Donation after cardiac death in the hepatocellular carcinoma patient: Same indication?

Expanding Selection Criteria in Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Long-term Follow-up of a National Registry and 2 Transplant Centers

BACKGROUND

This study compares selection criteria for liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for inclusivity and predictive ability to identify the most permissive criteria that maintain patient outcomes.

METHODS

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database was queried for deceased donor LT's for HCC (2003-2020) with 3-y follow-up; these data were compared with a 2-center experience. Milan, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 5-5-500, Up-to-seven (U7), HALT-HCC, and Metroticket 2.0 scores were calculated.

RESULTS

Nationally, 26 409 patients were included, and 547 at the 2 institutions. Median SRTR-follow-up was 6.8 y (interquartile range 3.9-10.1). Three criteria allowed the expansion of candidacy versus Milan: UCSF (7.7%, n = 1898), Metroticket 2.0 (4.2%, n = 1037), and U7 (3.5%, n = 828). The absolute difference in 3-y overall survival (OS) between scores was 1.5%. HALT-HCC (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.559, 0.551-0.567) best predicted 3-y OS although AUC was notably similar between criteria (0.506 < AUC < 0.527, Mila n = 0.513, UCSF = 0.506, 5-5-500 = 0.522, U7 = 0.511, HALT-HCC = 0.559, and Metroticket 2.0 = 0.520), as was Harrall's c-statistic (0.507 < c-statistic < 0.532). All scores predicted survival to P < 0.001 on competing risk analysis. Median follow-up in our enterprise was 9.8 y (interquartile range 7.1-13.3). U7 (13.0%, n = 58), UCSF (11.1%, n = 50), HALT-HCC (6.4%, n = 29), and Metroticket 2.0 (6.3%, n = 28) allowed candidate expansion. HALT-HCC (AUC = 0.768, 0.713-0.823) and Metroticket 2.0 (AUC = 0.739, 0.677-0.801) were the most predictive of recurrence. All scores predicted recurrence and survival to P < 0.001 using competing risk analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Less restrictive criteria such as Metroticket 2.0, UCSF, or U7 allow broader application of transplants for HCC without sacrificing outcomes. Thus, the criteria for Model for End-stage Liver Disease-exception points for HCC should be expanded to allow more patients to receive life-saving transplantation.

Risk assessment in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a two-centre experience

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-established treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but there are ongoing debates regarding outcomes and selection. This study examines the experience of LT for HCC at a high-volume centre.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was used to identify HCC patients undergoing LT from 2000 to 2020 with more than or equal to 3-years follow-up. Data were obtained from the centre database and electronic medical records. The Metroticket 2.0 HCC-specific 5-year survival scale was calculated for each patient. Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression analyses were employed assessing survival between groups based on Metroticket score and individual donor and recipient risk factors.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-nine patients met criteria. Median follow-up was 96.2 months (8.12 years; interquartile range 59.9-147.8). Three-year recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were 88.6% ( n =504) and 86.6% ( n =493). Five-year RFS and OS were 78.9% ( n =449) and 79.1% ( n =450). Median Metroticket 2.0 score was 0.9 (interquartile range 0.9-0.95). Tumour size greater than 3 cm ( P =0.012), increasing tumour number on imaging ( P =0.001) and explant pathology ( P <0.001) was associated with recurrence. Transplant within Milan ( P <0.001) or UCSF criteria ( P <0.001) had lower recurrence rates. Increasing alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)-values were associated with more HCC recurrence ( P <0.001) and reduced OS ( P =0.008). Chemoembolization was predictive of recurrence in the overall population ( P =0.043) and in those outside-Milan criteria ( P =0.038). A receiver-operator curve using Metroticket 2.0 identified an optimal cut-off of projected survival greater than or equal to 87.5% for predicting recurrence. This cut-off was able to predict RFS ( P <0.001) in the total cohort and predict both, RFS ( P =0.007) and OS ( P =0.016) outside Milan. Receipt of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts (55/478, 13%) or living-donor grafts (3/22, 13.6%) experienced better survival rates compared to donation after cardiac death (DCD) grafts ( n =15/58, 25.6%, P =0.009). Donor age was associated with a higher HCC recurrence ( P =0.006). Both total ischaemia time (TIT) greater than 6hours ( P =0.016) and increasing TIT correlated with higher HCC recurrence ( P =0.027). The use of DCD grafts for outside-Milan candidates was associated with increased recurrence ( P =0.039) and reduced survival ( P =0.033).

CONCLUSION

This large two-centre analysis confirms favourable outcomes after LT for HCC. Tumour size and number, pre-transplant AFP, and Milan criteria remain important recipient HCC-risk factors. A higher donor risk (i.e. donor age, DCD grafts, ischaemia time) was associated with poorer outcomes.

Comparable graft survival is achievable with the usage of donation after circulatory death liver grafts from donors at or above 70 years of age: A long-term UK national analysis

The aim of the study was to assess the UK donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplant experience from donors ≥70 years. Nationwide UK DCD retrospective analysis was conducted between 2001 and 2015 (n = 1163). Recipients were divided into group 1 vs. group 2 (donors 70≥ vs. <70 years, respectively). group 1 (n = 69, 5.9%) recipients were older (median 59 vs. 55 years, p = .001) and had longer waitlist time (128 vs. 84 days; p = .039). 94.2% of group 1 clustered in London and Birmingham, where the two busiest centers are located. group 1 allografts had higher UKDRI and UK DCD Risk Scores but similar WIT and CIT and were more likely to have been imported. Both groups had similar 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival (group 1, 90%, 81.4%, and 74% vs. group 2, 88.6%, 81.4%, and 78.6%, respectively; p = .54). Both groups had similar ICU stay length (p = .22), 3-month hepatic artery thrombosis rates (4.4% vs 4.0%; p = .9), and 12-month readmission rates for all biliary complications (20.3% vs 25.7%; p = .32). This study demonstrates that acceptable outcomes are achievable using older grafts in a highly selected cohort at experienced centers. Advanced age should not be an absolute contraindication to utilizing a DCD graft from donors aged ≥70 years.

Donation After Circulatory Death Is Associated With Similar Posttransplant Survival in All but the Highest-Risk Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

Liver transplantation (LT) recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receive a higher proportion of livers from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors compared with non-HCC etiologies. Nevertheless, data on outcomes in patients with HCC receiving DCD grafts are limited. We evaluated the influence of DCD livers on post-LT outcome among HCC patients. We identified 7563 patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database who underwent LT with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score exceptions from 2012 to 2016, including 567 (7.5%) who received a DCD donor organ and 6996 (92.5%) who received a donation after brain death (DBD) donor organ. Kaplan-Meier probabilities of post-LT HCC recurrence at 3 years were 7.6% for DCD and 6.4% for DBD recipients (P = 0.67) and post-LT survival at 3 years was 81.1% versus 85.5%, respectively (P = 0.008). On multivariate analysis, DCD donor (hazard ratio, 1.38; P = 0.005) was an independent predictor of post-LT mortality. However, a survival difference after LT was only observed in subgroups at higher risk for HCC recurrence including Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant (RETREAT) score ≥4 (DCD 57.0% versus DBD 72.6%; P = 0.02), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥100 (60.1% versus 76.9%; P = 0.049), and multiple viable tumors on last imaging before LT (69.9% versus 83.1%; P = 0.002). In this analysis of HCC patients receiving DCD versus DBD livers in the UNOS database, we found that patients with a low-to-moderate risk of HCC recurrence (80%-90% of the DCD cohort) had equivalent survival regardless of donor type. It appears that DCD donation can best be used to increase the donor pool for HCC patients with decompensated cirrhosis or partial response/stable disease after locoregional therapy with AFP at LT <100 ng/mL.