Hepatic artery chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients listed for liver transplantation

Expanding the Boundaries for Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer, which was the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide in 2020. Transplantation remains the preferred treatment for cure in otherwise unresectable HCC. There are several areas of active research that have led to expansion of eligibility criteria for transplantation including local-regional therapy for downstaging patients presenting outside of the Milan criteria and identification of tumor biomarkers aiding in the early diagnosis, determining prognosis and likelihood of recurrence after transplantation for HCC. New neoadjuvant therapies and post-transplant immunosuppression regimens may also result in expansion of transplant eligibility criteria for HCC.

Downstaging Hepatocellular Carcinoma before Transplantation: Role of Immunotherapy Versus Locoregional Approaches

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to be a leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. With advances in locoregional therapy for unresectable HCC during the last 2 decades and the recent expansion of transplant criteria for HCC, as well as ongoing organ shortages, patients are spending more time on the waitlist, which has resulted in an increased usage of locoregional therapies. The plethora of molecularly targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors under investigation represent the new horizon of treatment of HCC not only in advanced stages but also potentially at every stage of diagnosis and management.

Intraarterial Therapies for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Image-guided locoregional therapies play a crucial role in the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Transarterial therapies consist of a group of catheter-based treatments where embolic agents are delivered directly into the tumor via their supplying arteries. Some of the transarterial therapies available include bland embolization (TAE), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), drug-eluting beads-transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE), selective internal radioembolization therapy (SIRT), and hepatic artery infusion (HAI). This article provides a review of pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and post-procedural aspects of each therapy, along with a review of the literature. Newer embolotherapy options and future directions are also briefly discussed.

Role of Pretransplant Treatments for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Waiting for Liver Transplantation

Simple Summary

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer in men worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer death. Liver transplantation (LT) is one of the treatment options for patients with HCC. Recently, there have been many reports of the usefulness of locoregional therapy, such as transarterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation, for HCC as pretreatment before LT. In Western countries, locoregional therapy is used to bridge until transplantation to prevent drop-outs from the waiting list or for downstaging to treat patients with advanced HCC who initially exceed the criteria for LT. With the progress of locoregional therapy, new reports on the effects of bridging and downstaging locoregional therapy as pretransplant treatment are increasing in number.

Abstract

Recently, there have been many reports of the usefulness of locoregional therapy such as transarterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as pretreatment before liver transplantation (LT). Locoregional therapy is performed with curative intent in Japan, where living donor LT constitutes the majority of LT due to the critical shortage of deceased donors. However, in Western countries, where deceased donor LT is the main procedure, LT is indicated for early-stage HCC regardless of liver functional reserve, and locoregional therapy is used for bridging until transplantation to prevent drop-outs from the waiting list or for downstaging to treat patients with advanced HCC who initially exceed the criteria for LT. There are many reports of the effect of bridging and downstaging locoregional therapy before LT, and its indications and efficacy are becoming clear. Responses to locoregional therapy, such as changes in tumor markers, the avidity of FDG-PET, etc., are considered useful for successful bridging and downstaging. In this review, the effects of bridging and downstaging locoregional therapy as a pretransplant treatment on the results of transplantation are clarified, focusing on recent reports.

Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Safety and Efficacy of Degradable Starch Microspheres Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization as a Bridging Therapy in Patients with Early Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Child-Pugh Stage B Eligible for Liver Transplant

In patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, awaiting liver transplantation, current guidelines by AASLD and ESMO recommend a bridging therapy with a loco-regional treatment to prevent progression outside transplantation criteria. The standard of care in delaying disease progression has been recognized to be the transarterial chemoembolization. Permanent occlusion of tumor feeding vessels has effects on tumour stromal microenvironment by inducing intra- and intercellular signaling processes counteracting hypoxia, such as the release of vascular endothelial growth factor, a promoter of neoangiogenesis, tumour proliferation and metastatic growth. Among chemoembolization interventions, TACE with degradable starch microspheres represents an alternative to conventional cTACE and DEB-TACE and it minimizes detrimental effects on tumour stromal microenvironment, guaranteeing a transient occlusion of tumour feeding arteries and avoiding VEGF overexpression.Between January 2015 and September 2020, 54 consecutive patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh stage B, who had undergone DSM-TACE as a bridging therapy while awaiting liver transplantation, were eligible for the study. A total of 154 DSM-TACE was performed, with a mean number of 2.85 procedures per patient. 18 patients (33.3%) succeeded in achieving liver transplantation, with a mean waiting time-to-transplantation of 11.7 months. The cumulative rates of patients still active on the WL at 6 months were about 91 and 93% when considering overall drop-out and tumour-specific drop-out respectively. Overall survival was about 96% at 6 months and 92% at 12 months. 17 patients experienced adverse events after the chemoembolizations. For patients with HCC in the transplant waiting list and within the Child-Pugh B stage, life expectancy may be dominated by the liver dysfunction, rather than by the tumour progression itself. In this population subset, the choice of LRT is critical because LRT itself could become a dangerous tool that is likely to precipitate liver dysfunction to an extent that survival is shortened rather than prolonged. Hence, the current study demonstrates that DSM-TACE is not far from being an ideal LRT, because it has an excellent safety profile, maintaining an efficacy that guarantees a clear advantage on the dropout rate with respect to the non-operative strategy, thus justifying its use.

Outcomes of Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Beyond the University of California San Francisco Criteria: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignant liver tumor. Currently, liver transplantation may be the optimal treatment for HCC in cirrhotic patients. Patient selection is currently based on tumor size. We developed a program to offer liver transplantation to selected patients with HCC outside of traditional criteria.

METHODS

Retrospective review for patients transplanted with HCC between April 2008 and June 2017. Patients were grouped by tumor size according to Milan, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), and outside UCSF criteria. Patient demographics, laboratory values, and outcomes were compared. Patients radiographically outside Milan criteria were selected based on tumor control with locoregional therapy (LRT) and 9 months of stability from LRT. α-fetoprotein values were not exclusionary.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty HCC patients were transplanted, 138 inside Milan, 23 inside UCSF, and 59 beyond UCSF criteria. Patient survival was equivalent at 1, 3, or 5 years despite pathologic tumor size. Waiting time to transplantation was not significantly different at an average of 344 days. In patients outside UCSF, tumor recurrence was equivalent to Milan and UCSF criteria recipients who waited >9 months from LRT. Although tumor recurrence was more likely in outside of UCSF patients (3% versus 9% versus 15%; P = 0.02), recurrence-free survival only trended toward significance among the groups (P = 0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

Selective patients outside of traditional size criteria can be effectively transplanted with equivalent survival to patients with smaller tumors, even when pathologic tumor burden is considered. Tumor stability over time can be used to help select patients for transplantation.

Survival, tumour response and safety of 70-150 μm versus 100-300 μm doxorubicin drug-eluting beads in transarterial chemoembolisation for hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates the outcomes and safety of 70-150 μm and 100-300 μm doxorubicin drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolisation (DEB-TACE) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Retrospective, cohort study of 51 patients treated with DEB-TACE for unresectable HCC was studied: 23 with 100-300 μm particles and 28 with 70-150 μm particles. Overall, survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumour response and prognostic factors were assessed.

RESULTS

The median OS of the entire cohort was 30 months. The median OS and median PFS for 70-150 μm particles were not reached, whilst for the 100-300 μm group, it was 29.2 months and 15.0 months, respectively. The 6-month, 1-year and 2-year OS for 70-150 μm was 96%, 86% and 85% versus the 100-300 μm particles size of 83%, 64% and 44%, respectively. At 1-month follow-up, patients treated with 70-150 μm had significantly better mRECIST tumour response compared to 100-300 μm (complete response 38.5% vs. 19%; partial response 57.7% vs. 42.9%; stable disease 0% vs. 4.8%; progressive disease 3.8% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.027). Patients treated with 100-300 μm DEBs were significantly more likely to have progressive disease on 1-month follow-up imaging compared those treated with 70-150 μm DEB sizes (odds ratio 7.15, P = 0.007). The 30-day mortality rate was similar between the two groups (3.6% for 70-150 μm vs. 4.3% for 100-300 μm). Multivariate analysis demonstrated entire cohort OS was significantly associated with BCLC stage (aHR: 10.5, P = 0.002), albumin (aHR: 15.0, P = 0.02) and ALP (aHR 62, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

DEB-TACE with 70-150 μm particles demonstrates improved 1-month objective tumour response compared to 100-300 μm, whilst having a similar safety profile. Elevated ALP, lower albumin and higher BCLC stage were significantly associated with poorer survival outcomes.

Adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after radical hepatectomy: a real world study

Objective: To investigate the clinical value of the adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after radical resection, and identify the potential beneficiaries.Methods: Patients were identified through the primary liver cancer big data (PLCBD) between 2012 and 2015. Overall survival (OS) between adjuvant TACE group and non-TACE was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier before and after propensity scoring match (PSM). Subgroup analysis was conducted stratified by risk factors.Results: A total of 2066 HCC patients receiving radical resection were identified. Patients with multiple tumors, tumor diameter >5 cm, satellite, and advanced stage were more likely to accept adjuvant TACE. Before PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates in the TACE group and non-TACE group were 89%, 58%, 17%, and 88%, 53%, 13% (p = .43), respectively. While, the corresponding rates were 89%, 58%, 17%, and 86%, 49%, 11%, (p = .038), respectively after 1:1 PSM. In addition, patients were found to significantly benefit from adjuvant TACE if they had age ≥50 years, no cirrhosis, AFP ≤ 200 ng/ml, surgical margin <1 cm, tumor diameter >5 cm, no capsule, no satellite, or CN stage Ib/IIa (all p < .05), but patients with age < 50 years, tumor size ≤5 cm, or CN stage Ia were found to significantly benefit from radical resection in DFS (all p < .05).Conclusion: Currently, we concluded that not all of patients with HCC would benefit from adjuvant TACE. Patients with age ≥50 years, tumor size >5 cm, or CN stage Ib/IIa were strongly recommended to receive adjuvant TACE.

Bridging Hepatocellular Carcinoma to Transplant: Transarterial Chemoembolization Response, Tumor Biology, and Recurrence after Transplantation in a 12-Year Transplant Cohort

PURPOSE

To evaluate tumor response to transarterial chemoembolization as well as biologic characteristics of the tumor as predictors of recurrence after transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were bridged or down-staged to liver transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, single-institution retrospective analysis was performed on all patients with HCC who were treated with the use of conventional transarterial chemoembolization or transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting embolics (DEE) over a 12-year period and who subsequently underwent liver transplantation (n = 142). Treatment response was based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) imaging criteria and then correlated with tumor characteristics and recurrence. Of the 142 patients followed after transplantation, 127 had imaging after transarterial chemoembolization but before transplantation. Imaging response and post-transplantation recurrence were correlated with patient demographics, liver function, and tumor morphology. HCC recurred in 9 patients (mean time from transplantation, 526 days). Recurrence was analyzed with the use of univariate and multivariate statistics. Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival curves were calculated based on immediate imaging response before transplantation with the use of the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Before transplantation, 57% of patients (72/127) demonstrated complete response (CR) and 24% (31/127) showed partial response (PR). Complete pathologic necrosis occurred in 54% (39/72) of CR patients and 20% (6/31) of PR patients. Poor treatment response, defined as stable disease (SD) or progressive disease (PD), occurred in 18% of patients (24/127) before transplantation and was present in 67% of cases of recurrence (6/9; P < .001). Post-transplantation recurrence was present in 1.4% of patients (1/71) with CR and in 6.5% of patients (2/31) with PR. In patients with SD after transarterial chemoembolization, HCC recurred in 18.8% of transplant patients (3/16) and in 43% of patients (3/7) with PD. Larger pretreatment tumor size (P = .05), higher Child-Pugh score (P = .002), higher tumor grade at explantation (P = .04), and lymphovascular invasion at explantation (P = .008) also were associated with increased incidence of post-transplantation recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor tumor response to transarterial chemoembolization before transplantation identifies patients at increased risk for post-transplantation recurrence.

Does postoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization benefit for all patients with hepatocellular carcinoma combined with microvascular invasion: a meta-analysis

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of postoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients combined with microvascular invasion (MVI). Patients and methods: Eligible studies were searched by PubMed, MedLine, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, from 1st January 2000 to 31st December 2018, comparing the overall survival (OS) rates and disease-free survival (DFS) rates between postoperative adjuvant TACE and operation only for HCC patients with MVI. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to determine the effect size. Results: Eight studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 774 patients in the postoperative adjuvant TACE group and 856 patients in the operation only group. The pooled HR for the OS and DFS rates were significantly different between the postoperative adjuvant TACE group and the operation only group (HR 0.57, 95%CI 0.48 ∼ 0.68, p < .00001; HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.58 ∼ 0.74, p < .00001; respectively). However, in the subgroup analysis stratified by proportion of multiple-nodules, no significant differences were observed in the pooled HR for the OS/DFS rates between the postoperative adjuvant TACE group and the operation only group (HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.60 ∼ 1.13, p = .23; HR 0.76, 95%CI 0.41 ∼ 1.40, p = .37; respectively). Conclusions: Postoperative adjuvant TACE will benefit patients with HCC and MVI, but not for multiple-HCC with MVI. However, more high-quality studies are warranted to validate the conclusion.

Multimodality locoregional treatment strategies for bridging HCC patients before liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

It is current practice that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplantation should receive locoregional treatment if the suspected waiting time for transplantation is longer than 6 months, even in the absence of prospective randomized data. Aim of this study was the comparison of single versus multimodality locoregional treatment strategies on outcomes after liver transplantation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of 150 HCC patients listed for liver transplantation at our center between 2004 and 2011. Outcomes were analyzed according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) in relation to intention-to-treat and overall survival after liver transplantation.

RESULTS

Overall, 92 patients (63%) were transplanted in this cohort. The intention-to-treat 1‑, 3‑, 5‑year waiting list survival was 80, 59, and 50% respectively. In RFA-(radiofrequency ablative) and TACE-(transarterial chemoembolisation)-based regimens, rates of transplanted patients were comparable (69 vs. 58%, p = ns). No difference was seen in overall survival after liver transplantation when comparing TACE- and RFA-based regimens. Patients receiving multimodality locoregional therapy had lower overall survival after transplantation (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

TACE- and RFA-based regimens showed equal outcomes in terms of transplantation rate, tumor response, and post-transplant survival. Patients in need of more than one treatment modality might identify a cohort with poorer post-transplant survival.

POINTS OF NOVELTY

Direct comparison of TACE and RFA in a multimodality setting, analysis according to mRECIST.

Bridging to liver transplantation in HCC patients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only cure for patients diagnosed with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and HCC has become the leading indication for LT in the USA. The shortage of liver grafts results in a significant waiting time for LT with the risk of tumour progression. Treating HCCs during the waiting time prior to transplantation (bridging therapy) is an attractive strategy to reduce the risk of exceeding the tumour criteria for transplantation. Studies on bridging therapy are heterogenous and due to ethical issues, mostly of retrospective design.

PURPOSE

We summarize the main studies and methods that have been reported on bridging therapies for patients with HCC waiting for a LT.

CONCLUSION

During the waiting period for LT, patients with HCC at risk for tumour progression and therefore bridging therapy is recommended for patients with an estimated waiting time of ≥6 months. Bridging therapy for patients with HCC prior to LT mainly include locoregional therapies (LRTs), with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) being the most common, followed by radio frequency ablation (RFA). Because of a continuous enhancement of therapy options, including a more precise adjustment of external radiotherapy, further possibilities for an individualized bridging therapy for patients with HCC have been developed. Patients with compensated liver cirrhosis and small tumour size are preferably treated with RFA, whereas patients with larger tumour size but compensated liver function are treated with TACE/TARE. Patients with uncompensated liver cirrhosis and larger tumour size can nowadays be successfully bridged to LT with external radiotherapy without increasing the risk for further deterioration of liver function.

Treatment Options in Patients Awaiting Liver Transplantation with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Cholangiocarcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) provides a good chance of cure for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). Patients with HCC on a waiting list for LT are at risk for tumor progression and dropout. Treatment of HCC with locoregional therapies may lessen dropout due to tumor progression. Strict selection and adherence to the LT criteria for patients with pCCA before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy are critical for optimal outcome with LT. This article reviews the existing data for the various treatment strategies used for patients with HCC and pCCA awaiting LT.

When to consider liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma patients?

Orthotopic liver transplantation (LT) has been regarded as the best cure among the three curative treatment modalities. However, when to consider LT in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients remains a complicated clinical question. In this article, we will look into the recent updates in the context of LT for HCC, including the timing of orthotopic LT (primary or salvage LT), patient selection criteria, newer prognostic markers and scoring systems, down-staging and bridging therapy, salvage LT and treatment option of post-LT HCC recurrence. Evolution of immunosuppressive therapy and future development of the LT for HCC will also be discussed.

Bridging and downstaging therapy in patients suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma waiting on the list of liver transplantation

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common primary malignancy worldwide especially in the patients with the background of chronic liver disease. Liver transplantation (LT) is the only curative treatment effective for both malignancy as well as the cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Unfortunately, living donor is not always possible and the deceased graft is scarce. Neoadjuvant therapies, therefore, have been developed as a downstaging treatment to try to downstage the tumor within the transplant criteria, or as a bridging therapy to control the tumor growth in patients while waiting in the transplant list. This paper reviewed the common modalities used as bridging and downstaging therapies for patients suffering from HCC before undergoing LT.

[Transarterial therapy for hepatocellular cancer]

AIM

To estimate treatment of patients with hepatocellular cancer after transarterial chemoembolization as independent curative method, "bridge" to liver transplantation and in the context of combined therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We presented an experience of transarterial chemoembolization in treatment of 29 patients with hepatocellular cancer. Curative procedures were performed in the context of independent therapy, "bridge" to liver transplantation and combined treatment. It was performed 48 procedures in all. 44.9% of patients underwent one and two procedures, 10.2%--three performances. Mean interval between procedures was 76.2±116.2 days (range 8-139 days).

RESULTS

Post-embolization syndrome including fervescence, nausea and pain was observed in 24.1% after 1st stage, in 50% and 33.3% after 2nd and 3rd stages respectively. Mean time of expectation of liver transplantation in bridge therapy group was 8.5±6.8 months (range 1-20 months). Median survival after transarterial chemoembolization in monotherapy group was 9 months.

Strategies to improve outcome of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving a liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is the only therapeutic option which allows to treat both, the hepatocellular carcinoma and the underlying liver disease. Indeed, liver transplantation is considered the standard of care for a subset of patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. However, tumour recurrence rates are as high as 20%, and once the recurrence is established the therapeutic options are scarce and with little impact on prognosis. Strategies to minimize tumour recurrence and thus to improve outcome may be classified into 3 groups: (1) An adequate selection of candidates for liver transplantation by using the Milan criteria; (2) An optimized management within waiting list including prioritization of patients at high risk of tumour progression, and the implementation of bridging therapies, particularly when the expected length within the waiting list is longer than 6 mo; and (3) Tailored immunosuppression comprising reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors, particularly early after liver transplantation, and the addition of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors. In the present manuscript the available scientific evidence supporting these strategies is comprehensively reviewed, and future directions are provided for novel research approaches, which may contribute to the final target: to cure more patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and with an improved long term outcome.

Survival, efficacy, and safety of small versus large doxorubicin drug-eluting beads TACE chemoembolization in patients with unresectable HCC

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the overall survival, efficacy, and safety of small (100-300 µm) versus large (300-500 and 500-700 µm) doxorubicin drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB TACE) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-four consecutive patients with unresectable HCC who underwent 269 DEB TACE procedures in 48 months were studied. DEB TACE procedures were performed using different DEB sizes: 100-300 µm (Group A, 59 patients) and with mixed 300-500 and 500-700 µm DEB (Group B, 35 patients). Survival rates were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The overall median survival in groups A and B were 15.1 and 11.1 months, respectively (p=0.005). Both groups were similar in demographics, tumor burden, and differential staging (p>0.5). Substratification of overall survival according to Child-Pugh class and Okuda, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP), and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging were significantly higher in group A than in group B (p<0.05). Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) grade III adverse events and 30-day mortality were significantly lower in group A than in group B (6.8% vs 20%; p=0.04, and 0% vs 14.3%; p=0.001, respectively). The particle size, Child-Pugh class, and serum α-fetoprotein level were significant prognostic indicators of survival on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

TACE with 100-300 µm sized DEB is associated with significantly higher survival rate and lower complications than TACE with 300-500 and 500-700 µm sized DEB.

Time to transplantation as a predictor of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation

In the United States, there are significant geographic disparities in the time to transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); it is possible that rapid transplantation contributes to higher rates of posttransplant HCC recurrence because there is insufficient time for the tumor biology to manifest. In this study, we compared HCC recurrence in rapid transplant patients and their slower transplant counterparts. We identified adult liver transplantation (LT) candidates in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data set who were granted an initial exception for an HCC diagnosis between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2010 and underwent transplantation in the same time window. Patients were followed until HCC recurrence, non-HCC-related death, or last follow-up. The cumulative incidence of HCC recurrence was compared for patients waiting ≤ 120 days and patients waiting >120 days from an HCC exception to LT. The association between the risk of posttransplant recurrence and the wait time was further evaluated via competing risks regression with the Fine and Gray model. For 5002 LT recipients with HCC, the median wait time from an exception to LT was 77 days, and it varied from 30 to 169 days by UNOS region. The cumulative incidence of posttransplant HCC recurrence was 3.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.8%-3.8%] and 5.6% (95% CI = 5.0%-6.3%) within 1 and 2 years, respectively. The rate of observed recurrence within 1 year of transplantation was significantly lower for patients waiting >120 days versus patients waiting ≤ 120 days (2.2% versus 3.9%, P = 0.002); however, the difference did not persist at 2 years (5.0% versus 5.9%, P = 0.09). After we accounted for clinical factors, the HCC recurrence risk was reduced by 40% for patients waiting >120 days (subhazard ratio = 0.6, P = 0.005). In conclusion, the risk of HCC recurrence within the first year after transplantation may be lessened by the institution of a mandatory waiting time after an exception is granted.

Section 3. Current status of downstaging of hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-established option of cure for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Milan criteria is recognized as standard for selection of patients and set the baseline of survival to be achieved. It has been shown that tumor biology including differentiation, vascular invasion, and serum α-fetoprotein (AFP) predict posttransplant recurrence and survival better than morphology. Downstaging by locoregional therapies of HCC before LT, with the response to treatments and progression within observation period, serves as a selection tool rather than modulation of tumor biology. It selects those patients outside standard criteria at presentation but good tumor biology and high chance of good outcome to receive transplantation. The definition of downstaging should be differentiated from neo-adjuvant therapy, and the objectives in surgical and pretransplant candidates also differ.Published studies in this area showed variation in inclusion criteria, downstaging protocol and assessment of successful downstaging. Tumor biology predownstaging and postdownstaging was not incorporated. Posttransplant outcome were not clearly stated with regard to intention-to-treat survival, disease-free survival, and comparison against those originally within criteria. Meta-analysis of these results was impossible. Nevertheless, majority had reasonable protocol and were able to select patients whom likely to have good outcome. At present, there is no evidence that downstaged patients have a poorer prognosis than those presenting within the Milan criteria. Patients with tumors outside Milan criteria should be offered downstaging therapies. Those who are successfully downstaged to within Milan criteria should be eligible to liver transplant as same as those initially fit the criteria. In the last decade, various extended criteria of HCC for LT have been proposed and reported satisfactory survival. That makes downstaging technically unnecessary.To refine and validate the role of downstaging, it needs collaborative and prospective study with significant sample size, adequate preoperative staging, standardized protocol of selection of patients, and approaches to downstaging. Selection criteria should include histopathological data on tumor biology and serum AFP. There should be standardized definition of successful downstaging. Posttransplant disease-free survival should be reported in detail and compared with those who fit the standard criteria initially. A consistent immunosuppressant protocol is important to avoid bias.

Neo-adjuvant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation: Where do we stand?

Liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within Milan criteria is a widely accepted optimal therapy. Neo-adjuvant therapy before transplantation has been used as a bridging therapy to prevent dropout during the waiting period and as a down-staging method for the patient with intermediate HCC to qualify for liver transplantation. Transarterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation are the most commonly used method for locoregional therapy. The data associated with newer modalities including drug-eluting beads, radioembolization with Y90, stereotactic radiation therapy and sorafenib will be discussed as a tool for converting advanced HCC to LT candidates. The concept “ablate and wait” has gained the popularity where mandated observation period after neo-adjuvant therapy allows for tumor biology to become apparent, thus has been recommended after down-staging. The role of neo-adjuvant therapy with conjunction of “ablate and wait” in living donor liver transplantation for intermediate stage HCC is also discussed in the paper.

Bridging and downstaging treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation

Several therapeutic procedures have been proposed as bridging treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting liver transplantation (LT). The most used treatments include transarterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation. Surgical resection has also been successfully used as a bridging procedure, and LT should be considered a rescue treatment in patients with previous HCC resection who experience tumor recurrence or post-treatment severe decompensation of liver function. The aims of bridging treatments include decreasing the waiting list dropout rate before transplantation, reducing HCC recurrence after transplantation, and improving post-transplant overall survival. To date, no data from prospective randomized studies are available; however, for HCC patients listed for LT within the Milan criteria, prolonging the waiting time over 6-12 mo is a risk factor for tumor spread. Bridging treatments are useful in containing tumor progression and decreasing dropout. Furthermore, the response to pre-LT treatments may represent a surrogate marker of tumor biological aggressiveness and could therefore be evaluated to prioritize HCC candidates for LT. Lastly, although a definitive conclusion can not be reached, the experiences reported to date suggest a positive impact of these treatments on both tumor recurrence and post-transplant patient survival. Advanced HCC may be downstaged to achieve and maintain the current conventional criteria for inclusion in the waiting list for LT. Recent studies have demonstrated that successfully downstaged patients can achieve a 5-year survival rate comparable to that of patients meeting the conventional criteria without requiring downstaging.

Efficacy of TACE in TIPS patients: comparison of treatment response to chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with and without a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

PURPOSE

To compare treatment response after transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with and without a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent conventional TACE for HCC between January 2005 and December 2009 identified 10 patients with patent TIPS. From the same time period, 23 patients without TIPS were selected to control for comparable Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Child-Pugh-Turcotte scores. The two groups showed similar distribution of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and United Network of Organ Sharing stages. Target HCC lesions were evaluated according to the modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) guidelines. Transplantation rate, time to tumor progression, and overall survival (OS) were documented.

RESULTS

After TACE, the rate of complete response was significantly greater in non-TIPS patients compared with TIPS patients (74 vs. 30 %, p = 0.03). Objective response rate (complete and partial response) trended greater in the non-TIPS group (83 vs. 50 %, p = 0.09). The liver transplantation rate was 80 and 74 % in the TIPS and non-TIPS groups, respectively (p = 1.0). Time to tumor progression was similar (p = 0.47) between the two groups. OS favored the non-TIPS group (p = 0.01) when censored for liver transplantation.

CONCLUSION

TACE is less effective in achieving complete or partial response using mRECIST criteria in TIPS patients compared with those without a TIPS. Nevertheless, similar clinical outcomes may be achieved, particularly in TIPS patients who are liver-transplantation candidates.

High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation: An effective bridging therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients

AIM: To analyze whether high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation is an effective bridging therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2010, 49 consecutive HCC patients were listed for liver transplantation (UCSF criteria). The median waiting time for transplantation was 9.5 mo. Twenty-nine patients received transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as a bringing therapy and 16 patients received no treatment before transplantation. Five patients received HIFU ablation as a bridging therapy. Another five patients with the same tumor staging (within the UCSF criteria) who received HIFU ablation but not on the transplant list were included for comparison. Patients were comparable in terms of Child-Pugh and model for end-stage liver disease scores, tumor size and number, and cause of cirrhosis.

RESULTS: The HIFU group and TACE group showed no difference in terms of tumor size and tumor number. One patient in the HIFU group and no patient in the TACE group had gross ascites. The median hospital stay was 1 d (range, 1-21 d) in the TACE group and two days (range, 1-9 d) in the HIFU group (P < 0.000). No HIFU-related complication occurred. In the HIFU group, nine patients (90%) had complete response and one patient (10%) had partial response to the treatment. In the TACE group, only one patient (3%) had response to the treatment while 14 patients (48%) had stable disease and 14 patients (48%) had progressive disease (P = 0.00). Seven patients in the TACE group and no patient in the HIFU group dropped out from the transplant waiting list (P = 0.559).

CONCLUSION: HIFU ablation is safe and effective in the treatment of HCC for patients with advanced cirrhosis. It may reduce the drop-out rate of liver transplant candidate.

Hepatocellular carcinoma locoregional therapies for patients in the waiting list. Impact on transplantability and recurrence rate

The practice of treating candidates for liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with locoregional therapies, is common in most transplant centers. However, for T1 tumors and expected waiting times to LT <6 months, there is no evidence that these treatments are beneficial. For T2 tumors and for longer waiting times, neo-adjuvant treatments are usually performed with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), ablation techniques and liver resection in selected cases. The treatment choice should be based on the BCLC staging system. At present, there is no evidence of the superiority of ablation/resection vs. TACE, but some studies showed better results of the former in achieving a complete response. The response to neo-adjuvant treatments should be evaluated through mRECIST criteria, but few studies adopted these criteria and properly analyzed factors affecting response. The simultaneous evaluation of the impact of neo-adjuvant therapies on dropout rate, post-LT HCC recurrence and patient survival is rarely reported. Tumor stage and volume, alpha-fetoprotein levels, response to treatments and liver function affect pre-LT outcomes. These same factors, together with vascular invasion and poor tumor differentiation, are major determinants of poor post-LT outcomes. Due to the low number of prospective studies with well-defined entry criteria and the variability of results, the role of downstaging is still to be defined. Novel molecular markers seem promising for the estimation of prognosis and/or response to treatments. With a persistent scarcity of organ donors, neo-adjuvant treatments can help identify patients with different probabilities of cancer progression, and consequently balance the priority of HCC and non-HCC-candidates through revised additional scores for HCC.

Systematic review: the role of liver transplantation in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Liver transplantation offers a potential cure for this otherwise devastating disease. The selection of the most appropriate candidates is paramount in an era of graft shortage.

AIM

To review systematically the role of liver transplantation in the management of HCC in current clinical practice.

METHODS

An electronic literature search using PUBMED (1980-2010) was performed. Search terms included HCC, hepatoma, liver cancer, and liver transplantation.

RESULTS

Liver transplantation is a highly successful treatment for HCC, in patients within Milan criteria (MC), defined as a solitary tumour ≤50 mm in diameter or ≤3 tumours ≤30 mm in diameter in the absence of extra-hepatic or vascular spread. Other eligibility criteria for liver transplantation are also used in clinical practice, such as the University of California, San Francisco criteria, with outcomes comparable to MC. Loco-regional therapies have a role in the bridging treatment of HCC by minimising wait-list drop-out secondary to tumour progression. Beyond MC, encouraging results have been demonstrated for patients with down-staged tumours. Post-liver transplantation, there is no evidence to support a specific immunosuppressive regimen. In the context of an insufficient cadaveric donor pool to meet demand, the role of adult living donation may be increasingly important.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver transplantation offers a curative therapy for selected patients with HCC. The optimisation of eligibility criteria is paramount to ensure that maximum benefit is accrued. Although wait-list therapies have been incorporated into clinical practice, additional high quality data are required to support this strategy.

Beyond the Milan criteria: what risks for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma progression before liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND

To date the selection of the best candidates for liver transplantation (LT) owing to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been mainly based on tumor morphological characteristics (nodule diameter and number), which have resulted to be independent risk factors for short long-term survival and a high rate of tumor recurrence.

METHODS

The study cohort included 118 patients among the 166 with HCC transplanted at our unit from January 2000 to December 2007. Patients were classified according to response to locoregional treatments before LT: progressive Group A; complete Group B; partial Group C; stable Group D.

RESULTS

The 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates were 65.5% and 48.9% for Group A versus 84.8% and 74.6% for Group BCD (P = 0.01). The 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 74% and 74% for Group A and 95.7% and 93% for Group BCD (P = 0.007). HCC progression was the only independent risk factor according to Cox regression P = 0.014--odds ratio 4.4 (1.35-14.3).

CONCLUSION

After aggressive HCC treatment before LT, imaging progression while on the waiting list was a strong predictor of high HCC recurrence rate also in patients who met the Milan criteria. Lack of imaging progression can contribute toward the selection of good transplant candidates for HCC together with the Milan criteria.

General overview of neo-adjuvant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation: necessity or option?

Because of its increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma, it is now recognized as a worldwide health problem affecting mostly patients with chronic liver disease. Liver transplantation is the optimal therapy and achieves its best results in patients with small tumour burden. In an effort to prevent tumour progression and patient dropout from the transplant wait list, the concept and utilization of neo-adjuvant locoregional therapies have gained relevance in the past few years. Moreover, good and maintained response to therapy is now considered a surrogate of favourable tumour biology, therefore aiding the patient transplant selection process. Herein, we review the current role of neo-adjuvant therapies and revise concepts of tumour 'downstaging' or 'bridging therapy' in the setting of liver transplantation. In addition, we explore the debate of implementing locoregional therapy for patients with small tumours and short waiting times to liver transplantation.

[Interventional radiological treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma]

During the last years, interventional radiological treatment of hepatocellular cancer has changed dramatically. The percutaneous ethanol infiltration is partly replaced by thermoablative methods, mainly by radiofrequency ablation. Cooled-tip electrodes and volumetric therapy planning increased the treatment success. Embolisation beads made vessel occlusion more precise and predictable, while the development of the drug eluting beads led to the most effective way of chemoembolisation. The so called radioembolisation with Yttrium 90 isotopes filled into glass microbeads is slowly gaining acceptance worldwide. Thermoablation and embolisation or chemoembolisation are the main tools for downstaging tumors, or avoiding disease progression in liver transplant recipients on the waiting list. All of these therapeutic options have their well established places in well known and worldwide accepted protocols, such as the algorithm of the Barcelona group (BCLC). In the near future, further results can be expected from the combination of available treatments, including sorafenib medication.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: Ablate and wait versus rapid transplantation

This opinion piece explores an "ablate and wait" strategy for improving the 5-year recurrence-free outcome of liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. The Milan criteria delimit by tumor size and number a population of patients who have good survival after liver transplantation. The University of California San Francisco downstaging experience has shown that patients with a tumor burden outside the Milan criteria who undergo tumor ablation and a period of waiting have outcomes that rival those of patients who undergo transplantation within the Milan criteria because the tumor biology is allowed to become apparent by radiological studies during the waiting period. This experience has led to 2 conclusions: first, expansion beyond the Milan criteria should not occur without therapy directed to the tumor followed by a period of waiting to decrease the risk of recurrence, and second, for tumors within the Milan criteria, the same strategy should be considered.

The place of downstaging for hepatocellular carcinoma

In the treatment of hepatocellular carcinomas, therapies such as trans-arterial chemo-embolisation, trans-arterial radioembolisation, percutaneous ethanol injection and radio-frequency ablation can decrease the size (and overall viability) of the tumours, thus potentially increasing the proportion of patients qualifying for resection and transplantation. While the use of such downstaging therapies is straightforward when resection is the aim, in a similar way to other neo-adjuvant treatments in the surgery of tumours that are too large or awkwardly placed to be primarily resected the issues related to transplantation are more complex. In the context of transplantation the word "downstaging" designates not only a neo-adjuvant treatment, but also a selection strategy to allow patients who are initially outside accepted listing criteria to benefit from transplantation should the neo-adjuvant therapy be successful in reducing tumour burden. The effectiveness of downstaging as a selection strategy, at first questioned because of methodological bias in the studies that described it, has been recently demonstrated by more solid prospective investigations. Several issues however remain open, such as inclusion criteria before the strategy is implemented (size/number, surrogate markers of differentiation/vascular invasion such as alpha-fetoprotein), the choice of which downstaging therapy, the end-points of treatment, and the need and duration of a period of observation proving disease response or stabilisation before the patient can be listed. The present review discusses which treatments and strategies are available for downstaging HCC on the basis of the published literature.

Liver tumor ablation: percutaneous and open approaches

The global incidence of liver cancer is greater than a million cases a year. Surgical resection where applicable is still the standard of care for these patients. Various liver-directed regional therapies have been developed in an effort to treat the vast majority of unresectable liver tumors. This article reviews the principles behind various ablation therapies currently available for malignant liver tumors and their outcomes.

Downstaging of hepatocellular carcinoma with radiofrequency ablation on the Hungarian liver transplantation waiting list — Early results and learned lessons

Hepatocellular carcinoma, which has developed in liver cirrhosis is a disease where liver transplantation can provide a cure both for the tumour and the underlying liver damage. However, patients can only be transplanted when the tumour number and size do not exceed the Milan criteria. Tumour ablation methods — such as radiofrequency ablation — can provide a chance to make the patient eligible for transplantation. Among the 416 Hungarian liver transplanted patients there are 6 who had received different types of ablative therapy as bridging therapy in different institutions. On the basis of analysis of the patients' data we created a guideline for the treatment of cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with the aim of developing a uniform Hungarian approach.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: results of down-staging in patients initially outside the Milan selection criteria

Conventional criteria for liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are single HCC <or= 5 cm or less than or equal to three HCCs <or= 3 cm. We prospectively evaluated the possibility of slightly extending these criteria in a down-staging protocol, which included patients initially outside conventional criteria: single HCC 5-6 cm or two HCCs <or= 5 cm or less than six HCCs <or= 4 cm and sum diameter <or= 12 cm, but within Milan criteria in the active tumors after the down-staging procedures. The outcome of patients down-staged was compared to that of Milan criteria after liver transplantation and since the first evaluation according to an intention-to-treat principle. From 2003 to 2006, 177 patients with HCC were considered for transplantation: the transplantation rate was comparable between the Milan and down-staging groups: 88/129 cases (68%) versus 32/48 cases (67%), respectively. At a median follow-up of 2.5 years after transplantation, the 1 and 3 years' disease-free survival rates were comparable: 80% and 71% in the Milan group versus 78% and 71% in the down-staging. The actuarial intention-to-treat survival was 27/48 patients (56.3%) in the down-staging and 81/129 cases (62.8%) in the Milan group, p = n.s. The proposed down-staging criteria provide a comparable outcome to the conventional criteria.

Chemo-embolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with different sizes of embolization particles

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the size responses and vascular responses to three different sizes of Embosphere (EMBS) embolization particles used for chemo-embolization in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Forty-seven patients with biopsy proven HCC treated with TACE using EMBS (Biosphere Medical, Rockland, MA, USA) were included in this study. EMBS are non-resorbable tris-acryl gelatin defined-size microspheres. Sixteen patients were treated with 40-120 micron (40-microm), 13 patients with 100-300 (100-microm), and 18 patients with 300-500 (300-microm) EMBS particles. We measured the two-dimensional area and vascularity of the tumor index lesion on initial and subsequent CTs after treatment. Lesions were classified into four grades based on the degree of vascularity measured in 25% increments. Size of tumor after one treatment decreased by an average (avg) of 18% for 40-120-microm particles, 38% for 100-300-microm particles, and 17% for 300-500-microm particles. After three treatments, size decreased by an avg of 46% for 40-120-microm particles, 76% for 100-300-microm particles, and 46% for 300-500-microm particles. Vascularity decrease was also measured after the first and third treatments, and defined as a decrease of one or more grades in tumor vascularity. Results were as follows (% of patients with decrease). For 40-120-microm particles: 1 and 3 treatments, 53% and 88% of patients. For 100-300-microm particles: 1 and 3 treatments, 60% and 88% of patients. For 300-500-microm particles: 1 and 3 treatments, 50% and 57% of patients. It was concluded the 100-300-microm EMBS particles produce slightly higher responses.

Chemoembolization of tongue carcinoma with ethylcellulose microcapsuled carboplatinum and its basic study

OBJECTIVE

By using lingual artery chemoembolization on the basis of detailed basic studies to search an additional way for treatment of certain tongue carcinoma.

METHODS

Study of lingual artery cast specimens in post-mortem human was processed. Patients with tongue carcinoma were chemoembolized with Carboplatinum microcapsules.

RESULTS

Microcapsule embolism located approximately at the fifth to the sixth branches level of deep lingual artery. Effective clinical outcomes complied with the anatomy.

CONCLUSION

Lingual artery chemoembolization with microcapsuled Carboplatinum of 214.0 +/- 48.0 microm showed nice efficacy in therapy of mid-tongue carcinoma.

Transarterial chemoembolization for primary hepatocellular carcinoma in patients at high risk

PURPOSE

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) has become a standard treatment option for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This retrospective study evaluated the safety and efficacy of TACE in patients at high risk with increased serum bilirubin level, low serum albumin level, poor hepatic reserve, or compromised hepatopetal flow in the portal vein (PV).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 52 patients underwent 65 high-risk procedures. Thirty patients treated with 38 procedures (57.7% of patients and 58.5% of procedures) had serum bilirubin levels of 2-3 mg/dL (ie, moderate elevation) and 22 patients treated with 27 procedures (42.3% and 41.5%) had a serum bilirubin level of at least 3 mg/dL (ie, considerable elevation). Forty patients (76.9%) had serum albumin levels less than 3.5 mg/dL. Thirteen recipients of 15 procedures (25% and 20%) had portal diversion or obstruction. Twenty-four patients (46.2%) had a Child-Pugh (CP) score of 8 or less and 28 patients (53.8%) had a CP score of at least 9 at the time of TACE. Thirty patients (57.7%) had focal tumors and 22 patients (42.3%) had multifocal or infiltrative disease. Superselective chemoembolization could be performed in 37 procedures (56.9%); lobar chemoembolization was performed in the remaining 28 (43.1%).

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality rate was 7.7% and the procedure-related morbidity rate was 10.8%. Patients with multifocal disease and lobar embolization had significantly higher mortality rates (P=.03). Individual factors such as serum bilirubin, serum albumin, and PV flow did not affect outcomes significantly. The 1- and 2-year survival rates in patients with focal disease were 67.9% and 37.7%, respectively, compared with 19.6% and 0% in patients with multifocal disease (P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

TACE in patients considered at high risk does not necessarily incur a higher incidence of morbidity or mortality. Patient selection should be based on extent of disease, and these tumors should be treated selectively at a segmental level if possible.

Treatment before liver transplantation for HCC

Liver transplantation (LT) which is currently an established therapy for sma1l, early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis requires in most cases long waiting period. Tumor development during the waiting period may be associated with vascular invasion which is a strong factor of postoperative recurrence. Therefore, local treatment of the tumor including trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE), percutaneous radiofrequency (RF) or partial liver resection can be used before transplantation. In the present paper we reviewed the efficacy of these treatments prior to LT. Although, TACE induced complete tumor necrosis in some patients there is no convincing arguments showing that this treatment reduces the rate of drop out before LT, nor improves the survival after LT. Although, RF can induce complete necrosis in the majority of small tumors (<2.5 cm), there is no data demonstrating that this treatment reduce the rate of drop out before LT, nor improves the survival after LT. It has been showed that both short and long term survival after LT was not compromised by previous partial liver resection of HCC. However, there is no data demonstrating that liver resection before LT, which can be used either as a bridge treatment or as a primary treatment, improves the survival after LT. The current data suggest that there is no role for pre-transplant therapy for HCC within Milano criteria transplanted within six months. On the opposite, if the waiting time is predicted to be prolonged, the risk of tumor progression and either drop-off from the list or interval dissemination with post-transplant tumor recurrence is recognized. In this setting, bridge therapy can reduce that risk but its efficacy has to be determined.

A decision analysis model identifies the interval of efficacy for transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma awaiting liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

For liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the ability of neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) to improve outcomes remains unproven. The objective of our study was to determine if there was a specific time interval where neoadjuvant TACE would decrease the number of HCC patients removed from the pretransplant waitlist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision model was developed to simulate a randomized trial of neoadjuvant treatment with TACE vs. no TACE in 600 virtual patients with HCC and cirrhosis. Transition probabilities for TACE morbidity (1 +/- 1%), TACE response rates (30 +/- 20%), and disease progression (7 +/- 7% per month) were assigned by systematic review of the literature (18 reports). Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine time thresholds where TACE would decrease the number of delisted patients.

RESULTS

TACE treatment had statistical benefit at waitlist time breakpoints of 4 and 9 months (P < 0.05). When waitlist times were less than 4 months, waitlist attrition was similar (20% vs. 34%, P = 0.08). When waitlist times exceed 9 months, waitlist dropout rates re-equilibrated (33% vs. 46%, P = 0.06). Review of the current literature determined that only those studies reporting on patients with waitlist times between 4 and 9 months found a benefit to neoadjuvant TACE.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates that the benefit of neoadjuvant TACE may be limited to those patients transplanted from 4 to 9 months from first TACE. These data may help transplant programs to tailor TACE treatments based on predicted waitlist times to achieve optimal resource utilization and improved organ allocation efficiency.