Clinical outcomes and risk factors of hepatocellular carcinoma treated by liver transplantation: A multi-centre comparison of living donor and deceased donor transplantation

Comparison of Vascular Complications Between Living-donor and Deceased-donor Liver Transplantation - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Vascular complications commonly cause graft loss and morbidity after liver transplantation (LT). Comparative data on the risk of vascular complications are limited. Hence, the present meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the difference in vascular complications between living-donor LT (LDLT) and deceased-donor LT (DDLT).

Methods

A literature search of three databases was conducted for studies comparing the incidence of vascular complications with LDLT and DDLT. The event rates and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.

Results

A total of 20 studies were included in the final analysis. There was no difference in the incidence of overall vascular complications (9.3%, 95% CI: 6.6-12.0 vs. 8.5%, 95% CI: 5.6-11.4) between LDLT and DDLT with OR 0.94 (95% CI: 0.73-1.21) (15 studies).There was a higher incidence of vascular complications with LDLT in older studies (published before 2013) but not in new studies. When comparing the individual complications, LDLT was associated with a higher incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) (3.8%, 95% CI: 2.4-5.2 vs. 1.6%, 95% CI: 1.1-2.2)with OR 2.20 (95% CI: 1.53-3.17) (14 studies)and a significantly lower incidence of intra-abdominal bleeding(4.8%, 95% CI: 3.3-6.2 vs. 7.9%, 95% CI: 5.0-10.7) with OR 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47-0.87) (11 studies). However, there was no difference in the incidence (2.1%, 95% CI: 0.5-3.8 vs. 1.0%, 95% CI: 0.1-1.9) of portal vein thrombosis between LDLT and DDLT with OR 1.85 (95% CI: 0.82-4.18) (6 studies).

Conclusion

Despite a comparable risk of vascular complications between LDLT and DDLT, LDLT was associated with a higher risk of HAT and a lower risk of intraprocedural bleeding. Further studies are required to analyze the effect of donor-recipient characteristics and surgical techniques on the risk of vascular complications.

Comparison of Biliary Complications Between Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To understand if the risk of biliary complications is higher with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT), the present meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the differences between these two types of liver transplantations. Three databases were searched from inception to September 2023 for comparative studies reporting biliary complications with LDLT and DDLT. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes. Twenty-eight studies were included in the final analysis. LDLT was associated with a significantly higher incidence of biliary complications than DDLT (OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.56-2.47). However, on subgroup analysis, only studies published in or before 2014 reported a higher incidence of biliary complications with LDLT, but not with studies published after 2014. An analysis of individual adverse events showed that LDLT was associated with a higher incidence of both bile leak (OR 3.38, 95% CI: 2.52-4.53) and biliary stricture (OR 1.75, 95% CI: 1.20-2.55). LDLT was associated with a higher incidence of overall biliary complications, including bile leak and biliary stricture. With advances in surgical techniques, there has been a reduction in the risk of biliary complications.

Post-liver transplant biliary complications

Biliary complications (BCs) are the most frequent complications following liver transplantation (LT). They are a major source of morbidity after LT. The incidence of BCs after LT is reported to range from 5% to 45%. The main post-LT biliary complications are strictures, biliary fistulas and bilomas, cholelithiasis, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, hemobilia, and mucocele. Risk factors for biliary complications are diverse. In this article we seek to review the main types of biliary complications and modern approaches to their diagnosis and treatment.

Current role and perspectives of living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review of the past 20 years

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses a significant global health challenge, and liver transplantation (LT) remains the best curative option. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) emerged as a potential solution to organ scarcity, reducing waitlist times. This comprehensive review explores LDLT practices, focusing on patient selection criteria and oncologic outcomes. A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines included 50 studies (2004-2023) with 8062 patients. Data encompassed baseline characteristics, HCC features, and oncologic outcomes. Further analysis categorized results by geography and publication year. Heterogeneity in patient demographics, tumor burden, and transplant characteristics was observed. Recent LDLT series demonstrated a shift towards refined selection criteria, increased neoadjuvant treatment, and improved oncologic outcomes. Geographic disparities revealed unique challenges in Eastern and Western practices. LDLT proves effective for HCC, addressing donor shortages. Evolving practices highlight the importance of refining inclusion criteria and optimizing tumor management. While geographic differences exist, LDLT, when judiciously applied, offers promising outcomes.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Surgical Management and Evolving Therapies

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer in men and the eighth most common cancer in women worldwide. It is also the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide, with 780,000 deaths in 2018. Seventy-two percent of HCC cases occur in Asia, 10% in Europe, 8% in Africa, 5% in North America, and 5% in Latin America (Singal et al. in J Hepatol 72(2):250-261, 2020 [1]).

Long-Term Outcomes of Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Although living donor liver transplant has become a vital treatment option in hepatocellular carcinoma, controversy remains on whether recurrence and survival rates are different versus deceased donor recipients. Here, we compared clinical characteristics and outcomes between recipients of living and deceased donor liver transplants for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our comparisons used data from the United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.

RESULTS

There were 385 living donor and 25 274 deceased donor liver transplant recipients with diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Transplant list wait times of ≥6 months were more common in deceased donor(55.9%) versus living donor recipients (45.2%; P < .001). Both recipient groups were comparable with regard to alpha-fetoprotein level <200 ng/mL (P = .18). Only a small percentage in both groups had ≥3 total tumors (P = .73); both groups had similar low transplants outside of Milan criteria (P = .45). Overall, 1-, 5-, and 10-year overall survival rates for deceased versus living donor recipients were similar (91.2% vs 92%, 74% vs 76.4%, 58.9% vs 56.5%; P = .69). On multivariate analysis, Black/African American race/ethnicity was associated with worse outcomes than White race/ethnicity as reference (P < .001), whereas Hispanic and Asian race/ethnicity were more protected. Hepatitis C virus as liver disease etiology was associated with worse outcomes than other etiologies. Tumor characteristics, ≥3 lesions, tumor size, and higher alpha-fetoprotein levels were associated with worse outcomes. Living donor transplant was not associated with higher hazard of death. Among living donor recipients only, largest tumor size was associated with higher risk of death (P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival was similarin between the living donor versus deceased donor recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma. With changes in Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exception policies for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States, living donor transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma could expand the donor pool.

BETTER LIVING DONOR LIVER TRANSPLANTATION PATIENT SURVIVAL COMPARED TO DECEASED DONOR — A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT Background Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is the first choice, but living donor transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to be considered in special situations, such as lack of donated organs and emergencies. So far, there is no consensus on which transplantation method provides better survival and fewer complications, which is still an open point for discussion. Methods This meta-analysis compared the 1, 3, and 5-year patient and graft survival rates of LDLT and DDLT. We included studies published from April-2009 to June-2021 and adopted the generic model of the inverse of variance for the random effect of hazard ratios. The adequacy of the studies was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale — NOS (WELLS). Results For patient survival analysis, we included a total of 32,258 subjects. We found a statistically significant better survival for the LDLT group at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively: 1.35 HR (95%CI 1.10—1.66, P=0.005), 1.26 HR (95%CI 1.09—1.46, P=0.002) and 1.27 HR (95%CI 1.09—1.48, P=0.002). Our meta-analysis evaluated a total of 21,276 grafts. In the overall analysis, the 1-year survival was improved in favor of the LDLT group (1.36 HR, 95%CI 1.16—1.60, P<0.0001), while the 3-year survival (1.13 HR, 95%CI 0.96—1.33, P<0.13), and 5 (0.99 HR, 95%CI 0.74—1.33, P<0.96), did not differ significantly. Conclusion This metanalysis detected a statistically significant greater 1-, 3- and 5-years patient survival favoring LDLT compared to DDLT as well as a statistically significant difference better 1-year graft survival favoring the LDLT group.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation

Prior single center or registry studies have shown that living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases waitlist mortality and offers superior patient survival over deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for adult LDLT and DDLT via systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine patient survival and graft survival, MELD, waiting time, technical complications, and postoperative infections. Out of 8600 abstracts, 19 international studies comparing adult LDLT and DDLT published between 1/2005 and 12/2017 were included. U.S. outcomes were analyzed using registry data. Overall, 4571 LDLT and 66,826 DDLT patients were examined. LDLT was associated with lower mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplant (5-year HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81-0.93], p < .0001), similar graft survival, lower MELD at transplant (p < .04), shorter waiting time (p < .0001), and lower risk of rejection (p = .02), with a higher risk of biliary complications (OR 2.14, p < .0001). No differences were observed in rates of hepatic artery thrombosis. In meta-regression analysis, MELD difference was significantly associated with posttransplant survival (R2 0.56, p = .02). In conclusion, LDLT is associated with improved patient survival, less waiting time, and lower MELD at LT, despite posing a higher risk of biliary complications that did not affect survival posttransplant.

Recent advances in the surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing, despite effective antiviral treatment for hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus infection and the application of preventive measures such as vaccination at birth against HBV infection. This is mainly due to the increase in metabolic syndrome and its hepatic components, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis. Liver resection and transplantation are the main treatment options, offering long-term survival and potential cure. In this review, the recent advances in the surgical management of HCC are presented. More specifically, the role of liver resection in the intermediate and advanced stages, according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification, is analyzed. In addition, the roles of minimally invasive surgery and of living-related liver transplantation in the management of patients with HCC are discussed. Finally, recent data on the role of molecular markers in the early diagnosis and recurrence of HCC are presented. The management of HCC is complex, as there are several options for each stage of the disease. In order for, each patient to get the maximum benefit, an individualized approach is suggested, in specialized liver units, where cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation: The Optimal Curative Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Even Beyond Milan Criteria

Introduction:

Liver transplantation offers the most reasonable expectation for curative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Living-donor liver transplantation represents a treatment option, even in patients with extended Milan criteria. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients, particularly those extended Milan criteria.

Materials and Patients:

All HCC patients who received liver transplant for HCC were included in this retrospective study. Clinical characteristics including perioperative data and survival data (graft and patient) were extracted from records. Univariate and multivariate analyses was performed to identify significant prognostic factors for survival, postoperative complications and recurrence.

Results:

Two-hundred and two patients were included. The median age was 54.8 years (IQR 53-61). Fifty-one patients (25.3%) underwent deceased donors liver transplantation and 151 patients (74.7%) underwent living donor liver transplantation. Perioperative mortality rate was 5.9% (12 patients). Recurrent disease occurred in 43 patients (21.2%). The overall 1-year and 5-year survival rates were 90.7% and 75.6%, respectively. Significant differences between patients beyond Milan criteria compared to those within Milan criteria were not found. Alpha-fetoprotein level >300 ng/mL, vascular invasion, and bilobar tumor lesions were independent negative prognostic factors for survival.

Conclusion:

Liver transplantation is the preferred treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma and it has demonstrated an excellent potential to cure even in patients with beyond Milan criteria. This study shows that the Milan criteria alone are not sufficient to predict survival after transplantation. The independent parameters for survival prediction are Alpha-Fetoprotein-value and status of vascular invasion.

Increased Surgical Complications but Improved Overall Survival with Adult Living Donor Compared to Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with end-stage liver disease in the circumstance of scarcity of deceased grafts. However, the outcomes of LDLT remain controversial.

Method

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LDLT with DDLT. Twelve outcomes were assessed.

Results

Thirty-nine studies involving 38563 patients were included. LDLT was comparable in red blood cell transfusion, perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, retransplantation rate, hepatitis C virus recurrence rate, and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rate with DDLT. Cold ischemia time was shorter and duration of recipient operation was longer in LDLT. Postoperative intra-abdominal bleeding rate occurred less frequently in LDLT recipients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.64, 95%confidence interval (CI) = 0.46 − 0.88, P = 0.006), but this did not decrease the perioperative mortality. LDLT was associated with significantly higher biliary (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.59 − 3.13, P < 0.00001) and vascular (OR = 2.00, 95%CI = 1.31 − 3.07, P = 0.001) complication rates and better overall survival (OS) (1 year: OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 1.01 − 1.72, P = 0.04; 3 years: OR = 1.39, 95%CI = 1.14 − 1.69, P = 0.0010; and 5 years: OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.04 − 1.70, P = 0.02). According to subgroup analysis, biliary complication rate and OS improved dramatically as experience increased, while vascular complication rate could not be improved because it was mainly caused by the difference of the donor type itself.

Conclusions

LDLT remains a valuable option for patients in need of liver transplantation for it provides an excellent alternative to DDLT without compromising recipient outcomes. Further refinement in biliary and vascular reconstruction techniques and the accumulation of liver transplantation centers' experience are the key factors in expanding the application of LDLT.

Predictors of outcome after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond Milan criteria

The Milan criteria have been the cornerstone of selection policies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting liver transplantation (LT) globally for over two decades. Many groups have proposed the transplantation of patients with larger and more numerous tumors achieving comparable results. Many of these use radiologic morphometric criteria as surrogates for explant pathology to predict outcomes. Several other indices have been developed both within and beyond Milan incorporating biological indices as well as dynamic markers of response to pre-transplant locoregional treatments and waiting time. These have allowed for successful expansion of transplant selection criteria without compromising outcomes with limited organ supplies. In this review we will discuss the predictors of outcome in patients beyond Milan criteria.

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence in living and deceased donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background:

Although a number of technical problems and donor safety issues associated with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have been resolved, some initial clinical studies showed an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in LDLT. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess differences in tumor recurrence between LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).

Methods:

After systematic retrievals of studies about LDLT and DDLT for HCC, articles were selected with a rationale of emphasizing inter-group comparability. Results from multivariate analyses were combined and discussed together with univariate analyses. In subgroup analysis, the impact of organ allocation policy was taken into consideration.

Results:

Seven articles were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, a salient result that emerged from the seven studies was a significant increased risk of HCC recurrence in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group (P = 0.01). The most significant increase in hazard ratio was found in studies where organs tended to be allocated to non-tumor patients.

Conclusions:

An increased risk for HCC recurrence in LDLT as compared with DDLT patients was found. The relatively shorter preoperative observation windows in LDLT may lead to fewer cases of HCC with invasive features being screened out, which may provide a possible explanation for the high rates of HCC recurrence.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: an (almost) exclusive Eastern procedure?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most prevalent cancer and it is linked with chronic liver disease. Liver transplantation (LT) is the best curative treatment modality, since it can cure simultaneously the underlying liver disease and HCC. Milan criteria (MC) are the benchmark for selecting patients with HCC for LT, achieving up to 91% 1-year survival post transplantation. However, when considering intention-to-treat (ITT) rates are substantially lower, mainly due dropout. Additionally, Milan criteria (MC) are too restrictive and more inclusive criteria have been reported with good outcomes. Mainly, in Eastern countries, deceased donors are scarce, therefore Asian centers have developed living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) to a state-of-art status. There are many eastern centers reporting huge numbers of LDLT with outstanding results. Regarding HCC patients, they have reported many criteria including more advanced tumors achieving reasonable outcomes. Western countries have well-established deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) programs. However, organ shortage and restrictive criteria for listing patients with HCC endorses LDLT as a good option to offer curative treatment to more HCC patients. However, there are some controversial reports claiming higher rates of HCC recurrence after LDLT than DDLT. An extensive review included 30 studies with cohorts of HCC patients who underwent LDLT in both East and West countries. We reported also the results of our Institution, in Brazil, where it was performed the first LDLT. This review also addresses the eligibility criteria for transplanting patients with HCC developed in Western and Eastern countries.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma from living-donor vs. deceased donor

With the increasing prevalence of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the possible increased recurrence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in LDLT recipients in comparison with deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients has become a matter of debate. The aim of this review is to encompass current opinions and clinical reports regarding differences in the outcome, especially the recurrence of HCC, between LDLT and DDLT. In reviewing literatures, some studies reported increased recurrence rates among LDLT recipients, a majority of authors, including large database studies, reported comparable recurrence-free survival and recurrence rates between LDLT and DDLT. The postulated reasons for the increased recurrence in LDLT were the effect of graft regeneration on tumor progression, fast-tracking of patients into liver transplantation, and the more aggressive tumor characteristics in LDLT, however, many Asian LDLT centers have reported the comparable outcomes with those of DDLT in Western countries, even with the expanded criteria for HCC. In the absence of a prospective study regarding the use of LDLT versus DDLT for HCC patients, there is no evidence to support the higher HCC recurrence after LDLT than DDLT, and LDLT remains a reasonable treatment option for HCC patients with cirrhosis, especially in Asian countries where the number of deceased donor is scarce.

Living vs. deceased-donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

With the scarcity of deceased donor liver grafts, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is gaining popularity as an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, as the evidence of cases of LDLT accumulates, several authors have reported higher HCC recurrence rates after LDLT. The suggested reasons for the higher recurrence rates following LDLT are related to the small-for-size graft in LDLT, surgical procedures that are specific to LDLT, and the fast-track to LDLT. Fast-tracking to LDLT may not allow sufficient time for evaluation of the biological aggressiveness of tumors, which may result in high recurrence rates due to inclusion of patients with more inherently aggressive tumors. Actually, some studies that reported higher recurrence rates with LDLT included a larger number of cases of HCC with microvascular invasion or poorly differentiated HCC. In order to exclude biologically aggressive HCC preoperatively, selection criteria incorporating tumor markers, such as alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP), as well as morphological tumor number and size have been proposed. With more reliable selection criteria incorporating biological markers to eliminate biologically aggressive HCC, LDLT can be a viable treatment option for patients with HCC, providing similar recurrence rates as those achieved with DDLT.

Immunological basis for treatment of graft versus host disease after liver transplant

Graft versus host disease (GVHD) after liver transplant, although a rare disease, has a very high mortality rate. GVHD occurs due to immunoreactions caused by donor T lymphocytes and host cell surface antigens resulting in proliferation and clonal expansion of T lymphocyte. Migration of effector cells, including macrophages, NK cells and cytotoxic T lymphocyte, to the target organs such as skin, intestine and bone marrow results in skin rashes, diarrhea and bone marrow depression. GVHD is diagnosed by clinical symptoms, histopathological findings and by the presence of chimerism. The delayed diagnosis, opportunistic infections and lack of definitive treatment of post orthotopic liver transplant (OLT)-GVHD results in sepsis and multi-organ failure leading to very low survival rates. In this review, we have focused on early diagnosis and critically discuss novel treatment modalities to decrease the incidence of GVHD.