Living-donor liver transplantation associated with higher incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence than deceased-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2014;97:71-77. [PMID: 24056623 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0b013e3182a68953]

Small graft size and hepatocellular carcinoma outcomes in living donor liver transplantation: a retrospective multicentric cohort study

INTRODUCTION

This study examined associations between the graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from patients in the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry who underwent LDLT for HCC from 2014 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized using the cutoff GRWR for HCC recurrence determined by an adjusted cubic spline (GRWR <0.7% vs. GRWR ≥0.7%). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and HCC recurrence were analyzed in the entire and a 1:5 propensity-matched cohort.

RESULTS

The eligible cohort consisted of 2005 LDLT recipients [GRWR <0.7 ( n =59) vs. GRWR ≥0.7 ( n =1946)]. In the entire cohort, 5-year RFS was significantly lower in the GRWR <0.7 than in the GRWR ≥0.7 group (66.7% vs. 76.7%, P =0.019), although HCC recurrence was not different between groups (77.1% vs. 80.7%, P =0.234). This trend was similar in the matched cohort ( P =0.014 for RFS and P =0.096 for HCC recurrence). In multivariable analyses, GRWR <0.7 was an independent risk factor for RFS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.89, P =0.012], but the result was marginal for HCC recurrence (aHR 1.61, P =0.066). In the pretransplant tumor burden subgroup analysis, GRWR <0.7 was a significant risk factor for both RFS and HCC recurrence only for tumors exceeding the Milan criteria (aHR 3.10, P <0.001 for RFS; aHR 2.92, P =0.003 for HCC recurrence) or with MoRAL scores in the fourth quartile (aHR 3.33, P <0.001 for RFS; aHR 2.61, P =0.019 for HCC recurrence).

CONCLUSIONS

A GRWR <0.7 potentially leads to lower RFS and higher HCC recurrence after LDLT when the pretransplant tumor burden is high.

Survival benefit of living donor liver transplant for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

With the increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in both the United States and globally, the role of liver transplantation in management continues to be an area of active conversation as it is often considered the gold standard in the treatment of HCC. The use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and the indications in the setting of malignancy, both generally and in HCC specifically, are frequently debated. In terms of both overall survival and recurrence-free survival, LDLT is at least equivalent to DDLT, especially when performed for disease within Milan criteria. Emerging and compelling evidence suggests that LDLT is superior to DDLT in treating HCC as there is a significant decrease in waitlist mortality. As the oncologic indications for liver transplantation continue to expand and the gap between organ demand and organ availability continues to worsen, high volumes centers should consider using LDLT to shrink the ever-expanding waitlist.

Indications and results of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

The shortage of deceased liver donor organs over the years has always posed the need to expand the donor pool. A viable alternative to deceased donors is that of the living donor. Indeed, the living donor in liver transplantation, initially in pediatric transplantation, but for several years now also in adult transplantation, is a more than viable alternative to deceased liver donation. In fact, right liver lobe donation has proven to be a surgical procedure with low impact on the donor's life in terms of morbidity and mortality, with excellent results in recipients of such organs. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been published that show excellent results in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation, encouraging this practice not only in countries that have historically had a shortage of deceased donor organs, such as Asian countries, but making it a practice of increasing use in Western countries as well. In addition, thanks to improvements in surgical technique and the experience of high-volume centers, this surgery has also begun to be performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques, allowing us to envision ever better outcomes for both donor and recipient in the coming years.

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.

Sarcopenia Affects Liver Regeneration and Long-Term Survival Rate After Living-Donor Liver Transplantation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE

Despite technological and immunologic innovations, some living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients still face poor liver regeneration. Sarcopenia is often recognized as a biomarker for poor outcomes in surgical patients. This study aimed to evaluate associations between sarcopenia and liver regeneration in LDLT recipients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective review included consecutive patients who had received LDLT at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between 2005 and 2017. Sarcopenia was assessed using the psoas muscle index (PMI) in cross-sectional images. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the ability of PMI to predict relatively poor survival rates. Correlations between liver regeneration and sarcopenia were evaluated using regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 109 LDLT recipients were included. The 1-, 3-, 5, 10-, and 15-year survival rates were 93.7%, 84.8%, 79.7%, 74.7%, and 73.3% in males and 93.3%, 83.3%, 83.3%, 71.4%, and 71.4% in females. PMIs were significantly different based on 10- and 15-year overall survival rates (P = .001 and P = .000) in male patients. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed the PMI cutoff point at 6.7 cm2/m2 (sensitivity = 48.3%, specificity = 81%, AUC (area under the ROC curve) = 0.685) based on 10-year survival. Linear regression analysis revealed that PMI was significantly associated with liver regeneration in males (P = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

Sarcopenia and low PMI are associated with poor liver regeneration and long-term survival after LDLT in male patients. Further studies, including sarcopenia with conventional scores, may help to more reliably predict liver regeneration and mortality among LDLT patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma beyond the Milan Criteria: A Specific Role for Living Donor Liver Transplantation after Neoadjuvant Therapy

PURPOSE

This study was designed to elucidate the various new classifications and the use of LDLT and bridging therapy for HCC in this context beyond the Milan criteria (MC).

METHODS

The clinical data of patients with HCC outside the MC who underwent LT at Jena University between January 2007 and August 2023 were retrospectively analysed. Eligible patients were classified according to various classification systems. Clinicopathological features, overall and disease-free survival rates were compared between LT and LDLT within the context of bridging therapy.

THE RESULTS

Among the 245 patients analysed, 120 patients did not meet the MC, and 125 patients met the MC. Moreover, there were comparable overall survival rates between patients outside the MC for LT versus LDLT (OS 44.3 months vs. 28.3 months; 5-year survival, 56.4% vs. 40%; p = 0.84). G3 tumour differentiation, the presence of angioinvasion and lack of bridging were statistically significant risk factors for tumour recurrence according to univariate and multivariate analyses (HR 6.34; p = 0.0002; HR 8.21; p < 0.0001; HR 7.50; p = 0.0001). Bridging therapy before transplantation provided a significant survival advantage regardless of the transplant procedure (OS: p = 0.008; DFS: p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HCC outside the MC who underwent LT or LDLT had worse outcomes compared to those of patients who met the MC but still had a survival advantage compared to patients without transplantation. Nevertheless, such patients remain disadvantaged on the waiting list, which is why LDLT represents a safe alternative to LT and should be considered in bridged HCC patients because of differences in tumour differentiation, size and tumour marker dynamics.

Association between Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence and Graft Size in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review

The aim of this work was to assess the association between graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence. A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed until December 2022 for studies comparing different GRWRs in the prognosis of HCC recipients in LDLT. Data were pooled to evaluate 1- and 3-year survival rates. We identified three studies, including a total of 782 patients (168 GRWR < 0.8 vs. 614 GRWR ≥ 0.8%). The pooled overall survival was 85% and 77% at one year and 90% and 83% at three years for GRWR < 0.8 and GRWR ≥ 0.8, respectively. The largest series found that, in patients within Milan criteria, the GRWR was not associated with lower oncological outcomes. However, patients with HCC outside the Milan criteria with a GRWR < 0.8% had lower survival and higher tumor recurrence rates. The GRWR < 0.8% appears to be associated with lower survival rates in HCC recipients, particularly for candidates with tumors outside established HCC criteria. Although the data are scarce, the results of this study suggest that considering the individual GRWR not only as risk factor for small-for-size-syndrome but also as contributor to HCC recurrence in patients undergoing LDLT would be beneficial. Novel perfusion technologies and pharmacological interventions may contribute to improving outcomes.

Can living donor liver transplantation provide similar outcomes to deceased-donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A potential solution to the deceased organ shortage is to include live organ donations and to identify patients with lower rates of HCC recurrence to fairly allocate liver grafts. Our aims were to detect the long-term outcomes of LDLT versus DDLT for HCC and predictors of recurrence after transplantation.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies from inception to July 2021 and a systematic review and meta-analysis were done.

RESULTS

35 studies with a total of 7822 patients were included. The 1-, 3-, 4 year-OS showed trivial improvement for LDLT recipients. However, the two modalities had similar 5-, 6- and 10-year OS. A significant improvement in the ITT-OS was observed for LDLT recipients. Regarding the DFS and recurrence after transplantation, no significant difference was observed between LDLT and DDLT. In addition to that, the pooled hazard ratio of the included studies showed that Milan criteria, level of AFP, presence of vascular invasion, tumor differentiation were significant predictors of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The cancer biology (not the graft type) is the most important determinant of recurrence and survival after LT. However, LDLT provided much better survival benefits to HCC patients especially in regions that suffer from low deceased organ availability.

Liver transplantation in China: Achievements over the past 30 years and prospects for the future

Over the last three decades, liver transplantation (LT) in China has made breakthroughs from scratch. Now, new techniques are being continuously incorporated. However, LT in China differs from that in other countries due to cultural differences and the disease burden. The advances made in and the current issues with LT in China need to be summarized. Living donor LT (LDLT) has developed dramatically in China over the last 30 years, with the goal of increasing transplant opportunities and dealing with the shortage of donors. Western candidate selection criteria clearly are not appropriate for Chinese patients. Thus, the current authors reviewed the literature, and this review has focused on the topics of technological advancements in LDLT and Chinese candidate selection. The Milan criteria in wide use emphasize tumor morphology rather than pathology or biomarkers. α-fetoprotein (AFP) and pathology were incorporated as predictors for the first time in the Hangzhou criteria. Moreover, Xu et al. divided the Hangzhou criteria into type A (tumor size ≤ 8 cm or tumor size > 8 cm but AFP ≤ 100 ng/mL) and type B (tumor size > 8 cm but AFP between 100 and 400 ng/mL), with type B serving as a relative contraindication in the event of a liver donor shortage. In addition, surgeons in Chengdu and Shanghai have the ability to perform a laparoscopic hepatectomy for right and left lobe donors, respectively. China has established a complete LT system, including recipient criteria suitable for Chinese people, a fair donor allocation center, a transplant quality monitoring platform, and mature deceased donor or living donor LT techniques.

Perioperative management of adult living donor liver transplantation: Part 1 - recipients

Living donor liver transplantation was first developed to mitigate the limited access to deceased donor organs in Asia in the 1990s. This alternative liver transplantation option has become an established and widely practiced transplantation method for adult patients suffering from end-stage liver disease. It has successfully addressed the shortage of deceased donors. The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia and the Korean Society of Transplant Anesthesia jointly reviewed published studies on the perioperative management of live donor liver transplant recipients. The review aims to offer transplant anesthesiologists and critical care physicians a comprehensive overview of the perioperative management of adult live liver transplantation recipients. We feature the status, outcomes, surgical procedure, portal venous decompression, anesthetic management, prevention of acute kidney injury, avoidance of blood transfusion, monitoring and therapeutic strategies of hemodynamic derangements, and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols for liver transplant recipients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

Tailored Prediction Model of Survival after Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

This study aimed to create a tailored prediction model of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-specific survival after transplantation based on pre-transplant parameters. Data collected from June 2006 to July 2018 were used as a derivation dataset and analyzed to create an HCC-specific survival prediction model by combining significant risk factors. Separate data were collected from January 2014 to June 2018 for validation. The prediction model was validated internally and externally. The data were divided into three groups based on risk scores derived from the hazard ratio. A combination of patient demographic, laboratory, radiological data, and tumor-specific characteristics that showed a good prediction of HCC-specific death at a specific time (t) were chosen. Internal and external validations with Uno’s C-index were 0.79 and 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.86), respectively. The predicted survival after liver transplantation for HCC (SALT) at a time “t” was calculated using the formula: [1 − (HCC-specific death(t’))] × 100. The 5-year HCC-specific death and recurrence rates in the low-risk group were 2% and 5%; the intermediate-risk group was 12% and 14%, and in the high-risk group were 71% and 82%. Our HCC-specific survival predictor named “SALT calculator” could provide accurate information about expected survival tailored for patients undergoing transplantation for HCC.

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.

Intrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: an update

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence occurs in 40-70% of patients after hepatic resection. Despite the high frequency of hepatocellular cancer relapse, there is no established guidance for the management of such cases. The evaluation of prognostic factors that indicate a high risk of recurrence after surgery such as the tumor number and size and the presence of microvascular invasion may guide the therapeutic strategy and point out which patients should be strictly monitored. Additionally, the administration of adjuvant treatment or ab initio liver transplantation in selected patients with high-risk characteristics could have a significant impact on the prevention of relapse and overall survival. Once the recurrence has occurred in the liver remnant, the available therapeutic options include re-resection, salvage liver transplantation and locoregional treatments, although the therapeutic choice is often challenging and should be based on the characteristics of the recurrent tumor, the patient profile and most importantly the timing of relapse. Aggressive combination treatments are often required in challenging cases of early relapse. The results of the above treatment strategies are reviewed and compared to determine the optimal management of patients with recurrent hepatocellular cancer following liver resection.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within or Beyond the Milan Criteria: Comparable Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) vs deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain controversial. We compared the long-term outcomes between LDLT and DDLT in patients with HCCs within or beyond the Milan criteria.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 896 patients who underwent liver transplantation (829 LDLTs and 67 DDLTs) for HCC from June 2005 to May 2015. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test.

RESULTS

RFS at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after LDLT was 89.6%, 84.6%, 82.4%, and 79.6%, respectively, and, after DDLT, was 92.4%, 86.2%, 82.4%, and 82.4%, respectively, and OS at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after LDLT was 96.1%, 88.1%, 85.6%, and 82.7%, respectively, and, after DDLT, was 97.0%, 83.6%, 82.1%, and 77.3%, respectively, with no significant differences in RFS (P = .838) or OS (P = .293) between groups. No statistically significant differences after LDLT or DDLT were identified in RFS (89.8% vs 98.1%, respectively, at 5 years; P = .053) or OS (90.4% vs 90.6% , respectively, at 5 years; P = .583) for HCCs meeting the Milan criteria as well as for those beyond the Milan criteria (RFS, 37.8% vs 28.6%, respectively, at 5 years; P = .560 and OS, 57.3% vs 50.0%, respectively, at 5 years; P = .743).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent LDLT for HCCs showed comparable long-term outcomes to patients who underwent DDLT. Patients with HCCs within the Milan criteria demonstrated acceptable long-term outcomes after both LDLT and DDLT.

Sirolimus Prolongs Survival after Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Beyond Milan Criteria: A Prospective, Randomised, Open-Label, Multicentre Phase 2 Trial

Sirolimus (SRL) has been reported to benefit patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to compare SRL with tacrolimus (TAC) in living-donor LT (LDLT) recipients beyond the Milan criteria. This study was initially designed to enrol 45 recipients who underwent LDLT for HCC beyond the Milan criteria. At 1 month after LT, the patients were randomly assigned to either SRL or TAC-based treatment, with both groups receiving mycophenolate mofetil. The primary outcome was three-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). A total of 42 patients completed the study. HCC recurrence occurred in 8 of 22 (36.4%) patients in the SRL group and in 5 of 22 (25%) patients in the TAC group. No differences in RFS and OS were found between the two groups in simple comparison. The type of immunosuppressant remained a nonsignificant factor for recurrence in multivariate analysis; however, SRL significantly prolonged OS (TAC hazard ratio: 15 [1.3–172.85], p = 0.03) after adjusting for alpha-fetoprotein and positron emission tomography standardised uptake value ratio (tumour/background liver). In conclusion, SRL does not decrease HCC recurrence but prolongs OS after LDLT for HCC beyond the Milan criteria.

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.

Liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma after tumour downstaging (XXL): a randomised, controlled, phase 2b/3 trial

BACKGROUND

Indications for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma are evolving and so-called expanded criteria remain debated. Locoregional therapies are able to downstage hepatocellular carcinoma from beyond to within the Milan criteria. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of liver transplantation after successful hepatocellular carcinoma downstaging.

METHODS

We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial designed in two phases, 2b and 3, at nine Italian tertiary care and transplantation centres. Patients aged 18-65 years with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria, absence of macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread, 5-year estimated post-transplantation survival of at least 50%, and good liver function (Child-Pugh A-B7) were recruited and underwent tumour downstaging with locoregional, surgical, or systemic therapies according to multidisciplinary decision. After an observation period of 3 months, during which sorafenib was allowed, patients with partial or complete responses according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to liver transplantation or non-transplantation therapies (control group). A block randomisation (block size of 2), stratified by centre and compliance to sorafenib treatment, was applied. Liver transplantation was done with whole or split organs procured from brain-dead donors. The control group received sequences of locoregional and systemic treatment at the time of demonstrated tumour progression. The primary outcomes were 5-year tumour event-free survival for phase 2b and overall survival for phase 3. Analyses were by intention to treat. Organ allocation policy changed during the course of the study and restricted patient accrual to 4 years. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01387503.

FINDINGS

Between March 1, 2011, and March 31, 2015, 74 patients were enrolled. Median duration of downstaging was 6 months (IQR 4-11). 29 patients dropped out before randomisation and 45 were randomly assigned: 23 to the transplantation group versus 22 to the control group. At data cutoff on July 31, 2019, median follow-up was 71 months (IQR 60-85). 5-year tumour event-free survival was 76·8% (95% CI 60·8-96·9) in the transplantation group versus 18·3% (7·1-47·0) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·20, 95% CI 0·07-0·57; p=0·003). 5-year overall survival was 77·5% (95% CI 61·9-97·1) in the transplantation group versus 31·2% (16·6-58·5) in the control group (HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·11-0·92; p=0·035). The most common registered grade 3-4 serious adverse events were hepatitis C virus recurrence (three [13%] of 23 patients) and acute transplant rejection (two [9%]) in the transplantation group, and post-embolisation syndrome (two [9%] of 22 patients) in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four patients: two (8%) of 23 patients in the transplantation group (myocardial infarction and multi-organ failure) versus two (9%) of 22 patients in the control group (liver decompensation).

INTERPRETATION

Although results must be interpreted with caution owing to the early closing of the trial, after effective and sustained downstaging of eligible hepatocellular carcinomas beyond the Milan criteria, liver transplantation improved tumour event-free survival and overall survival compared with non-transplantation therapies Post-downstaging tumour response could contribute to the expansion of hepatocellular carcinoma transplantation criteria.

FUNDING

Italian Ministry of Health.

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.

Incidence of Occult Intrahepatic Metastasis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Transplantation Corresponds to Early Recurrence Rates After Partial Hepatectomy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the incidence of radiologically unrecognized (occult) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) lesions in explant hepatectomy specimens from orthotopic liver transplants (OLTs) performed for HCC with rates of HCC intrahepatic recurrence after resection.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Resection of HCC is associated with high rates of intrahepatic HCC recurrence. However, it is unclear whether these recurrences represent incomplete resection of unrecognized metastatic lesions from the primary tumor or subsequent de novo tumor formation due to inherent biological proclivity for HCC formation.

METHODS

We collected patient, tumor, and pathology data on HCC patients treated surgically from 3696 OLTs in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation (OPTN) national database, 299 OLTs at a single transplant center, and 232 partial hepatectomies from a hepatobiliary cancer center.

RESULTS

In the OPTN and high-volume transplant center cohorts, 37% and 42% of patients had occult HCC lesions on explant pathology, respectively. Among cancer center patients, the 2-year recurrence rate was 46%, and 74% of patients who recurred presented with liver only recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Although the transplant and resection populations differ, occult multifocality is common in transplant explants and similar to the 46% early recurrence rate following partial hepatectomy. These data suggest that noncurative resection often results from occult intrahepatic multifocality present at the time of resection rather than a malignant predisposition of the remnant liver with de novo tumorigenesis.

Living Donation Versus Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation for Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Recipients

In this era of organ scarcity, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to using deceased donors, and in Western countries, it is more often used for recipients with low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. We sought to compare the patient survival and graft survival between recipients of liver transplantation from living donors and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors in patients with low MELD scores. This is a retrospective cohort analysis of adult liver transplant recipients with a laboratory MELD of ≤20 who underwent transplantation between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2016. Recipients were categorized by donor graft type (DCD or LDLT), and recipient and donor characteristics were compared. Ten-year patient and graft survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses, and a mixed-effects model was performed to determine the contributions of recipient, donor, and center variables on patient and graft survival. There were 36,705 liver transplants performed: 32,255 (87.9%) from DBD donors, 2166 (5.9%) from DCD donors, and 2284 (6.2%) from living donors. In the mixed-effects model, DCD status was associated with a higher risk of graft failure (relative risk [RR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.38) but not worse patient survival (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.96-1.67). Lower DCD center experience was associated with a 1.21 higher risk of patient death (95% CI, 1.17-1.25) and a 1.13 higher risk of graft failure (95% CI, 1.12-1.15). LDLT center experience was also predictive of patient survival (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03) and graft failure (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.05-1.06). In conclusion, for liver transplant recipients with low laboratory MELD, LDLT offers better graft survival and a tendency to better patient survival than DCD donors.

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: Risk factors, screening and clinical presentation

Liver transplantation is the best treatment option for cirrhotic patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, but it faces the problem of scarcity of donors and the risk of tumor recurrence, which affects between 15% and 20% of the cases, despite the use of restrictive criteria. The risk of recurrence depends on a number of factors, related to the tumor, the patient, and the treatment, which are discussed in this review. Some of these factors are already well established, such as the histopathological characteristics of the tumor, Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, and waiting time. Other factors related to the biological behavior of the tumor and treatment should be recognized because they can be used in the refinement of the selection criteria of transplant candidates and in an attempt to reduce recurrence. This review also discusses the clinical presentation of recurrence and its prognosis, contributing to the identification of a subgroup of patients who may have better survival, if they are timely identified and treated. Development of recurrence after the first year, with AFP levels ≤ 100 ng/mL, and single site capable of locoregional therapy are associated with better survival after recurrence.

Living or deceased organ donors in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC patients were not well defined and it was necessary to reassess.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and WanFang database for eligible studies. Perioperative and survival outcomes of HCC patients underwent LDLT were pooled and compared to those underwent DDLT.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies with 5376 HCC patients were included. For HCC patients underwent LDLT and DDLT, there were comparable rates of overall survival (OS) (1-year, RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 1.00-1.09, P = 0.03; 3-year, RR = 1.03, 95%CI = 0.96-1.11, P = 0.39; 5-year, RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 0.95-1.13, P = 0.43), disease free survival (DFS) (1-year, RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.95-1.05, P = 0.99; 3-year, RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.94-1.08, P = 0.89; 5-year, RR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.93-1.09, P = 0.85), recurrence (1-year, RR = 1.41, 95%CI = 0.72-2.77, P = 0.32; 3-year, RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.57-1.39, P = 0.60; and 5-year, RR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.56-1.31, P = 0.47), perioperative mortality within 3 months (RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.50-1.59, p = 0.70) and postoperative complication (RR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.70-1.39, P = 0.94). LDLT was associated with better 5-year intention-to-treat patient survival (ITT-OS) than DDLT (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.01-1.22, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that LDLT was not inferior to DDLT in consideration of comparable perioperative and survival outcomes. However, in terms of 5-year ITT-OS, LDLT was a possibly better choice for HCC patients.

Expanded living-donor liver transplantation criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma based on the Japanese nationwide survey: the 5-5-500 rule - a retrospective study

Expansion of the liver transplantation indication criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has long been debated. Here we propose new, expanded living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) criteria for HCC patients based on a retrospective data analysis of the Japanese nationwide survey. A total of 965 HCC patients undergoing LDLT were included, 301 (31%) of whom were beyond the Milan criteria. Here, we applied the Greenwood formula to investigate new criteria enabling the maximal enrollment of candidates while securing a 5-year recurrence rate (95% upper confidence limit) below 10% by examining various combinations of tumor numbers and serum alpha-fetoprotein values, and maintaining the maximal nodule diameter at 5 cm. Finally, new expanded criteria for LDLT candidates with HCC, the 5-5-500 rule (nodule size ≤5 cm in diameter, nodule number ≤5, and alfa-fetoprotein value ≤500 ng/ml), were established as a new regulation with a 95% confidence interval of a 5-year recurrence rate of 7.3% (5.2-9.3) and a 19% increase in the number of eligible patients. In addition, the 5-5-500 rule could identify patients at high risk of recurrence, among those within and beyond the Milan criteria. In conclusion, the new criteria - the 5-5-500 rule - might provide rational expansion for LDLT candidates with HCC.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Single-Center Experience from Pakistan

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment for patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within Milan criteria. Acceptable outcomes have been demonstrated in patients fulfilling extended criteria. Here, we share our experience with LDLT for patients with HCC within and beyond Milan criteria, with emphasis on poor prognostic factors.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent LDLT between 2012 and 2017 and had HCC proven on explant liver histopathology. A total of 117 patients were included. Patients who died early after transplant (in <30 days) were excluded. For outcomes, patients were divided into prognostic groups. These groups were based on (1) alpha fetoprotein >600, (2) poor differentiation, and (3) the presence of lymphovascular invasion. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was determined using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Median age was 53 (30-73) years. Median follow-up was 20.3 (1-63.2) months. Median model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score was 19 (9-34). Of a total of 117 patients, 74 (63.2%) patients met Milan criteria. Recurrence rate was 12/117 (10.3%). Actuarial 5-year RFS was 88% and 82% (P = 0.3) in patients within and outside Milan criteria. There was no difference in 3-year RFS in patients with 0, 1, or 2 poor prognostic factors within Milan criteria (92%, 87%, and 75%, respectively; P = 0.3). However, a significant difference in RFS was seen in patients outside Milan criteria (92%, 93%, and 53%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients within Milan criteria have acceptable RFS even in the presence of poor prognostic factors. However, the presence of two or more poor prognostic variables significantly impacts RFS of patients outside Milan criteria.

Adrenalectomy for solitary recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma five years after living donor liver transplantation: A case report

•

Solitary adrenal recurrence of HCC after LDLT is extremely rare.

•

Strict follow up protocol is necessary to allow early detection of tumor recurrence.

•

Curative surgical resection of solitary recurrent HCC is a safe option.

•

It is associated with low morbidity and expected to have a good long-term survival.

Introduction

The adrenal gland is a rare site for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Solitary adrenal recurrence can be managed by surgical excision, with expected better survival outcomes.

We describe a rare case of successful left adrenalectomy of solitary recurrent HCC in the left adrenal gland 5 years after LDLT.

Presentation

59 years male patient with HCC complicating chronic HCV infection received a right hemi-liver graft from his son. The actual graft weight was 1208 g and GRWR was 1.5. The patient started oral direct acting antiviral drugs for recurrent HCV 2 years after LDLT.

A left adrenal mass was detected on follow up radiology. No other metastatic lesions were detected on metastatic workup. Left adrenalectomy was done by an anterior approach.

The postoperative course was uneventful and was discharged a week after operation. Postoperative pathological and immune-histochemical examinations confirmed the metastatic HCC nature of the mass. The patient is under regular follow up with no recurrences 6 month after resection.

Discussion

There is no consensus regarding the management of HCC recurrence after LDLT. Most patients had multi-organ recurrences and usually offered palliative or supportive care. Solitary HCC recurrence offers a better chance for more aggressive therapy, offering better prognosis.

Conclusion

Solitary adrenal recurrence of HCC after LDLT is extremely rare. Strict follow up protocol is necessary to allow early detection of tumor recurrence. Curative surgical resection is a safe option associated with low morbidity and expected to have a good long-term survival.

Efficacy of Sorafenib for the Treatment of Post-Transplant Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence

BACKGROUND

The role of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) has been rarely studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of sorafenib in post-LT era.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with post-transplant HCC recurrence not eligible to resection or locoregional therapy were included. Patients receiving best supportive care (BSC) until 2007 were compared with those treated by sorafenib thereafter.

RESULTS

Of a total of 65 patients, 20 patients received BSC and 45 received sorafenib. Clinical characteristics were similar between two groups except that sorafenib group received tacrolimus and mammalian target-of-rapamycin inhibitors more frequently than BSC group. Treatment with sorafenib conferred a survival advantage as compared with BSC for survival after recurrence (median, 14.2 vs. 6.8 months; P = 0.01). In multivariate analyses, high serum α-fetoprotein level, synchronous intrahepatic recurrence and distant metastasis at the time of recurrence, and BSC were independently associated with poorer survival after recurrence. Sorafenib treatment was associated with better survival after recurrence as compared with BSC (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.62; P = 0.002). In addition, sorafenib group showed tolerable toxicity in the post-transplant setting.

CONCLUSION

Sorafenib may be beneficial in patients with post-transplant HCC recurrence.

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.

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.

Bridging therapies to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A bridge to nowhere?

Backgrounds/Aims

Liver Transplantation (LT) is a recognized treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). The role of Bridging Therapies (BT) remains controversial.

Methods

From January 2001 to October 2012, 192 patients were referred to the National University Hospital, Singapore for consideration of LT for HCC. Sixty-five patients (33.8%) were found suitable for transplant and were placed on the waitlist. Analysis was performed in these patients.

Results

The most common etiology of HCC was Hepatitis B (n=28, 43.1%). Thirty-six patients (55.4%) received BT. Seventeen patients (47.2%) received TACE only, while 10 patients (27.8%) received radiofrequency ablation (RFA) only. The remaining patients received a combination of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and RFA. Baseline tumor and patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The overall dropout rate was 44.4% and 31.0% in the BT and non-BT groups, respectively (p=0.269). The dropout rate due to disease progression beyond criteria was 6.9% (n=2) in the non-bridged group and 22.2% (n=8) in the bridged group (p=0.089). Thirty-nine patients (60%) underwent LT, of which all patients who underwent Living Donor LT did not receive BT (n=4, 21.1%, p=0.030). The median time to LT was 180 days (range, 20–558 days) in the non-BT group and 291 days (range, 17–844 days) in the BT group (p=0.214). There was no difference in survival or recurrence between the BT and non-BT groups (p=0.862).

Conclusions

BT does not influence the dropout rate or survival after LT but it should be considered in patients who are on the waitlist for more than 6 months.

Role of inflammatory markers as hepatocellular cancer selection tool in the setting of liver transplantation

Since the advent of the Milan criteria in 1996 and its widespread adoption for selection of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who would benefit from transplant, there has been an extensive hunt for the ideal clinical biomarker to predict HCC recurrence. This is because Milan lack does not include tumor biology indices and recurrence rates remain in the 15-20% range worldwide. While a 'silver-bullet' biomarker has not been found, several useful inflammatory markers have been identified and used in scoring systems that supersede Milan in their ability to predict HCC recurrence post liver transplantation (LT). In this review, we aim to summarize the role of inflammatory markers paly in the selection of HCC patients awaiting LT.

The Impact of Liver Graft Injury on Cancer Recurrence Posttransplantation

Liver transplantation is the most effective treatment for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. However, cancer recurrence, posttransplantation, remains to be the critical issue that affects the long-term outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma recipients. In addition to tumor biology itself, increasing evidence demonstrates that acute-phase liver graft injury is a result of hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury (which is an inevitable consequence during liver transplantation) and may promote cancer recurrence at late phase posttransplantation. The liver grafts from living donors, donors after cardiac death, and steatotic donors have been considered as promising sources of organs for liver transplantation and are associated with high incidence of liver graft injury. The acute-phase liver graft injury will trigger a series of inflammatory cascades, which may not only activate the cell signaling pathways regulating the tumor cell invasion and migration but also mobilize the circulating progenitor and immune cells to facilitate tumor recurrence and metastasis. The injured liver graft may also provide the favorable microenvironment for tumor cell growth, migration, and invasion through the disturbance of microcirculatory barrier function, induction of hypoxia and angiogenesis. This review aims to summarize the latest findings about the role and mechanisms of liver graft injury resulted from hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury on tumor recurrence posttransplantation, both in clinical and animal cohorts.

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.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: early-stage management challenges

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of cancer death and is increasing in incidence. This review focuses on HCC surveillance and treatment of early-stage disease, which are essential to improving outcomes. Multiple societies have published HCC surveillance guidelines, but screening efforts have been limited by noncompliance and overall lack of testing for patients with undiagnosed chronic liver disease. Treatment of early-stage HCC has become increasingly complex due to expanding therapeutic options and better outcomes with established treatments. Surgical indications for HCC have broadened with improved preoperative liver testing, neoadjuvant therapy, portal vein embolization, and perioperative care. Advances in post-procedural monitoring have improved efficacies of transarterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation, and novel therapies involving delivery of radiochemicals are being studied in small trials. Finally, advances in liver transplantation have allowed for expanded indications beyond Milan criteria with non-inferior outcomes. More clinical trials evaluating new therapies and multimodal regimens are necessary to help clinicians design better treatment algorithms and improve outcomes.

Clinical validity of Metroticket calculator in transplant patients undergoing prior chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM

To test the predictive performance of the Metroticket calculator for survival after liver transplantation (LT) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing prior transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

METHODS

A total of 142 patients treated with TACE and subsequent LT who had arterial enhancing HCC(s) were entered into this analysis. Tumor parameters measured by the enhancement radiological method pre-LT or by pathology post-LT were incorporated into the Metroticket analysis. The calculator was validated in terms of calibration and discrimination capacity.

RESULTS

Mean 3- and 5-year survival rates predicted in the radiological model for all 142 patients were 76.4 and 70.1 %, respectively, lying comfortably within the 95 % confidence interval (CI) of the observed survival rate estimates (72.8-86.2 and 68.6-83.2 %, respectively). In the pathological model incorporating microvascular invasion, the mean anticipated survival rate at 5 years of 120 patients with viable nodules on explants was 69.5 %, also lying inside the 95 % CI of the actuarial rates (67.9-83.5 %). The c-indices as measures of discriminatory power were 0.61 and 0.62, respectively, for the 3- and 5-year predictions in the radiological model, and 0.72 for the 5-year prediction in the pathological model. The corresponding findings were similar for subgroups with hepatitis B virus infection and undergoing living-donor LT.

CONCLUSIONS

The Metroticket calculation based on explant data accurately predicts post-LT survival of HCC patients with prior TACE. Imaging estimate-based predictions before LT appear to provide poorer discrimination than calibration.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in Seoul National University

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an effective treatment modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Due to deceased organ shortage, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) accounts for the majority of liver transplants in Korea. The aim of this study is to evaluate the recent trend of LDLT for HCC, and to suggest guidelines and criteria for selecting the appropriate candidates for LDLT.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2015, 532 patients underwent LDLT for HCC. Clinicopathologic data were analyzed as well as overall survival rate (SR) and disease-free survival rate (DFSR) according to the Milan criteria based on explant pathology, positron emission tomography (PET) positivity, and serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall SR and DFSR were 81.5% and 75.5% respectively. According to our previously reported combination of AFP and PET [Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH) criteria]; low risk group [AFP <200 ng/mL, PET (-)], intermediate risk group [AFP >200 ng/mL, PET (-) or AFP <200 ng/mL, PET (+)], and high risk group [AFP >200 ng/mL, PET (+)], the 5-year DFSR of low risk group was 86.1%, intermediate risk group was 79.0%, and high risk group was 18.5% (P<0.001). Within the Milan criteria, the 5-year DFSR of low risk group was 88.4%, intermediate risk group was 79.9%, and high risk group was 60.0% (P=0.016). Beyond the Milan criteria, the 5-year DFSR of low, intermediate, and high risk group was 80.3%, 77.7%, and 9.1%, respectively (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our data and experience suggest that a continued paradigm shift from a conventional size based criteria to a biological marker based criteria is indicated when evaluating LDLT candidates with HCC.

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 donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma at the University of Tokyo Hospital

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment not only for those with end-stage liver disease but for those with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) developing in cirrhotic liver. The aim of this study was to present a single-center experience of LDLT for HCC at the University of Tokyo Hospital, Japan.

METHODS

Among 573 liver transplant recipients from January 1996 until the end of 2015, 139 patients have been indicated LDLT for the treatment of HCC, and were the subjects of the present study. We use the expanded criteria for HCC as follows; the number of tumor should be five or less, and the maximum diameter of the tumor should be 5 cm or less, without the distant metastasis nor the vascular invasion (Tokyo criteria, 5-5 rule). We also focused on the identification of the incidental intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and combined hepatocellular carcinoma/cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) in liver explants.

RESULTS

The overall 1-, 5-, and 10-year recurrence-free and patient survival rates were 95%, 91%, and 91%, 91%, and 80%, 78%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative recurrence rate was 5%, 6%, and 6% for within Milan, 0%, 8%, and 8% for beyond Milan/within Tokyo, and 33%, 50%, and 50% for beyond Tokyo, respectively, demonstrating the significantly impaired outcome of those beyond Tokyo criteria (P<0.001). The high alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) value (≥400 ng/mL), the high des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) value (≥200 mAU/mL) and beyond the Tokyo criteria were proved to be significant predictors for the HCC recurrence, but the size or the type of the partial graft was not associated. Incidental ICC and cHCC-CC were found in one and two patients, respectively, with the size of less than 2 cm in all cases. ICC was not detected in preoperative evaluation but cHCC-CCs were misdiagnosed as HCC preoperatively. All three patients were alive without recurrence with a follow-up period of 2 to 14 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results of our institution seem acceptable in terms of the recurrence-free and patient survival. The issues of the expansion of indication, living donor vs. deceased donor for HCC, and liver transplantation (LT) for cholangiocarcinoma are still left to be investigated in future studies.

Expansion of the criteria for living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several expanded criteria for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been suggested out of concern that the Milan criteria may be too strict, and thereby exclude patients who could benefit from this surgical procedure. However, most expanded criteria were designed for deceased donor liver transplantation. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) differs from that of deceased donor liver transplantation primarily because LDLT liver grafts are not public resources.

RECENT FINDINGS

In Asian countries, where HCC is endemic, LDLT is the main currently available treatment option for HCC. High-volume LDLT centers throughout Asia have adopted their own expanded selection criteria for LDLT for HCC with acceptable long-term results. Some centers utilize tumor markers as one of the criterion to help select suitable candidates. Indeed, such adjunctive biomarkers may have prognostic relevance for patients with HCC. The use of both biological and histomorphologic parameters may increase the number of transplantable patients.

SUMMARY

The overall chance of survival, and recipient/donor preferences as well as the risk of recurrence are considered in the LDLT setting. Therefore, the selection criteria for liver transplantation for HCC could benefit from expansion for LDLT.

Serum Tumor Markers Provide Refined Prognostication in Selecting Liver Transplantation Candidate for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Beyond the Milan Criteria

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a model to predict tumor recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) (MoRAL) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond the Milan criteria (MC).

BACKGROUND

Some subgroups of HCC exceeding the MC experience substantial benefit from LDLT.

METHODS

This multicenter study included a total of 566 consecutive patients who underwent LDLT in Korea: the beyond-MC cohort (n = 205, the derivation [n = 92] and validation [n = 113] sets) and the within-MC cohort (n = 361). The primary endpoint was time-to-recurrence.

RESULTS

Using multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, we derived the MoRAL score using serum levels of protein induced by vitamin K absence-II and alpha-fetoprotein, which provided a good discriminant function on time-to-recurrence (concordance index = 0.88). Concordance index was maintained similarly on both internal and external validations (mean 0.87 and 0.84, respectively). At cut off of 314.8 (75th percentile value), a low MoRAL score (≤314.8) was associated with significantly longer recurrence-free (versus > 314.8, HR = 5.29, P < 0.001) and overall survivals (HR = 2.59, P = 0.001) in the beyond-MC cohort. The 5-year recurrence-free and overall survival rates of beyond-MC patients with a low MoRAL score were as high as 66.3% and 82.6%, respectively. The within-MC patients with a high MoRAL score showed a higher risk of recurrence than beyond-MC patients with a low MoRAL score (HR = 2.56, P = 0.035). The MoRAL score was significantly correlated with explant histology.

CONCLUSIONS

This new model using protein induced by vitamin K absence-II and alpha-fetoprotein provides refined prognostication. Among beyond-MC HCC patients, those with a MoRAL score ≤314.8 and without extrahepatic metastasis might be potential candidates for LDLT.

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.

Living donor liver transplantation in Europe

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) sparked significant interest in Europe when the first reports of its success from USA and Asia were made public. Many transplant programs initiated LDLT and some of them especially in Germany and Belgium became a point of reference for many patients and important contributors to the advancement of the field. After the initial enthusiasm, most of the European programs stopped performing LDLT and today the overall European activity is concentrated in a few centers and the number of living donor liver transplants is only a single digit fraction of the overall number of liver transplants performed. In this paper we analyse the present European activities and highlight the European contribution to the advancement of the field of LDLT.