Transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: the North American experience

Diffusion-weighted imaging for identifying patients at high risk of tumor recurrence following liver transplantation

Background

Tumor recurrence is the major risk factor affecting post-transplant survival. In this retrospective study, we evaluate the prognostic values of magnetic resonance (MR) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

From April 2014 to September 2016, 106 HCC patients receiving living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were enrolled. Nine patients were excluded due to postoperative death within 3 months and incomplete imaging data. The association between tumor recurrence, explant pathologic findings, and DWI parameters was analyzed (tumor-to-liver diffusion weighted imaging ratio, DWI_T/L; apparent diffusion coefficients, ADC). The survival probability was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

Sixteen of 97 patients (16%) developed tumor recurrence during the follow-up period (median of 40.9 months; range 5.2–56.5). In those with no viable tumor (n = 65) on pretransplant imaging, recurrence occurred only in 5 (7.6%) patients. Low minimum ADC values (p = 0.001), unfavorable tumor histopathology (p <  0.001) and the presence of microvascular invasion (p <  0.001) were risk factors for tumor recurrence, while ADC_mean (p = 0.111) and DWI_T/L (p = 0.093) showed no significant difference between the groups. An ADC_min ≤ 0.88 × 10^− 3 mm²/s was an independent factor associated with worse three-year recurrence-free survival (94.4% vs. 23.8%) and overall survival rates (100% vs. 38.6%).

Conclusions

Quantitative measurement of ADC_min is a promising prognostic indicator for predicting tumor recurrence after liver transplantation.

18F-FDG-PET for Assessing Biological Viability and Prognosis in Liver Transplant Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) has become standard of care in patients with non-resectable early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in liver cirrhosis. Currently, patient selection for LT is strictly based on tumor size and number, provided by the Milan criteria. This may, however, exclude patients with advanced tumor load but favourable biology from a possibly curative treatment option. It became clear in recent years that biological tumor viability rather than tumor macromorphology determines posttransplant outcome. In particular, microvascular invasion and poor grading reflect tumor aggressiveness and promote the risk of tumor relapse. Pretransplant biopsy is not applicable due to tumor heterogeneity and risk of tumor cell seeding. ¹⁸F-fludeoxyglucose (¹⁸F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), an established nuclear imaging device in oncology, was demonstrated to non-invasively correlate with unfavorable histopathologic features. Currently, there is an increasing amount of evidence that ¹⁸F-FDG-PET is very useful for identifying eligible liver transplant patients with HCC beyond standard criteria but less aggressive tumor properties. In order to safely expand the HCC selection criteria and the pool of eligible liver recipients, tumor evaluation with ¹⁸F-FDG-PET should be implemented in pretransplant decision process.

A Review and Update of Treatment Options and Controversies in the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To review the current management, outline recent advances and address controversies in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The treatment of HCC is multidisciplinary involving hepatologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, interventional radiologists, and other disciplines. Each of these disciplines brings its unique perspective and differing opinions that add to controversies in the management of HCC.

METHODS

A focused literature review was performed to identify recent studies on the management of HCC and thereby summarize relevant information on the various therapeutic modalities and controversies involved in the treatment of HCC.

RESULTS

The main treatment algorithms continue to rely on hepatic resection or transplantation with controversies involving patients harboring early stage disease and borderline hepatic function. The other treatment strategies include locoregional therapies, radiation, and systemic therapy used alone or in combination with other treatment modalities. Recent advances in locoregional therapies, radiation, and systemic therapies have provided better therapeutic options with curative intent potential for some locoregional therapies. Further refinements in combination therapies such as algorithms consisting of locoregional therapies and systemic or radiation therapies are likely to add additional options and improve survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of HCC has witnessed significant strides with advances in existing options and introduction of several new treatment modalities of various combinations. Further refinements in these treatment options combined with enrollment in clinical trials are essential to improve the management and outcomes of patients with HCC.

Selective internal radiation therapy in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: new concepts of personalization

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a global health problem, with more than half a million new cases diagnosed annually and mortality rates at similar level. The majority of HCC is diagnosed at intermediate-advanced stages being, therefore, an issue for palliative rather than curative care. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) is one of the best appropriate palliative treatment modalities in HCC management. Although delivering satisfactory results, SIRT application comes along with frequent complications and tumor recurrence. Recent studies suggest treatment algorithm tailored to the person as improving individual outcomes and reducing treatment-related complications. This review provides insights to implicate innovative concepts of predictive, preventive and personalized medicine in SIRT application to HCC cohorts.

Postoperative peak serum C-reactive protein is a predictor of outcome following liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

CONTEXT

C-reactive protein (CRP), a biomarker of inflammation, may correlate with prognosis in several malignancies.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prognostic impact of early postoperative peak serum levels of CRP on tumor-specific outcome in 106 liver transplant patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In multivariate Cox regression analysis, a posttransplant elevated peak CRP level (>versus ≤ 3.5 mg/dl) was identified as an independent predictor of poor recurrence-free survival (p = 0.01; HR = 4.04; CI = 1.399-11.640).

CONCLUSION

Early postoperative serum CRP may serve as a useful inflammation-based biomarker of outcome in liver transplant patients with HCC.

Diagnostic and therapeutic management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an increasing health problem, representing the second cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The major risk factor for HCC is cirrhosis. In developing countries, viral hepatitis represent the major risk factor, whereas in developed countries, the epidemic of obesity, diabetes and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis contribute to the observed increase in HCC incidence. Cirrhotic patients are recommended to undergo HCC surveillance by abdominal ultrasounds at 6-mo intervals. The current diagnostic algorithms for HCC rely on typical radiological hallmarks in dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, while the use of α-fetoprotein as an independent tool for HCC surveillance is not recommended by current guidelines due to its low sensitivity and specificity. Early diagnosis is crucial for curative treatments. Surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation and liver transplantation are considered the cornerstones of curative therapy, while for patients with more advanced HCC recommended options include sorafenib and trans-arterial chemo-embolization. A multidisciplinary team, consisting of hepatologists, surgeons, radiologists, oncologists and pathologists, is fundamental for a correct management. In this paper, we review the diagnostic and therapeutic management of HCC, with a focus on the most recent evidences and recommendations from guidelines.

Current surgical treatment strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma in North America

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive tumor that often occurs in the setting of chronic liver disease. Many patients do not initially manifest any symptoms of HCC and present late when cure with surgical resection or transplantation is no longer possible. For this reason, patients at high risk for developing HCC are subjected to frequent screening processes. The surgical management of HCC is complex and requires an inter-disciplinary approach. Hepatic resection is the treatment of choice for HCC in patients without cirrhosis and is indicated in some patients with early cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A). Liver transplantation has emerged in the past decade as the standard of care for patients with cirrhosis and HCC meeting Milan criteria and in select patients with HCC beyond Milan criteria. Loco-regional therapy with transarterial chemoembolization, transarterial embolization, radiofrequency ablation and other similar local treatments can be used as neo-adjuvant therapy to downstage HCC to within Milan criteria or as a bridge to transplantation in patients on transplant wait list.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary tumor of the liver and is considered an aggressive tumor with mean survival estimated between 6 and 20 months. Hepatitis B and C are the most common etiologies. Pathological, laboratory and radiologic imaging all aid in diagnosis but much controversy exists in the utilization of any given modality. Many treatment options exist for management of HCC, each has its own limitation. Liver transplantation offers the most reasonable expectation for curative treatment while simultaneously removing the burden of the diseased liver. Still, advancements in the field have thus far not yet matched its potential, although new immunosuppressive and chemotherapy regimen may allow transplantation to push the envelope once again.

Liver transplantation for malignancy: Current treatment strategies and future perspectives

In 1967, Starzl et al performed the first successful liver transplantation for a patient diagnosed with hepatoblastoma. In the following, liver transplantation was considered ideal for complete tumor resection and potential cure from primary hepatic malignancies. Several reports of liver transplantation for primary and metastatic liver cancer however showed disappointing results and the strategy was soon dismissed. In 1996, Mazzaferro et al introduced the Milan criteria, offering liver transplantation to patients diagnosed with limited hepatocellular carcinoma. Since then, liver transplantation for malignant disease is an ongoing subject of preclinical and clinical research. In this context, several aspects must be considered: (1) Given the shortage of deceased-donor organs, long-term overall and disease free survival should be comparable with results obtained in patients transplanted for non-malignant disease; (2) In this regard, living-donor liver transplantation may in selected patients help to solve the ethical dilemma of optimal individual patient treatment vs organ allocation justice; and (3) Ongoing research focusing on perioperative therapy and anti-proliferative immunosuppressive regimens may further reduce tumor recurrence in patients transplanted for malignant disease and thus improve overall survival. The present review gives an overview of current indications and future perspectives of liver transplantation for malignant disease.

Overview of the indications and contraindications for liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is the only definitive treatment option for patients with irrevocable acute or chronic liver failure. In the last four decades, liver transplantation has developed from an experimental approach with a very high mortality to an almost routine procedure with good short- and long-term survival rates. Here, we present an up-to-date overview of the indications and contraindications for liver transplantation. It is shown how the evaluation of a candidate and finally listing for transplantation has to be performed in a multidisciplinary setting. Meticulous listing, timing, and organ allocation are the crucial factors to achieve an optimal outcome for the individual patient on the one hand, and reasonably using the limited deceased donor pool on the other hand. Living-donor liver transplantation is demanding but necessarily increasing. Because patients after liver transplantation need lifelong aftercare, it is important for primary care clinicians to understand the basic medical problems and risks.

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

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