Hepatic artery and biliary complications in liver transplant recipients with radioembolization bridging treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma

Number of Local Regional Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Peri-Operative Outcomes after Liver Transplantation

The wait times for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplant are longer than ever, which has led to an increased reliance on the use of pre-operative LRTs. The impact that multiple rounds of LRTs have on peri-operative outcomes following transplant is unknown. This was a retrospective single center analysis of 298 consecutive patients with HCC who underwent liver transplant (January 2017 to May 2021). The data was obtained from two institution-specific databases and the TransQIP database. Of the 298 patients, 27 (9.1%) underwent no LRTs, 156 (52.4%) underwent 1-2 LRTs, and 115 (38.6%) underwent ≥3 LRTs prior to LT. The patients with ≥3 LRTs had a significantly higher rate of bile leak compared to patients who received 1-2 LRTs (7.0 vs. 1.3%, p = 0.014). Unadjusted and adjusted regression analyses demonstrated a significant association between the total number of LRTs administered and bile leak, but not rates of overall biliary complications. The total number of LRTs was not significantly associated with any other peri-operative or post-operative outcome measure. These findings support the aggressive use of LRTs to control HCC in patients awaiting liver transplant, with further evaluation needed to confirm the biliary leak findings.

Risk Factors Related to Early Biliary Complications After Liver Transplantation: a Single-Center Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors of early biliary complications (EBC) after liver transplantation (LT) and seek effective treatments based on our single-center experience.

METHODS

A total of 124 adult patients were divided into a non-EBC group and EBC group. EBC usually accounts for biliary leakage, biliary stricture, biliary stones, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and transient jaundice within 3 months after LT. Statistical analysis including logistic regression was performed to determine EBC risk factors. All procedures complied with the Helsinki Congress and the Declaration of Istanbul.

RESULTS

Non-EBC (n = 95) and EBC (n = 29) were finally compared, which had no difference in their general characteristics. EBC occurred in 29 patients (26.92%): 1 biliary hemorrhage (3.45%), 7 biliary leakage (24.13%), and 16 biliary stricture (55.18%), and 5 others (17.24%). Of all EBC patients, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (68.96%) was higher used to deal with complications than conservative treatment (10.35%), percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (17.24%), and surgical treatment (3.45%). On univariate analyses, risk factors for EBC were bilirubin (P = .014), warm ischemia time (WIT) (P = .020), second WIT (P = .042), and operative time (OT) (P = .033). On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for BC were WIT (P = .011) and OT (P = .049).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of WIT and OT were the independent risk factors for the development of EBC. In addition, we also confirmed that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was beneficial and safe in the management of EBC after LT.

Bridging treatment prior to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: radioembolization or transarterial chemoembolization?

BACKGROUND

In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, intraarterial therapies are regularly employed as a bridge to liver transplantation to prevent tumor progression during waiting time. Objective of this study was to compare HCC recurrence after liver transplantation following TACE or radioembolization bridging treatment.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data on 131 consecutive HCC patients who underwent liver transplantation between January 2007 and December 2017 at our liver transplant center (radioembolization n = 44, TACE n = 87). Multivariable logistic regression and cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with tumor recurrence and post-transplant survival.

RESULTS

Between groups, patients were comparable with regards to age and gender. In the radioembolization group, Milan criteria for HCC were met significantly less frequently (20.5% vs. 65.5%, p < 0.0001). Patients in the radioembolization group required significantly fewer intraarterial treatments (1 [1-2] vs. 1 [1-7], p = 0.0007). On explant specimen, tumor differentiation, microvascular invasion and tumor necrosis were comparable between the groups. HCC recurrence and overall survival were similar between the groups. Multivariable analysis detected increasing recipient age, male gender, complete tumor necrosis and absence of microvascular invasion being independently associated with decreased odds for HCC recurrence. Increasing model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and tumor recurrence were independently associated with increased odds of post-transplant death.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraarterial bridging treatment leading to tumor necrosis may not only prevent waitlist drop-out but also facilitate long-term successful liver transplantation in HCC patients. Both radioembolization and TACE represent potent treatment strategies.

Review of Use of Y90 as a Bridge to Liver Resection and Transplantation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been rising, and 80% of HCCs are unresectable at the time of presentation. In recent years, Yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization has arisen as a potential tool to treat the primary HCC tumor while also inducing contralateral liver hypertrophy to increase future liver remnant volumes. The goal of this multidisciplinary review is to summarize the contemporary evidence on the safety, efficacy, and utility of Y90 as a bridge to liver resection and transplant in patients with HCC.

METHODS

A narrative review was conducted of the recent literature regarding the utilization of Y90 as a therapy prior to liver resection or transplant in patients with HCC. A specific emphasis was placed on articles published in the last 10 years.

RESULTS

Y90 radioembolization has demonstrated a high safety profile and increasing utility in bridging and downstaging patients with HCC who subsequently undergo liver resection or transplant. The continuous advancements in treatment strategies and radiation dosimetry have paved the way for the incorporation of Y90 in all stages of HCC with different intents, including downstaging and bridging.

CONCLUSIONS

Y90 radioembolization can be safely used in the HCC population to bridge patients to resection or transplantation, induce future liver remnant growth, and select for less aggressive tumor biology prior to surgery.

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany)] for patients with advanced-stage disease. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation to liver tumours via microspheres that are injected into the hepatic artery. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

A search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624-36; and SIRveNIB: Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1913-21] found no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (systemic therapy) in an advanced population, despite greater tumour response in the SIR-Spheres arm of both trials. There were some concerns regarding generalisability of the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials to UK practice. All other studies of SIR-Spheres, TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres were either rated as being at a high risk of bias or caused some concerns regarding bias. A network meta-analysis was conducted in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis and were ineligible for conventional transarterial therapies. The analysis included the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials as well as a trial comparing lenvatinib (Kisplyx®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (systemic therapy) with sorafenib. There were no meaningful differences in overall survival between any of the treatments. The base-case economic analysis suggested that TheraSphere may be cost-saving relative to both SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres. However, incremental cost differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. In a fully incremental analysis, which included confidential Patient Access Scheme discounts, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment and dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. In pairwise comparisons of sorafenib with each selective internal radiation therapy, sorafenib also dominated all selective internal radiation therapies.

LIMITATIONS

The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres.

CONCLUSIONS

In the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts.

FUTURE WORK

Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin-bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

90Y-Radioembolization After Failed Portal Vein Embolization for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Case Report

The main limiting factor for liver resection is insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). Portal vein embolization (PVE) is a standard of care treatment to induce FLR hypertrophy, but it is not always efficient. Radioembolization (RE) has a potential to induce liver hypertrophy for PVE-refractory patients. However, this was reported only for the patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We described two cases of lobar RE after PVE failure for the patients with colorectal liver metastases. This enabled to reach sufficient FLR, provide good local disease control and bridge the patients to extended hepatectomy.

Price to pay; Portal vein arterialization for hepatic artery thrombosis after living donor liver transplantation; A case report

OBJECTIVE

Hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) is one of the most serious complications of liver transplantation that can potentially lead to loss of the allograft. Retransplantation is the only option when revascularization can't be performed but the donor may be not available in the short period of time. We report the technique of using portal vein arterialization (PVA) for bridging before retransplantation. There are few reports in living donor setting.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The recipient of the liver was a 59 year old male who received an extended right lobe graft from his son. Post operative day 41, HAT was diagnosed from angiogram and liver function got rapidly worse. We decided to re-anastomose the hepatic artery but this was not possible due to a thrombosis in the distal right hepatic artery. So PVA by anastomosis of the common hepatic artery to splenic vein was performed. During the early postoperative period liver function gradually improved. Unfortunately, he died from massive GI hemorrhage one month later.

DISCUSSION

PVA has previously been reported as being useful when revascularization was not successful. The surgical technique is not complicated and can be performed in sick patient. Liver graft may be salvaged with oxygenated portal flow and recover afterwards. However, portal hypertension after PVA seem to be an inevitable complication.

CONCLUSIONS

PVA may be a bridging treatment for retransplantation in patients whom hepatic artery reconstruction is impossible after HAT. Regards to the high morbidity after procedure, retransplantation should be performed as definite treatment as soon as possible.