transplant benefit-equivalent models should be studied further. As with all policy changes, these should be done under close monitoring that allows subsequent revisions.

Current challenges in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) is the best option of cure for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Notwithstanding several alternatives, Milan Criteria remain the cornerstone for patient selection. Currently, expanded criteria patients are unsuitable for LT without taking downstaging approaches and response to therapies into consideration. Relative weight of HCC as indication to LT is increasing and that generates competition with MELD-described non-cancer indications. Allocation policies should be adjusted accordingly, considering principles of urgency and utility in the management of the waiting list and including transplant benefit to craft equitable criteria to deal with the limited resource of donated grafts. Maximization of cost-effectiveness of LT in HCC can be also pursued through changes in immunosuppression policies and multimodal management of post-transplant recurrences. This review is focused on those constantly mutating challenges that have to be faced by anyone dealing with the management of HCC in the context of liver transplantation.

TACE performed in patients with a single nodule of hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Patients with single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) usually undergo transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) if they are not candidates for curative surgical or ablative therapy. The primary aim of the study was to assess the overall survival and clinical determinants of survival in patients with single HCC who underwent TACE. The secondary aims were tumor response, local and distant recurrence rates, time to recurrence and the impact of TACE on liver function.

Methods

The outcomes of 148 consecutive patients with single HCC who underwent TACE from January 2004 to December 2009 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Complete response (CR) was observed in 95/148 (64%) patients and a partial response (PR) in 39 (26%) patients. The recurrence rate was 27%, 42% and 65% at 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively. The day after TACE, 56 (38%) patients had a Child-Pugh increase ≥1 and 93 (63%) had a MELD increase ≥1. Median survival was 36.0 months with 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates of 85%, 50% and 26%, respectively. Bland portal thrombosis was not seen to have any impact at univariate survival analysis; however, a slight impairment of PS (PS-1) in small tumors had some, although minor, impact on prognosis. Factors associated with shorter survival at multivariate analysis were tumor >5 cm, absence of CR, ascites, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥14.5 ng/mL and a MELD increase ≥1.

Conclusions

Transarterial chemoembolization is a valid treatment option in patients with single HCC not suitable for curative treatment. Bland PVT has no major impact on survival and a slight impairment of PS attributable to cirrhosis in patients within the Milan criteria should not preclude the use of TACE.

Recipient-donor age matching in liver transplantation: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether donor age was a predictor of outcomes in liver transplantation, representing an independent risk factor as well as its impact related to recipient age-matching.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from 221 adult liver transplantations performed from January 2006 to September 2009.

RESULTS

Compared with recipients who received grafts from donors <60 years old, transplantation from older donors was associated with significantly higher rates of graft rejection (9.5% vs 3.5%; P = .05) and worse graft survival (P = .021). When comparing recipient and graft survivals according to age matching, we observed significantly worse values for age-mismatched (P values .029 and .037, respectively) versus age-matched patients. After adjusting for covariates in a multivariate model, age mismatch was an independent risk factor for patient death (hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-4.17; P = .027) and graft loss (HR 3.86, 95% CI 1.02-15.47; P = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest to that optimized donor allocation takes into account both donor and recipient ages maximize survival of liver-transplanted patients.

Position paper of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF): the multidisciplinary clinical approach to hepatocellular carcinoma

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma should be managed with a multidisciplinary approach framed in a network where all the diagnostic techniques and therapeutic resources are available in order to provide the optimal level of care. Given this assumption, the Coordinating Committee of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver nominated a panel of experts to elaborate practical recommendations for the multidisciplinary management of hepatocellular carcinoma aiming to provide: (1) homogeneous and efficacious diagnostic and staging work-up, and (2) the best treatment choice tailored to patient status and tumour stage at diagnosis. The 2010 updated American Association for the Study of Liver Disease Guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma were selected as the reference document. For each management issue, the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease recommendations were briefly summarised and discussed, according to both the scientific evidence published after their release and the clinical expertise of the Italian centres taking care of these patients. The Italian Association for the Study of the Liver expert panel recommendations are finally reported.

Donor-recipient matching: myths and realities

Liver transplant outcomes keep improving, with refinements of surgical technique, immunosuppression and post-transplant care. However, these excellent results and the limited number of organs available have led to an increasing number of potential recipients with end-stage liver disease worldwide. Deaths on waiting lists have led liver transplant teams maximize every organ offered and used in terms of pre and post-transplant benefit. Donor-recipient (D-R) matching could be defined as the technique to check D-R pairs adequately associated by the presence of the constituents of some patterns from donor and patient variables. D-R matching has been strongly analysed and policies in donor allocation have tried to maximize organ utilization whilst still protecting individual interests. However, D-R matching has been written through trial and error and the development of each new score has been followed by strong discrepancies and controversies. Current allocation systems are based on isolated or combined donor or recipient characteristics. This review intends to analyze current knowledge about D-R matching methods, focusing on three main categories: patient-based policies, donor-based policies and combined donor-recipient systems. All of them lay on three mainstays that support three different concepts of D-R matching: prioritarianism (favouring the worst-off), utilitarianism (maximising total benefit) and social benefit (cost-effectiveness). All of them, with their pros and cons, offer an exciting controversial topic to be discussed. All of them together define D-R matching today, turning into myth what we considered a reality in the past.

Response rate and clinical outcome of HCC after first and repeated cTACE performed "on demand"

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Aim of the study was to assess the clinical impact of conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) repeated "on demand" on HCC outcome. Outcome measures were: response rate to first and repeated cTACE, recurrence rates and overall survival.

METHODS

The outcome of 151 consecutive HCC patients submitted to a first cTACE from January 2004 to December 2005 was retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Complete radiological response (CR) was observed in 72/151 (48%), 34/60 (52%) and 12/22 (55%) patients after first, second and third cTACE, respectively. Recurrence rates at 6 and 12months were 37% and 61% after the first cTACE, and 40% and 59% after the second cTACE, respectively. Patients not achieving CR or with a recurrence after CR not treated with curative therapies were 94 and 84 after first and second cTACE, respectively. Of these, 60/94 (64%) and 22/84 (26%) were submitted to a second and third cTACE, respectively. Median overall survival was 32.0months but 25.0months excluding transplanted patients. Factors at the time of first cTACE associated with overall shorter survival at multivariate analysis were higher bilirubin, higher AFP and not achieving CR.

CONCLUSIONS

CR and recurrence rates after first and second cTACE were similar. About 64% of patients were submitted to second cTACE, while only few patients (26%) were submitted to third cTACE using an "on demand" policy. These figures may be also useful for planning trials for the evaluation of the efficacy of repeated TACE vs. TACE combined with adjuvant treatments or vs. systemic treatments.

Systematic review: the role of liver transplantation in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Liver transplantation offers a potential cure for this otherwise devastating disease. The selection of the most appropriate candidates is paramount in an era of graft shortage.

AIM

To review systematically the role of liver transplantation in the management of HCC in current clinical practice.

METHODS

An electronic literature search using PUBMED (1980-2010) was performed. Search terms included HCC, hepatoma, liver cancer, and liver transplantation.

RESULTS

Liver transplantation is a highly successful treatment for HCC, in patients within Milan criteria (MC), defined as a solitary tumour ≤50 mm in diameter or ≤3 tumours ≤30 mm in diameter in the absence of extra-hepatic or vascular spread. Other eligibility criteria for liver transplantation are also used in clinical practice, such as the University of California, San Francisco criteria, with outcomes comparable to MC. Loco-regional therapies have a role in the bridging treatment of HCC by minimising wait-list drop-out secondary to tumour progression. Beyond MC, encouraging results have been demonstrated for patients with down-staged tumours. Post-liver transplantation, there is no evidence to support a specific immunosuppressive regimen. In the context of an insufficient cadaveric donor pool to meet demand, the role of adult living donation may be increasingly important.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver transplantation offers a curative therapy for selected patients with HCC. The optimisation of eligibility criteria is paramount to ensure that maximum benefit is accrued. Although wait-list therapies have been incorporated into clinical practice, additional high quality data are required to support this strategy.

Liver transplantation from hepatitis B surface antigen positive donors: a safe way to expand the donor pool

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The main limitation of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is the scarcity of available donor organs. A possibility to increase the organ pool is to use grafts from hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) positive donors, but few data are currently available in this setting. We assessed the clinical, serovirological, and immunological outcomes of liver transplant from HBsAg positive donors in a single centre study.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2009 10 patients underwent OLT from HBsAg positive donors, for HBV-related disease (n=6) or HBV-unrelated disease (n=4). The median follow-up was 42 months (range 12-60). All recipients were HBcAb positive and were given antiviral prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Patients transplanted for HBV-related disease never cleared HBsAg. Two HBsAg negative patients never tested positive for HBsAg, whereas the others experienced an HBsAg appearance, followed by spontaneous production of anti-HBs, allowing HBsAg clearance. No patient ever had any sign of HBV hepatitis. HBV replication was effectively controlled by antiviral therapy. The immunologic sub-study showed that a most robust anti-HBV specific T cell response was associated with the control of HBV infection.

CONCLUSIONS

OLT from HBsAg positive donors seems to be a safe procedure in the era of highly effective antiviral therapy.

Priority of candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma awaiting liver transplantation can be reduced after successful bridge therapy

The allocation rules for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are awaiting liver transplantation (LT) are a difficult issue and are continually evolving. To reduce tumor progression or down-stage advanced disease, most transplant centers have adopted the practice of treating HCC candidates with resection or locoregional therapies. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of bridge therapy in preventing removal from the waiting list for death/sickness severity or tumor progression beyond the Milan criteria and in determining posttransplant outcomes. The removal rates for 315 adult patients with HCC who were listed for LT were analyzed and were correlated to responses to bridge therapy with a competing risk analysis. The 3-, 6-, and 12-month dropout rates were 3.5%, 6.5%, and 19.9%, respectively, and they were significantly affected by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (P = 0.032), the tumor stage at diagnosis (P = 0.041), and the response to bridge therapy (P < 0.001). The stratification of candidates by the tumor stage and the response to bridge therapy showed that patients with T2 tumors who achieved only a partial response or no response to bridge therapy had the highest dropout rates, and they were followed by patients with successfully down-staged T3-T4a tumors (P = 0.037). Patients with T2 tumors who had a complete response and patients with T1 tumors had similar dropout rates (P = 0.964). The response to bridge therapy significantly affected both the recurrence rate of 176 transplant patients (P = 0.017) and the overall intention-to-treat survival rate (P = 0.001). In conclusion, the response to therapy is a potentially effective tool for prioritizing HCC patients for LT as well as select cases with different risks of tumor recurrence after transplantation.

Hepatocellular carcinoma and liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hepatocelluar carcinoma (HCC) continues to grow in scope and magnitude as a clinical entity. Liver transplantation has been shown to be a potentially curative treatment for a select group of patients with HCC. The role of liver transplantation as part of the multidisciplinary treatment of HCC continues to evolve.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of liver transplantation as treatment for HCC continues to grow as selection criteria are refined to optimize outcomes. The Milan criteria (T2) are considered the standard selection criteria but have been challenged in recent years as being too limiting. Treatment for HCC patients awaiting liver transplantation includes a number of ablative techniques that may arrest tumor growth. Similar treatments may potentially downsize large (>T2) HCC so that they fall into the exception criteria for liver transplantation (downstaging), which is an area of ongoing study. Prioritizing HCC patients on the liver transplantation waiting list remains a difficult balance with non-HCC patients. After several downward adjustments of priority for HCC patients, the current system of awarding set, defined priority scores with time-dependent increases for HCC patients who remain within Milan criteria (compared to a continuous priority scale for non-HCC patients), continues to give HCC patients excess priority in access to liver transplantation. Despite this, outcomes for HCC patients remain inferior to non-HCC patients after liver transplantation.

SUMMARY

Liver transplantation remains an acceptable treatment for select HCC patients. Optimizing patient selection and pretransplant treatment, and refining prioritization in relation to non-HCC patients for these scarce resource cadaveric livers continues to challenge the transplant community.

Can the dropout risk of candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma predict survival after liver transplantation?

In the last US national conference on liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a continuous priority score, that incorporates model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), alpha-fetoprotein and tumor size, was recommended to ensure a more equitable liver allocation. However, prioritizing highest alpha-fetoprotein levels or largest tumors may select lesions at a higher risk for recurrence; similarly, patients with higher degree of liver failure could have lower postoperative survival. Data from 300 adult HCC recipients were reviewed and the proposed HCC-MELD equation was applied to verify if it can predict post-transplantation survival. The 5-year survival and recurrence rates after transplantation were 72.8 and 13.5%, respectively. Cox regression analysis confirmed HCC-MELD as predictive of both postoperative survival and recurrence (p < 0.001). The 5-year predicted survival and recurrence rates were plotted against the HCC-MELD-based dropout probability: the higher the dropout probability while on waiting list, the lower the predicted survival after transplantation, that is worsened by hepatitis C positivity; similarly, the higher the predicted HCC recurrence rate after transplantation. The HCC priority score could predict the postoperative survival of HCC recipients and could be useful in selecting patients with greater possibilities of survival, resulting in higher post-transplantation survival rates of HCC populations.

Efficacy of selective transarterial chemoembolization in inducing tumor necrosis in small (<5 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is commonly used as a bridge therapy for patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) and for downstaging patients initially not meeting the Milan criteria. The primary aim of this study was to analyze whether a difference exists between selective/superselective and lobar TACE in determining tumor necrosis by a pathological analysis of the whole lesion at the time of LT. The secondary aim was to investigate the relationship between the tumor size and the capacity of TACE to induce necrosis. Data were extracted from a prospective database of 67 consecutive patients who underwent LT for hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis from 2003 to 2009 and were treated exclusively with TACE as a bridging (n = 53) or downstaging therapy (n = 14). We identified 122 nodules; 53.3% were treated with selective/superselective TACE. The mean histological necrosis level was 64.7%; complete tumor necrosis was obtained in 42.6% of the nodules. In comparison with lobar TACE, selective/superselective TACE led to significantly higher mean levels of necrosis (75.1% versus 52.8%, P = 0.002) and a higher rate of complete necrosis (53.8% versus 29.8%, P = 0.013). A significant direct relationship was observed between the tumor diameter and the mean tumor necrosis level (59.6% for lesions < 2 cm, 68.4% for lesions of 2.1-3 cm, and 76.2% for lesions > 3 cm). Histological necrosis was maximal for tumors > 3 cm: 91.8% after selective/superselective TACE and 66.5% after lobar procedures. Independent predictors of complete tumor necrosis were selective/superselective TACE (P = 0.049) and the treatment of single nodules (P = 0.008). Repeat sessions were more frequently needed for nodules treated with lobar TACE (31.6% versus 59.3%, P = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

Selective/superselective TACE was more successful than lobar procedures in achieving complete histological necrosis, and TACE was more effective in 3- to 5-cm tumors than in smaller ones.

Liver Match, a prospective observational cohort study on liver transplantation in Italy: study design and current practice of donor-recipient matching

BACKGROUND

The Liver Match is an observational cohort study that prospectively enrolled liver transplantations performed at 20 out of 21 Italian Transplant Centres between June 2007 and May 2009. Aim of the study is to investigate the impact of donor/recipient matching on outcomes. In this report we describe the study methodology and provide a cross-sectional description of donor and recipient characteristics and of graft allocation.

METHODS

Adult primary transplants performed with deceased heart-beating donors were included. Relevant information on donors and recipients, organ procurement and allocation were prospectively entered in an ad hoc database within the National Transplant Centre web-based Network. Data were blindly analysed by an independent Biostatistical Board.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 1530 donor/recipient matches. Median donor age was 56 years. Female donors (n = 681, median 58, range 12-92 years) were older than males (n = 849, median 53, range 2-97 years, p < 0.0001). Donors older than 60 years were 42.2%, including 4.2% octogenarians. Brain death was due to non-traumatic causes in 1126 (73.6%) cases. Half of the donor population was overweight, 10.1% was obese and 7.6% diabetic. Hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) was present in 245 (16.0%) donors. The median Donor Risk Index (DRI) was 1.57 (>1.7 in 35.8%). The median cold ischaemia time was 7.3h (≥ 10 in 10.6%). Median age of recipients was 54 years, and 77.7% were males. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was the most frequent indication overall (44.4%), being a coindication in roughly 1/3 of cases, followed by viral cirrhosis without HCC (28.2%) and alcoholic cirrhosis without HCC (10.2%). Hepatitis C virus infection (with or without HCC) was the most frequent etiologic factor (45.9% of the whole population and 71.4% of viral-related cirrhosis), yet hepatitis B virus infection accounted for 28.6% of viral-related cirrhosis, and HBcAb positivity was found in 49.7% of recipients. The median Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at transplant was 12 in patients with HCC and 18 in those without. Multivariate analysis showed a slight but significant inverse association between DRI and MELD at transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

The deceased donor population in Italy has a high-risk profile compared to other countries, mainly due to older donor age. Almost half of the grafts are transplanted in recipients with HCC. Higher risk donors tend to be preferentially allocated to recipients with HCC, who are usually less ill and older. No other relevant allocation strategy is currently adopted at national level.

Liver transplantation for alcohol-related cirrhosis: a single centre long-term clinical and histological follow-up

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-induced liver cirrhosis is one of the leading indications for liver transplantation today. Due to the general organ shortage and continuous deaths on the waiting list there has been some debate on the issue of indication and ethical problems. It was the aim of this study to critically analyse the outcome of patients with alcoholic cirrhosis transplanted at our centre with special emphasis on alcohol-recurrence frequency and long-term histological follow-up.

METHODS

Three hundred five patients who received LT for alcoholic cirrhosis at our institution were followed over a period of 3-10 years after transplantation. Biopsies were taken 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after LT. Specimens were analysed and staged concerning inflammation, rejection, fatty involution, and fibrosis/cirrhosis. Clinical characteristics as well as serological parameters, immunosuppressive protocols, rejection episodes, and patient and graft survival were recorded.

RESULTS

Recurrence of alcohol abuse occurred in 27% of all patients analysed. Regardless of alcohol consumption, 5-year graft and patient survival were excellent; after 10 years abstinent patients showed significantly better survival (82% vs. 68%; P=0.017). Histological changes were slightly more pronounced among recurrent drinkers, no significant difference regarding inflammation or fibrosis was detected.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing LT for alcohol-induced cirrhosis show excellent long-term survival rates with stable graft function. Alcohol recurrence impairs long-term prognosis; however, compared to other patient sub-populations (HCC, HCV) results are clearly above average.

The intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma stage: Should treatment be expanded?

The most utilized staging system for establishing the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and concurrently supporting the choice of best treatment strategy is the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC), which includes 4 disease stages (early, intermediate, advanced, terminal). The BCLC intermediate stage (BCLC-B) consists of patients in Child-Pugh A or B with multinodular large HCC and preserved performance status. This definition is rather broad and includes a heterogeneous patient population, according to either tumor extension (from bifocal HCC to subtotal tumor replacement of liver parenchyma) or liver function (from Child-Pugh compensated A5 to decompensated B9). The recommended treatment modality for this HCC stage is, in general, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, according to the heterogeneity of the intermediate population, patients are best served when the treatment decision is individualized and taken within a multidisciplinary team. For instance, patients in Child-Pugh B may not benefit at all from TACE or even suffer detrimental effects. TACE achieves complete radiological necrosis in about 35-60% of cases (after 2-3 courses). Patients not achieving complete necrosis and patients with early large recurrence should be managed individually, taking into consideration systemic treatments, which usually are reserved for advanced cases.

Criteria for diagnosing benign portal vein thrombosis in the assessment of patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation

Malignant portal vein thrombosis is a contraindication for liver transplantation. Patients with cirrhosis and early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may have either malignant or benign (fibrin clot) portal vein thrombosis. The aim of this study was to assess prospectively whether well-defined diagnostic criteria would enable the nature of portal vein thrombosis to be established in patients with HCC under consideration for liver transplantation. Benign portal vein thrombosis was diagnosed by the application of the following criteria: lack of vascularization of the thrombus on contrast-enhanced ultrasound and on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, absence of mass-forming features of the thrombus, absence of disruption of the walls of veins, and, if uncertainty persisted, biopsy of the thrombus for histological examination. Patients who did not fulfill the criteria for benign thrombosis were not placed on the transplantation list. In this study, all patients evaluated at our center during 2001-2007 with a diagnosis of HCC in whom portal vein thrombosis was concurrently or subsequently diagnosed were discussed by a multidisciplinary group to determine their suitability for liver transplantation. The outcomes for 33 patients who met the entry criteria of the study were as follows: in 14 patients who were placed on the transplantation list and underwent liver transplantation, no malignant thrombosis was detected when liver explants were examined histologically; 5 patients who were placed on the transplantation list either remained on the list or died from causes unrelated to HCC; in 9 patients, liver transplantation was contraindicated on account of a strong suspicion, or confirmation, of the presence of malignant portal vein thrombosis; and 5 patients who were initially placed on the transplantation list were subsequently removed from it on account of progression of HCC in the absence of evidence of neoplastic involvement of thrombosis. In conclusion, for a patient with HCC and portal vein thrombosis, appropriate investigations can establish whether the thrombosis is benign; patients with HCC and benign portal vein thrombosis are candidates for liver transplantation.

Prediction of progression-free survival in patients presenting with hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria

Transplantation is the treatment of choice for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the Milan criteria. HCC and chronic liver diseases have distinct natural histories for which an equitable transplant policy must account. We enrolled and prospectively followed at a single center 206 consecutive HCC patients that presented within the Milan criteria. Patients were treated per the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm; 95% received resection, ablation, or transarterial chemoembolization. The median follow-up was 16 months. Progression occurred in 84 patients, and 8 patients died. Risk factors for the time to disease progression (death or progression beyond T2) were analyzed in 170 patients with a complete data set. Risk factors with the strongest relationship to progression included tumor diameter and tumor persistence/recurrence after local therapy (hazard ratios of 1.51 and 2.75, respectively, when transplanted patients were censored at the time of transplantation and hazard ratios of 1.53 and 3.66, respectively, when transplantation was counted as an event; P < or = 0.0001). To evaluate the current Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception, we compared the expected progression rate (PR) with our observed PR in 133 stage T2 patients. The current policy resulted in a large overestimation of the PR for T2 HCC and an unsatisfactory performance [Harrell's concordance index (C index) = 0.60, transplant censored; C index = 0.55, transplant as progression]. Risk factors for progression that were identified by univariate analysis were considered for multivariate analysis. With these risk factors and the patients' natural MELD scores, an adjusted model applicable to organ allocation was generated, and this decreased the discrepancy between the expected and observed PRs (C index = 0.66, transplant censored; C index = 0.69, transplant as progression). In conclusion, the current MELD exception largely overestimates progression in T2 patients treated according to the BCLC guidelines. The tumor response to resective or ablative treatment can predict tumor progression beyond the Milan criteria, and it should be taken into account in models designed to prioritize organ allocation.

Report of a national conference on liver allocation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States

A national conference was held to better characterize the long-term outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to assess whether it is justified to continue the policy of assigning increased priority for candidates with early-stage HCC on the transplant waiting list in the United States. The objectives of the conference were to address specific HCC issues as they relate to liver allocation, develop a standardized pathology report form for the assessment of the explanted liver, develop more specific imaging criteria for HCC designed to qualify LT candidates for automatic Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception points without the need for biopsy, and develop a standardized pretransplant imaging report form for the assessment of patients with liver lesions. At the completion of the meeting, there was agreement that the allocation policy should result in similar risks of removal from the waiting list and similar transplant rates for HCC and non-HCC candidates. In addition, the allocation policy should select HCC candidates so that there are similar posttransplant outcomes for HCC and non-HCC recipients. There was a general consensus for the development of a calculated continuous HCC priority score for ranking HCC candidates on the list that would incorporate the calculated MELD score, alpha-fetoprotein, tumor size, and rate of tumor growth. Only candidates with at least stage T2 tumors would receive additional HCC priority points.

Harm and benefits of primary liver resection and salvage transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Primary transplantation offers longer life-expectancy in comparison to hepatic resection (HR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) followed by salvage transplantation; however, livers not used for primary transplantation can be reallocated to the remaining waiting-list patients, thus, the harm caused to resected patients could be balanced, or outweighed, by the benefit obtained from reallocation of livers originating from HCC patients first being resected. A Markov model was developed to investigate this issue based on literature data or estimated from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Markov model shows that primary transplantation offers longer life-expectancy in comparison to HR and salvage transplantation if 5-year posttransplant survival remains higher than 60%. The balance between the harm for resected patients and the benefit for the remaining waiting list depends on (a) the proportion of HCC candidates, (b) the percentage shifted to HR and (c) the median expected time-to-transplant. Faced with a low proportion of HCC candidates, the harm caused to resected patients was higher than the benefit that could be obtained for the waiting-list population from re-allocation of extra livers. An increased proportion of HCC candidates and/or an increased median time-to-transplant could lead to a benefit for waiting-list patients that outweighs this harm.

Survival benefit after liver transplantation: a single European center experience

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of the survival achieved with liver transplantation (LT) compared with remaining on the waiting list, the transplant benefit, should be the underlying principle of organ allocation.

METHODS

During 2004 to 2007 with an allocation system based on Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score with exceptions, we prospectively evaluated the transplant benefit and its relation to the match between recipient and donor characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 575 patients listed for chronic liver disease, 218 (37.9%) underwent LT and 115 (20%) were removed from the list (76 deaths, 25 tumor progressions, and 14 sick conditions). The 1- and 3-year survival rates on the list were significantly related to MELD score more than or equal to 20 (57% and 33% vs. 88% and 66%, P<0.001) and to its progression during the waiting time, such as s-Na levels less than or equal to 135 mEq/L (73% and 48% vs. 86% and 69%, P<0.001). These two variables had no impact on survival after LT, except in hepatitis C virus positive recipients. The multivariate Cox model confirmed a positive transplant benefit for all cases with MELD score more than or equal to 20 and without hepatocellular carcinoma (HR 2.9; CI 1.3-6.2) independently of the type of donors. Only hepatocellular carcinoma patients with low MELD scores showed a positive transplant benefit (MELD <15; HR 2; CI 1.1-5.1).

CONCLUSIONS

LT should be reserved for cirrhotic patients with MELD score more than or equal to 20 independently of other recipient and donor matches or for cases with lower MELD score but with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria (single tumour </=5 cm in size or </=3 tumours each </=3 cm in size, and no macrovascular invasion) have an excellent outcome. However, survival for patients with cancers that exceed these criteria remains unpredictable and access to transplantation is a balance of maximising patients' chances of cure and organ availability. The aim of this study was to explore the survival of patients with tumours that exceed the Milan criteria, to assess whether the criteria could be less restrictive, enabling more patients to qualify as transplant candidates, and to derive a prognostic model based on objective tumour characteristics, to see whether the Milan criteria could be expanded.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma despite exceeding Milan criteria at different centres were recorded via a web-based survey completed by specialists from each centre. The survival of these patients was correlated retrospectively with the size of the largest tumour nodule, number of nodules, and presence or absence of microvascular invasion detected at pathology. Contoured multivariable regression Cox models produced survival estimates by means of different combinations of the covariates. The primary aim of this study was to derive a prognostic model of overall survival based on tumour characteristics, according to the main parameters used in the Tumour Node Metastasis classification. The secondary aim was the identification of a subgroup of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding the Milan criteria, who achieved a 5-year overall survival of at least 70%-ie, similar to the outcome expected for patients who meet the Milan criteria.

FINDINGS

Over a 10-month period, between June 25, 2006, and April 3, 2007, data for 1556 patients who underwent transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma were entered on the database by 36 centres. 1112 patients had hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding Milan criteria and 444 patients had hepatocellular carcinoma shown not to exceed Milan criteria at post-transplant pathology review. In the group of patients with hepatocellular carcinomas exceeding the criteria, the median size of the largest nodule was 40 mm (range 4-200) and the median number of nodules was four (1-20). 454 of 1112 patients (41%) had microvascular invasion and, for those transplanted outside the Milan criteria, 5-year overall survival was 53.6% (95% CI 50.1-57.0), compared with 73.3% (68.2-77.7) for those that met the criteria. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with increasing values of size and number were 1.34 (1.25-1.44) and 1.51 (1.21-1.88), respectively. The effect was linear for size, whereas for number of tumours, the effect tended to plateau above three tumours. The effect of tumour size and number on survival was mediated by recurrence (b=0.08, SE=0.12, p=0.476). The presence of microvascular invasion doubled HRs in all scenarios. The 283 patients without microvascular invasion, but who fell within the Up-to-seven criteria (hepatocellular carcinomas with seven as the sum of the size of the largest tumour [in cm] and the number of tumours) achieved a 5-year overall survival of 71.2% (64.3-77.0).

INTERPRETATION

More patients with hepatocellular carcinoma could be candidates for transplantation if the current dual (yes/no) approach to candidacy, based on the strict Milan criteria, were replaced with a more precise estimation of survival contouring individual tumour characteristics and use of the up-to-seven criteria.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: results of down-staging in patients initially outside the Milan selection criteria

Conventional criteria for liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are single HCC <or= 5 cm or less than or equal to three HCCs <or= 3 cm. We prospectively evaluated the possibility of slightly extending these criteria in a down-staging protocol, which included patients initially outside conventional criteria: single HCC 5-6 cm or two HCCs <or= 5 cm or less than six HCCs <or= 4 cm and sum diameter <or= 12 cm, but within Milan criteria in the active tumors after the down-staging procedures. The outcome of patients down-staged was compared to that of Milan criteria after liver transplantation and since the first evaluation according to an intention-to-treat principle. From 2003 to 2006, 177 patients with HCC were considered for transplantation: the transplantation rate was comparable between the Milan and down-staging groups: 88/129 cases (68%) versus 32/48 cases (67%), respectively. At a median follow-up of 2.5 years after transplantation, the 1 and 3 years' disease-free survival rates were comparable: 80% and 71% in the Milan group versus 78% and 71% in the down-staging. The actuarial intention-to-treat survival was 27/48 patients (56.3%) in the down-staging and 81/129 cases (62.8%) in the Milan group, p = n.s. The proposed down-staging criteria provide a comparable outcome to the conventional criteria.

Multislice computed tomography using a triple-phase contrast protocol for preoperative assessment of hepatic tumor load in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation

For evaluation of triple-phase multislice computed tomography (CT) for assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) before liver transplantation. All HCC patients who underwent liver transplantation at our institution between 2001 and 2006 and had contrast-enhanced abdominal 4-/16-slice CT [unenhanced, arterial (20 s delay), portal venous (40 s), and venous (80 s) scan] within 100 days before transplantation were enrolled retrospectively. CT data were reviewed by two observers. Results were correlated to histopathologic findings by means of a lesion-by-lesion evaluation. Thirty-two patients with 76 HCC-lesions were included. The lesion-based sensitivity of observer 1 and 2 was 78% (59/76) and 83% (63/76) (false positives, n = 6 and n = 10). The sensitivity of observer 1/2 was 89%/95% for lesions >20 mm (n = 37), 94% for lesions 11-20 mm (n = 18), and 43%/53% for lesions <10 mm (n = 21). The mean detection rates of unenhanced, arterial, portal venous, and venous phase scans were 30%, 74%, 59%, and 40%. All detected lesions were visible on arterial and/or portal venous scans (arterial only, 24%; portal venous only, 9%). Arterial and portal venous phase scans are the strongest contributors to the high detection rate of triple-phase multislice-CT in HCC. However, the detection of small HCC measuring <10 mm and false positive findings remains a challenge.