The Difference and the Transition of Indication for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Between the West and the East

Efficacy and safety of everolimus with reduced tacrolimus in living-donor liver transplant recipients: 12-month results of a randomized multicenter study

In a multicenter, open-label, study, 284 living-donor liver transplant patients were randomized at 30 ± 5 days posttransplant to start everolimus+reduced tacrolimus (EVR+rTAC) or continue standard tacrolimus (TAC Control). EVR+rTAC was non-inferior to TAC Control for the primary efficacy endpoint of treated BPAR, graft loss or death at 12 months posttransplant: difference -0.7% (90% CI -5.2%, 3.7%); P < .001 for non-inferiority. Treated BPAR occurred in 2.2% and 3.6% of patients, respectively. The key secondary endpoint, change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from randomization to month 12, achieved non-inferiority (P < .001 for non-inferiority), but not superiority and was similar between groups overall (mean -8.0 vs. -12.1 mL/min/1.73 m² , P = .108), and in patients continuing randomized treatment (-8.0 vs. -13.3 mL/min/1.73 m² , P = .046). In the EVR+rTAC and TAC control groups, study drug was discontinued in 15.5% and 17.6% of patients, adverse events with suspected relation to study drug occurred in 57.0% and 40.4%, and proteinuria ≥1 g/24 h in 9.3% and 0%, respectively. Everolimus did not negatively affect liver regeneration. At 12 months, hepatocellular recurrence was only seen in the standard TAC-treated patients (5/62; 8.1%). In conclusion, early introduction of EVR+rTAC was non-inferior to standard tacrolimus in terms of efficacy and renal function at 12 months, with hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence only in TAC Control patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01888432.

Clinical outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for patients 65 years old or older with preserved performance status

The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for elderly recipients. We reviewed 411 adult-to-adult LDLT cases, including 46 recipients who were 65 years old or older and 365 recipients who were less than 65 years old. The elderly group had a higher proportion of females (P = 0.04) and a smaller body surface area (P < 0.001) and more frequently underwent transplantation because of hepatitis C (P < 0.001) or hepatocellular carcinoma (P < 0.001). Elderly patients had less advanced liver disease with lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores (P = 0.02) and preserved health without the need for prolonged hospitalization (P < 0.01). The transplanted graft volume/standard liver volume ratios were similar for the 2 groups (P = 0.22). The elderly group had fewer episodes of acute rejection (P = 0.03) but had more neuropsychiatric complications (P = 0.01). The 5- and 10-year graft survival rates were comparable for the elderly group (89.8% and 77.8%, respectively) and the younger group (79.4% and 72.9%, respectively; P = 0.21). Seven recipients were 70 years old or older, and they had a mean MELD score of 15.6 ± 5.2; 6 of these patients were treated as outpatients before LDLT. All were alive after LDLT and showed good compliance with medical management with a mean follow-up of 5.7 ± 3.0 years. In conclusion, LDLT can be safely performed and has acceptable long-term outcomes for low-risk elderly recipients with preserved performance status.

Living vs. deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Experimental studies suggest that the regenerating liver provides a "fertile field" for the growth of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, clinical studies report conflicting results comparing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC. Thus, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared after LDLT and DDLT for HCC in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Twelve studies satisfied eligibility criteria for DFS, including 633 LDLT and 1232 DDLT. Twelve studies satisfied eligibility criteria for OS, including 637 LDLT and 1050 DDLT. Altogether, there were 16 unique studies; 1, 2, and 13 of these were rated as high, medium, and low quality, respectively. Studies were heterogeneous, non-randomized, and mostly retrospective. The combined hazard ratio was 1.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-2.49; I(2) = 50.07%) for DFS after LDLT vs. DDLT for HCC, and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.73-1.27; I(2) = 5.68%) for OS. This analysis provides evidence of lower DFS after LDLT compared with DDLT for HCC. Improved study design and reporting is required in future research to ascribe the observed difference in DFS to study bias or biological risk specifically associated with LDLT.