Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: expanding frontiers and building bridges

Surgical Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of cancer-related death worldwide. In select patients, surgical treatment in the form of either resection or transplantation offers a curative option. The aims of this review are to (1) review the current American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/European Association for the Study of the Liver guidelines on the surgical management of HCC and (2) review the proposed changes to these guidelines and analyze the strength of evidence underlying these proposals. Three authors identified the most relevant publications in the literature on liver resection and transplantation for HCC and analyzed the strength of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification. In the United States, the liver allocation system provides priority for liver transplantation to patients with HCC within the Milan criteria. Current evidence suggests that liver transplantation may also be indicated in certain patient groups beyond Milan criteria, such as pediatric patients with large tumor burden or adult patients who are successfully downstaged. Patients with no underlying liver disease may also benefit from liver transplantation if the HCC is unresectable. In patients with no or minimal (compensated) liver disease and solitary HCC ≥2 cm, liver resection is warranted. If liver transplantation is not available or contraindicated, liver resection can be offered to patients with multinodular HCC, provided that the underlying liver disease is not decompensated. Many patients may benefit from surgical strategies adapted to local resources and policies (hepatitis B prevalence, organ availability, etc). Although current low-quality evidence shows better overall survival with aggressive surgical strategies, this approach is limited to select patients. Larger and well-designed prospective studies are needed to better define the benefits and limits of such approach.

Pre-transplant utilization of sorafenib is not associated with increased complications after liver transplantation

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in incidence, resulting in approximately 35% of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) performed each year. Sorafenib (SOR) is a multi-kinase inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of unresectable HCC. Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of SOR in patients undergoing major surgery. We retrospectively reviewed 79 consecutive patients with HCC receiving OLT. Patient data were compared for those who received SOR pre-OLT with those who did not. SOR was continued until time of transplant. During this time period, 15 patients received SOR pre-OLT and 64 did not. The two groups were similar with regards to demographic and clinical data. SOR patients were more likely to have larger tumors, more tumor nodules, and be outside of Milan criteria. The rate of recurrence of HCC was not different between the groups (13% in SOR group, 11% in no-SOR group). Surgical complications were not increased in patients receiving SOR prior to OLT. Survival rate was also similar between the two groups (median follow-up 19.7 months). In this small cohort of patients, use of SOR prior to liver transplantation does not confer an increased risk of surgical complications, even when continued until the day of surgery.

Prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia: a conjoint analysis

Background

Liver cancer is a complex and burdensome disease, with Asia accounting for 75% of known cases. Comprehensive cancer control requires the use of multiple strategies, but various stakeholders may have different views as to which strategies should have the highest priority. This study identified priorities across multiple strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control (CLCC) from the perspective of liver cancer clinical, policy, and advocacy stakeholders in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Concordance of priorities was assessed across the region and across respondent roles.

Methods

Priorities for CLCC were examined as part of a cross-sectional survey of liver cancer experts. Respondents completed several conjoint-analysis choice tasks to prioritize 11 strategies. In each task, respondents judged which of two competing CLCC plans, consisting of mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets of the strategies, would have the greatest impact. The dependent variable was the chosen plan, which was then regressed on the strategies of different plans. The restricted least squares (RLS) method was utilized to compare aggregate and stratified models, and t-tests and Wald tests were used to test for significance and concordance, respectively.

Results

Eighty respondents (69.6%) were eligible and completed the survey. Their primary interests were hepatitis (26%), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (58%), metastatic liver cancer (10%) and transplantation (6%). The most preferred strategies were monitoring at-risk populations (p<0.001), clinician education (p<0.001), and national guidelines (p<0.001). Most priorities were concordant across sites except for three strategies: transplantation infrastructure (p=0.009) was valued lower in China, measuring social burden (p=0.037) was valued higher in Taiwan, and national guidelines (p=0.025) was valued higher in China. Priorities did not differ across stakeholder groups (p=0.438).

Conclusions

Priorities for CLCC in Asia include monitoring at-risk populations, clinician education, national guidelines, multidisciplinary management, public awareness and centers of excellence. As most priorities are relatively concordant across the region, multilateral approaches to addressing comprehensive liver cancer would be beneficial. However, where priorities are discordant among sites, such as transplantation infrastructure, strategies should be tailored to local needs.