Pretransplant Intra-arterial Liver-Directed Therapy Does Not Increase the Risk of Hepatic Arterial Complications in Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center 10-Year Experience

Locoregional Treatments for Bridging and Downstaging HCC to Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is the first-line treatment for patients diagnosed with unresectable early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the setting of cirrhosis. It is well known that HCC patients within the Milan criteria (solitary tumour ≤ 5 cm or ≤3 tumours, each <3 cm) could undergo LT with excellent results. However, there is a growing tendency to enlarge inclusion criteria since the Milan criteria are nowadays considered too restrictive and may exclude patients who would benefit from LT. On the other hand, there is a persistent shortage of donor organs. In this scenario, there is consensus about the role of loco-regional therapy (LRT) during the waiting list to select patients who would benefit more from LT, reducing the risk of drop off from the waiting list as well as decreasing tumour dimension to meet acceptable criteria for LT. In this review, current evidence on the safety, efficacy and utility of LRTs as neoadjuvant therapies before LT are summarized.

Long-term survival and postoperative complications of pre-liver transplantation transarterial chemoembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to conduct a contemporary systematic review of high quality non-randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of pre-liver transplantation (LT) transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) on long-term survival and complications of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

BACKGROUND

TACE is used as a neoadjuvant therapy to mitigate waitlist drop-out for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Previous studies have conflicting conclusions on the effect of TACE on long-term survival and complications of HCC patients undergoing LT.

METHODS

CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Baseline characteristics included number of patients outside Milan criteria, tumour diameter, MELD score, and time on the waiting list. Primary outcomes included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included tumour recurrence, 30-day postoperative mortality, and hepatic artery and biliary complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-one high-quality NRCTs representing 8242 patients were included. Tumour diameter was significantly larger in TACE patients (3.49 cm vs 3.15 cm, P = 0.02) and time on the waiting list was significantly longer in TACE patients (4.87 months vs 3.46 months, P = 0.05), while MELD score was significantly higher in non-TACE patients (10.81 vs 12.35, P = 0.005). All primary and secondary outcomes displayed non-significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with TACE had similar survival and postoperative outcomes to non-TACE patients, however, they had worse prognostic features compared to non-TACE patients. These findings strongly support the current US and European clinical practice guidelines that neoadjuvant TACE can be used for patients with longer expected waiting list times (specifically >6 months). Randomised controlled trials would be needed to increase the quality of evidence.

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany)] for patients with advanced-stage disease. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation to liver tumours via microspheres that are injected into the hepatic artery. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

A search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624-36; and SIRveNIB: Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1913-21] found no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (systemic therapy) in an advanced population, despite greater tumour response in the SIR-Spheres arm of both trials. There were some concerns regarding generalisability of the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials to UK practice. All other studies of SIR-Spheres, TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres were either rated as being at a high risk of bias or caused some concerns regarding bias. A network meta-analysis was conducted in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis and were ineligible for conventional transarterial therapies. The analysis included the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials as well as a trial comparing lenvatinib (Kisplyx®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (systemic therapy) with sorafenib. There were no meaningful differences in overall survival between any of the treatments. The base-case economic analysis suggested that TheraSphere may be cost-saving relative to both SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres. However, incremental cost differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. In a fully incremental analysis, which included confidential Patient Access Scheme discounts, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment and dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. In pairwise comparisons of sorafenib with each selective internal radiation therapy, sorafenib also dominated all selective internal radiation therapies.

LIMITATIONS

The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres.

CONCLUSIONS

In the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts.

FUTURE WORK

Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin-bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of rescue revascularization with arterial conduits in liver transplantation

Although aortohepatic conduits (AHCs) provide an effective technique for arterialization in liver transplantation (LT) when the native recipient artery is unusable, various publications report higher occlusion rates and impaired outcome compared to conventional anastomoses. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the published evidence of outcome and risk of AHCs in LT using bibliographic databases and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Primary and secondary outcome were artery occlusion as well as graft and patient survival. Twenty-three retrospective studies were identified with a total of 22 113 patients with LT, of whom 1900 patients (9%) received an AHC. An AHC was used in 33% of retransplantations. Early artery occlusion occurred in 7% (3%-16%) of patients with AHCs, compared to 2% (1%-3%) without conduit (OR 3.70; 1.63-8.38; P = .001). The retransplantation rate after occlusion was not significantly different in both groups (OR 1.46; 0.67-3.18; P = .35). Graft (HR 1.38; 1.17-1.63; P < .001) and patient (HR 1.57; 1.12-2.20; P = .009) survival was significantly lower in the AHC compared to the nonconduit group. In contrast, graft survival in retransplantations was comparable (HR 1.00; 0.82-1.22; P = .986). Although AHCs provide an important rescue option, when regular revascularization is not feasible during LT, transplant surgeons should be alert of the potential risk of inferior outcome.