Assessing Competing Risks for Death Following Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy and Liver Transplant for Liver Cancer: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Importance

Whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a bridge to liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is effective and safe is still unknown.

Objective

To investigate the feasibility of SBRT before deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) for previously untreated unresectable HCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial conducted between June 1, 2015, and October 18, 2019, 32 eligible patients within UCSF (University of California, San Francisco) criteria underwent dual-tracer (18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 11C-acetate [ACC]) positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gadoxetate followed by SBRT of 35 to 50 Gy in 5 fractions, and the same imaging afterward while awaiting DDLT. Statistical analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis between October 1 and 31, 2023.

Intervention

Patients received SBRT followed by DDLT when matched deceased donor grafts were available.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs) by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST). Secondary end points were local control rate, overall survival (OS), and safety.

Results

A total of 32 patients (median age, 59 years [IQR, 54-63 years]; 22 men [68.8%]) with 56 lesions received SBRT. After a median follow-up of 74.6 months (IQR, 40.1-102.9 months), the median PFS was 17.6 months (95% CI, 6.6-28.6 months), and the median OS was 60.5 months (95% CI, 29.7-91.2 months). The 5-year PFS was 39.9% (95% CI, 19.9%-59.9%), and the 5-year OS was 51.3% (95% CI, 31.7%-70.9%). In terms of number of patients, ORRs were 62.5% ([n = 20] 95% CI, 54.2%-68.7%) by RECIST 1.1, 71.9% ([n = 23] 95% CI, 63.7%-79.0%) by mRECIST, and 78.1% ([n = 25] 95% CI, 73.2%-86.7%) by PERCIST. In terms of number of lesions, ORRs were 75.0% ([n = 42] 95% CI, 61.6%-80.8%) by RECIST 1.1, 83.9% ([n = 47] 95% CI, 74.7%-90.6%) by mRECIST, and 87.5% ([n = 49] 95% CI, 81.3%-98.6%) by PERCIST. Twenty patients with 36 lesions received DDLT, of whom 15 patients (75.0%) with 21 lesions (58.3%) exhibited pathologic complete response. Multivariable analyses revealed that pretreatment metabolic tumor volume (MTV) based on ACC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06 [95% CI, 1.01-1.10]; P = .01) and complete metabolic response (CMR) by PERCIST (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.10-0.96]; P = .04) were associated with PFS, while pretreatment MTV based on ACC (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03-1.16]; P = .01), total lesion activity based on ACC (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00-1.02]; P = .02), and CMR by PERCIST (HR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.07-0.73]; P = .01) were associated with OS. Toxic effects associated with SBRT were reported for 9 patients (28.1%), with 1 grade 3 event.

Conclusions and Relevance

This phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial demonstrated promising survival and safety outcomes of SBRT before DDLT for unresectable HCC. Future randomized clinical trials are warranted.

Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer (2022 Edition)

Background

Primary liver cancer, of which around 75-85% is hepatocellular carcinoma in China, is the fourth most common malignancy and the second leading cause of tumor-related death, thereby posing a significant threat to the life and health of the Chinese people.

Summary

Since the publication of Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer in China in June 2017, which were updated by the National Health Commission in December 2019, additional high-quality evidence has emerged from researchers worldwide regarding the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of liver cancer, that requires the guidelines to be updated again. The new edition (2022 Edition) was written by more than 100 experts in the field of liver cancer in China, which not only reflects the real-world situation in China but also may reshape the nationwide diagnosis and treatment of liver cancer.

Key Messages

The new guideline aims to encourage the implementation of evidence-based practice and improve the national average 5-year survival rate for patients with liver cancer, as proposed in the "Health China 2030 Blueprint."

Outcomes of liver transplantation in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) versus non-NASH associated hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-associated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a rising indication for liver transplantation. This unique population, with multiple comorbidities, has potential for worse post-transplant outcomes. We compared post-transplant survival of NASH and non-NASH HCC patients using a large cohort.

METHODS

Adults transplanted for HCC between 2008 and 2018, from United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and University Health Network (UHN) databases were divided into two populations: NASH and non-NASH. Recipient characteristics and post-transplant survival were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed within and beyond Milan criteria.

RESULTS

2071 of 20,672 (10.0%) patients underwent transplantation for NASH HCC, with annual proportional increase of 1.2%UHN (p = 0.02) and 1.3%UNOS (p < 0.001). The 1-,3-,5-year post-transplant survival were 90.8%, 83.9%, 76.3% NASH HCC versus 91.9%, 82.1%, 74.9% non-NASH HCC (p = 0.94). No survival differences were observed in populations within or beyond Milan. Competing-risk analysis demonstrated no differences in risk for cardiovascular-related death (HR1.24, 95%CI 0.87-1.55, p = 0.16), or HCC recurrence-related death (HR1.21, 95%CI 0.89-1.65, p = 0.23). NASH HCC patients had lower risk of liver-related deaths (HR0.57, 95%CI 0.34-0.98, p = 0.04).

DISCUSSION

NASH HCC is a rising indication for liver transplantation. Despite demographic differences, no post-transplantation survival differences were observed between NASH and non-NASH HCC. This justifies equivalent organ allocation, irrespective of NASH status.

Autophagy Drives Galectin-1 Secretion From Tumor-Associated Macrophages Facilitating Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progression

Galectin-1 (Gal-1) is a secretory lectin with pro-tumor activities and is associated strongly with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development. Although Gal-1 is a well-known soluble pro-tumor factor in the tumor microenvironment (TME), the secretion mode of Gal-1 is not clearly defined. On the other hand, in addition to cancer cells, Gal-1 is widely expressed in tumor stromal cells, including tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). TAMs are a significant component of stromal cells in TME; however, their contributions in producing Gal-1 to TME are still not explored. Here we reveal that TAMs can actively secrete Gal-1 in response to stimuli of HCC cells. Gal-1 produced by TAMs leads to an increase of the systemic level of Gal-1 and HCC tumor growth in mice. Mechanistically, TLR2-dependent secretory autophagy is found to be responsible for Gal-1 secretion from TAMs. Gal-1 acts as a cargo of autophagosomes to fuse with multivesicular bodies via Rab11 and VAMP7-mediated vesicle trafficking before being secreted. This autophagy-regulated Gal-1 secretion in TAMs correlates to poor overall survival and progression-free survival rates of HCC patients. Our findings uncover the secretion mode of Gal-1 via secretory autophagy and highlight the pathological role of TAM-produced Gal-1 in HCC progression.

Blood Cell Salvage and Autotransfusion Does Not Worsen Oncologic Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation with Incidental Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative blood cell salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) during liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial for concern regarding adversely impacting oncologic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent LT with incidentally discovered HCC who received IBSA compared with those who did not receive IBSA.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LT (January 2001-October 2018) with incidental HCC on explant pathology were retrospectively identified. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. HCC recurrence and patient survival were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed, and univariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed for risks of recurrence and death.

RESULTS

Overall, 110 patients were identified (IBSA, n = 76 [69.1%]; non-IBSA, n = 34 [30.9%]). Before matching, the groups were similar in terms of demographics, transplant, and tumor characteristics. Overall survival was similar for IBSA and non-IBSA at 1, 3, and 5 years (96.0%, 88.4%, 83.0% vs. 97.1%, 91.1%, 87.8%, respectively; p = 0.79). Similarly, the recurrence rate at 1, 3, and 5 years was not statistically different (IBSA 0%, 1.8%, 1.8% vs. non-IBSA 0%, 3.2%, 3.2%, respectively; p = 0.55). After 1:1 matching (26 IBSA, 26 non-IBSA), Cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated similar risk of death and recurrence between the groups (IBSA hazard ratio [HR] of death 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-3.05, p = 0.61; and HR of recurrence 2.64, 95% CI 0.28-25.30, p = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

IBSA does not appear to adversely impact oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing LT with incidental HCC. This evidence further supports the need for randomized trials evaluating the impact of IBSA use in LT for HCC.

Transplant Oncology in Primary and Metastatic Liver Tumors: Principles, Evidence, and Opportunities

Transplant oncology defines any application of transplant medicine and surgery aimed at improving cancer patients' survival and/or quality of life. In practice, liver transplantation for selected hepato-biliary cancers is the only solid organ transplant with demonstrated efficacy in curing cancer. Four are the proposed future contributions of transplant oncology in hepato-biliary cancer (4-e). (1) evolutionary approach to cancer care that includes liver transplantation; (2) elucidation of self and non-self recognition systems, by linking tumor and transplant immunology; (3) exploration of innovative endpoints both in clinical and experimental settings taking advantage from the access to the entire liver explant; (4) extension of surgical limitation in the multidisciplinary approach to hepato-biliary oncology. The aim of this review is to define the principles of transplant oncology that may be applied to hepato-biliary cancer treatment and research, attempting to balance current evidences with future opportunities.

Potential Role of Adjuvant Lenvatinib in Improving Disease-Free Survival for Patients With High-Risk Hepatitis B Virus-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective, Case Control Study

Background and Aim

Although liver transplantation (LT) is one of the most effective treatments for the patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the high-risk patients suffer from a high ratio of tumor recurrence after LT. Lenvatinib, as a novel targeted drug, has shown an excellent effect in the treatment of advanced HCC, but there is no study on its effect in preventing HCC recurrence in the patients undergoing transplantation. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the role of adjuvant lenvatinib in preventing recurrence of high-risk LT recipients with HBV-related HCC.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 23 high-risk patients consisting of lenvatinib group (n=14) and control group (n=9) with HBV-related HCC who underwent LT in our center. Disease-free survival (DFS) and HCC recurrence of the two groups were compared. The adverse events (AEs) and drug tolerance of lenvatinib were evaluated.

Results

The median DFS in lenvatinib group was 291 (95%CI 204-516) days, significantly longer than 182 (95%CI 56-537) days in control group (P=0.04). Three patients in lenvatinib group (21.4%) and five patients in control group (55.6%) had short-term HCC recurrence (P=0.11). All patients in lenvatinib group could tolerate oral lenvatinib for at least three cycles except six cases (42.9%) of dose reduction and 1 case of interruption (14.3%). Thirteen patients (92.9%) taking lenvatinib experienced AEs. The most common AEs were hypertension (64.3%) and proteinuria (42.9%), and the most serious AEs were Grade 3 for 4 cases (28.5%) according to common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 5.0. Additionally, no influence of lenvatinib on the dosage and blood concentration of FK506 was observed.

Conclusions

Adjuvant lenvatinib had a potential benefit on prolonging the DFS and reducing the recurrence of high-risk HBV-related HCC patients following liver transplantation with an acceptable drug safety and patient tolerance.

Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (2019 Edition)

BACKGROUND

Primary liver cancer, around 90% are hepatocellular carcinoma in China, is the fourth most common malignancy and the second leading cause of tumor-related death, thereby posing a significant threat to the life and health of the Chinese people.

SUMMARY

Since the publication of Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer (2017 Edition) in 2018, additional high-quality evidence has emerged with relevance to the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of liver cancer in and outside China that requires the guidelines to be updated. The new edition (2019 Edition) was written by more than 70 experts in the field of liver cancer in China. They reflect the real-world situation in China regarding diagnosing and treating liver cancer in recent years.

KEY MESSAGES

Most importantly, the new guidelines were endorsed and promulgated by the Bureau of Medical Administration of the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China in December 2019.

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.

Including mRECIST in the Metroticket 2.0 criteria improves prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma-related death after liver transplant

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In the context of liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), prediction models are used to ensure that the risk of post-LT recurrence is acceptably low. However, the weighting that 'response to neoadjuvant therapies' should have in such models remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to incorporate radiological response into the Metroticket 2.0 model for post-LT prediction of "HCC-related death", to improve its clinical utility.

METHODS

Data from 859 transplanted patients (2000-2015) who received neoadjuvant therapies were included. The last radiological assessment before LT was reviewed according to the modified RECIST criteria. Competing-risk analysis was applied. The added value of including radiological response into the Metroticket 2.0 was explored through category-based net reclassification improvement (NRI) analysis.

RESULTS

At last radiological assessment prior to LT, complete response (CR) was diagnosed in 41.3%, partial response/stable disease (PR/SD) in 24.9% and progressive disease (PD) in 33.8% of patients. The 5-year rates of "HCC-related death" were 3.1%, 9.6% and 13.4% in those with CR, PR/SD, or PD, respectively (p <0.001). Log₁₀AFP (p <0.001) and the sum of number and diameter of the tumour/s (p <0.05) were determinants of "HCC-related death" for PR/SD and PD patients. To maintain the post-LT 5-year incidence of "HCC-related death" <30%, the Metroticket 2.0 criteria were restricted in some cases of PR/SD and in all cases with PD, correctly reclassifying 9.4% of patients with "HCC-related death", at the expense of 3.5% of patients who did not have the event. The overall/net NRI was 5.8.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating the modified RECIST criteria into the Metroticket 2.0 framework can improve its predictive ability. The additional information provided can be used to better judge the suitability of candidates for LT following neoadjuvant therapies.

LAY SUMMARY

In the context of liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, prediction models are used to ensure that the risk of recurrence after transplantation is acceptably low. The Metroticket 2.0 model has been proposed as an accurate predictor of "tumour-related death" after liver transplantation. In the present study, we show that its accuracy can be improved by incorporating information relating to the radiological responses of patients to neoadjuvant therapies.

Follow-up of liver transplant recipients

The number of surviving liver allograft recipients is increasing almost exponentially. The quality and length of life is increasing but most recipients have reduced survival and quality of life compared with healthy matched individuals. Causes of premature death include cardio and cerebrovascular disease, renal failure, graft failure, de novo malignancy and recurrent disease. Follow-up is needed lifelong to ensure graft and patient health and ensure that complications are recognised and treated early. Immunosuppression is kept to the appropriate minimum and prophylactic interventions are given early, such as use of statins and tight control of blood pressure and blood sugar. Recipients will require life-long follow-up, and this is placing an increasing burden on transplant units. Follow-up is best done by close collaboration between the Liver Transplant Unit, the local hospital and primary care team. Involvement of other health care practitioners, such as recipient coordinators, pharmacists, dermatologists and addiction specialists may improve outcomes. Key to successful follow-up are agreed protocols and good communication between the recipients and all relevant health care providers. Use of IT allows for better communication and will support use of video and telephone consultations in selected instances. The most appropriate follow-up will depend on many factors, including logistic and geographic issues, local experience. The provision of well-funded and supported registries at local, national and international levels will allow for improvements in management.