Hepatocellular carcinoma patients are advantaged in the current liver transplant allocation system

The Italian Score for Organ Allocation: A Ten-Year Monocentric Retrospective Analysis in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The Italian Score for Organ Allocation (ISO), a transplant benefit oriented allocation system, was introduced in Italy in 2016. The main objective of this study is to identify risk factors for Drop-Out in hepatocellular (HCC) patients enlisted for LT before (Pre-ISO Era) and after ISO (ISO Era) introduction, while the secondary objective is to evaluate the survival results.

METHODS

CIFs for liver transplantation and Drop-Out were estimated and compared between eras. Factors associated with Drop-Out were identified through multivariable competing risks regression. Survival results were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2020, 410 patients with HCC were listed for LT. We observed 103 vs. 217 LT and 49 vs. 41 Drop-Outs (p < 0.001) during the Pre-ISO and ISO Era, respectively. In the multivariable analysis, ISO ([sHR] 0.43; 95%CI 0.28-0.66, p < 0.001) and Alcoholic Cirrhosis ([sHR] 0.27, 95%CI 0.11-0.70; p = 0.007) were revealed to be protective factors for Drop-Out. One year after listing, the CI for Drop-Out decreased from 13.2% to 6.2% (p = 0.02). Despite no differences observed in post-LT survival, a significant difference in the intention-to-treat survival from enlisting was found (p = 0.0019).

CONCLUSIONS

Among other factors, ISO results were protective for the Drop-Out risk in HCC patients awaiting LT, with a benefit in ITT-OS survival.

Median Meld at Transplant Minus 3 Reduces the Mortality of Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients on the Liver Transplant Waitlist

Liver transplants (LTs) are prioritized by mortality risk, which is estimated by MELD scores. Since hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients present with lower MELD scores, they are allocated MELD exception points. Concerns persist that HCC recipients are over-prioritized, resulting in disproportionate waitlist mortality among non-HCC patients. We assessed whether the Median Meld at Transplant minus 3 (MMaT-3) scoring system would balance waitlist mortality and transplantation rates between HCC and non-HCC patients. We reviewed 266 patient charts listed for an LT from 2015 to 2023; 46.2% were listed in the MMaT-3 era. Amongst non-HCC patients, MMaT-3 implementation significantly increased 1-year transplant rate and reduced 1-year waitlist mortality among non-HCC patients (p = 0.003). Pre-MMaT-3 gaps in transplantation (p = 0.004) and waitlist dropout (p = 0.01) were eliminated post-implementation (p > 0.05). Amongst HCC patients, MMaT-3 implementation had no impact on the 1-year transplant rate (p = 0.92) or 1-year waitlist mortality (p = 0.66). Fine-gray proportional hazard multivariable analysis revealed that MMaT-3 significantly reduced waitlist mortality among non-HCC patients (asHR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.23, 0.83], p = 0.01) and limited impact on HCC patients (p = 0.31). MMaT-3 allocation did not significantly alter 2-year post-transplant survival for both populations. We show that the MMaT-3 system decreased the waitlist mortality of non-HCC patients with limited impacts on outcomes for HCC patients listed for an LT.

Continuous Risk Score Predicts Waitlist and Post-transplant Outcomes in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Despite Exception Changes

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Continuous risk-stratification of candidates and urgency-based prioritization have been utilized for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with non-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States. Instead, for patients with HCC, a dichotomous criterion with exception points is still used. This study evaluated the utility of the hazard associated with LT for HCC (HALT-HCC), an oncological continuous risk score, to stratify waitlist dropout and post-LT outcomes.

METHODS

A competing risk model was developed and validated using the UNOS database (2012-2021) through multiple policy changes. The primary outcome was to assess the discrimination ability of waitlist dropouts and LT outcomes. The study focused on the HALT-HCC score, compared with other HCC risk scores.

RESULTS

Among 23,858 candidates, 14,646 (59.9%) underwent LT and 5196 (21.8%) dropped out of the waitlist. Higher HALT-HCC scores correlated with increased dropout incidence and lower predicted 5-year overall survival after LT. HALT-HCC demonstrated the highest area under the curve (AUC) values for predicting dropout at various intervals post-listing (0.68 at 6 months, 0.66 at 1 year), with excellent calibration (R2 = 0.95 at 6 months, 0.88 at 1 year). Its accuracy remained stable across policy periods and locoregional therapy applications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the predictive capability of the continuous oncological risk score to forecast waitlist dropout and post-LT outcomes in patients with HCC, independent of policy changes. The study advocates integrating continuous scoring systems like HALT-HCC in liver allocation decisions, balancing urgency, organ utility, and survival benefit.

Waitlist Outcomes for Exception and Non-exception Liver Transplant Candidates in the United States Following Implementation of the Median MELD at Transplant (MMaT)/250-mile Policy

BACKGROUND

Since February 2020, exception points have been allocated equivalent to the median model for end-stage liver disease at transplant within 250 nautical miles of the transplant center (MMaT/250). We compared transplant rate and waitlist mortality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exception, non-HCC exception, and non-exception candidates to determine whether MMaT/250 advantages (or disadvantages) exception candidates.

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we identified 23 686 adult, first-time, active, deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) candidates between February 4, 2020, and February 3, 2022. We compared DDLT rates using Cox regression, and waitlist mortality/dropout using competing risks regression in non-exception versus HCC versus non-HCC candidates.

RESULTS

Within 24 mo of study entry, 58.4% of non-exception candidates received DDLT, compared with 57.8% for HCC candidates and 70.5% for non-HCC candidates. After adjustment, HCC candidates had 27% lower DDLT rate (adjusted hazard ratio =  0.68 0.73 0.77 ) compared with non-exception candidates. However, waitlist mortality for HCC was comparable to non-exception candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [asHR] =  0.93 1.03 1.15 ). Non-HCC candidates with pulmonary complications of cirrhosis or cholangiocarcinoma had substantially higher risk of waitlist mortality compared with non-exception candidates (asHR =  1.27 1.70 2.29 for pulmonary complications of cirrhosis, 1.35 2.04 3.07 for cholangiocarcinoma). The same was not true of non-HCC candidates with exceptions for other reasons (asHR =  0.54 0.88 1.44 ).

CONCLUSIONS

Under MMaT/250, HCC, and non-exception candidates have comparable risks of dying before receiving liver transplant, despite lower transplant rates for HCC. However, non-HCC candidates with pulmonary complications of cirrhosis or cholangiocarcinoma have substantially higher risk of dying before receiving liver transplant; these candidates may merit increased allocation priority.

The impact of surging transplantation of alcohol-associated liver disease on transplantation for HCC and other indications

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) for alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is increasing and may impact LT outcomes for patients listed for HCC and other indications.

METHODS

Using US adults listed for primary LT (grouped as ALD, HCC, and other) from October 8, 2015, to December 31, 2021, we examined the impact of center-level ALD LT volume (ATxV) on waitlist outcomes in 2 eras: Era 1 (6-month wait for HCC) and Era 2 (MMaT-3). The tertile distribution of ATxV (low to high) was derived from the listed candidates as Tertile 1 (T1): <28.4%, Tertile 2 (T2): 28.4%-37.6%, and Tertile 3 (T3): >37.6% ALD LTs per year. Cumulative incidence of waitlist death and LT within 18 months from listing by LT indication were compared using the Gray test, stratified on eras and ATxV tertiles. Multivariable competing risk regression estimated the adjusted subhazard ratios (sHRs) for the risk of waitlist mortality and LT with interaction effects of ATxV by LT indication (interaction p).

RESULTS

Of 56,596 candidates listed, the cumulative waitlist mortality for those with HCC and other was higher and their LT probability was lower in high (T3) ATxV centers, compared to low (T1) ATxV centers in Era 2. However, compared to ALD (sHR: 0.92 [0.66-1.26]), the adjusted waitlist mortality for HCC (sHR: 1.15 [0.96-1.38], interaction p = 0.22) and other (sHR: 1.13 [0.87-1.46], interaction p = 0.16) were no different suggesting no differential impact of ATxV on the waitlist mortality. The adjusted LT probability for HCC (sHR: 0.89 [0.72-1.11], interaction p = 0.08) did not differ by AtxV while it was lower for other (sHR: 0.82 [0.67-1.01], interaction p = 0.02) compared to ALD (sHR: 1.04 [0.80-1.34]) suggesting a differential impact of ATxV on LT probability.

CONCLUSIONS

The high volume of LT for ALD does not impact waitlist mortality for HCC and others but affects LT probability for other in the MMAT-3 era warranting continued monitoring.

Transarterial embolization is an acceptable bridging therapy to hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive malignant neoplasm that requires liver transplantation (LT). Despite patients with HCC being prioritized by most organ allocation systems worldwide, they still have to wait for long periods. Locoregional therapies (LRTs) are employed as bridging therapies in patients with HCC awaiting LT. Although largely used in the past, transarterial embolization (TAE) has been replaced by transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, the superiority of TACE over TAE has not been consistently shown in the literature.

AIM

To compare the outcomes of TACE and TAE in patients with HCC awaiting LT.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with HCC awaiting LT between 2011 and 2020 at a single center were included. All patients underwent LRT with either TACE or TAE. Some patients also underwent percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), concomitantly or in different treatment sessions. The choice of LRT for each HCC nodule was determined by a multidisciplinary consensus. The primary outcome was waitlist dropout due to tumor progression, and the secondary outcome was the occurrence of adverse events. In the subset of patients who underwent LT, complete pathological response and post-transplant recurrence-free survival were also assessed.

RESULTS

Twelve (18.5%) patients in the TACE group (only TACE and TACE + PEI; n = 65) and 3 (7.9%) patients in the TAE group (only TAE and TAE + PEI; n = 38) dropped out of the waitlist due to tumor progression (P log-rank test = 0.29). Adverse events occurred in 8 (12.3%) and 2 (5.3%) patients in the TACE and TAE groups, respectively (P = 0.316). Forty-eight (73.8%) of the 65 patients in the TACE group and 29 (76.3%) of the 38 patients in the TAE group underwent LT (P = 0.818). Among these patients, complete pathological response was detected in 7 (14.6%) and 9 (31%) patients in the TACE and TAE groups, respectively (P = 0.145). Post-LT, HCC recurred in 9 (18.8%) and 4 (13.8%) patients in the TACE and TAE groups, respectively (P = 0.756). Posttransplant recurrence-free survival was similar between the groups (P log-rank test = 0.71).

CONCLUSION

Dropout rates and posttransplant recurrence-free survival of TAE were similar to those of TACE in patients with HCC. Our study reinforces the hypothesis that TACE is not superior to TAE as a bridging therapy to LT in patients with HCC.

Regional Social Vulnerability is Associated With Geographic Disparity in Waitlist Outcomes for Patients With Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Model for End-stage Liver Disease Exceptions in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to evaluate the role of regional social vulnerability in geographic disparity for patients listed for liver transplantation with non-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exceptions.

SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND

Prior work has demonstrated regional variability in the appropriateness of MELD exceptions for diagnoses other than HCC.

METHODS

Adults listed at a single center for first-time liver-only transplantation without HCC after June 18, 2013 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database as of March 2021 were examined. Candidates were mapped to hospital referral regions (HRRs). Adjusted likelihood of mortality and liver transplantation were modeled. Advantaged HRRs were defined as those where exception patients were more likely to be transplanted, yet no more likely to die in adjusted analysis. The Centers for Disease Control's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was used as the measure for community health. Higher SVIs indicate poorer community health.

RESULTS

There were 49,494 candidates in the cohort, of whom 4337 (8.8%) had MELD exceptions. Among continental US HRRs, 27.3% (n = 78) were identified as advantaged. The mean SVI of advantaged HRRs was 0.42 versus 0.53 in nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.002), indicating better community health in these areas. Only 25.3% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of high SVI versus 40.7% of nonadvantaged HRRs, whereas 44.6% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of low SVI versus 38.0% of nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

An advantage for non-HCC MELD exception patients is associated with lower social vulnerability on a population level. These findings suggest assigning similar waitlist priority to all non-HCC exception candidates without considering geographic differences in social determinants of health may actually exacerbate rather than ameliorate disparity.

Significant Reduction in Posttransplant Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence in the Post 6-Mo Waiting Policy Era

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the United Network for Organ Sharing implemented a policy introducing a 6-mo waiting period before granting model for end-stage liver disease exception points to liver transplant (LT) candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study analyzes the policy impact on post-LT HCC recurrence.

METHODS

This was a United Network for Organ Sharing retrospective cohort study of patients with HCC who underwent LT from January 1, 2010, to May 31, 2019. HCC-specific data included alpha-fetoprotein, tumor characteristics, locoregional therapy (LRT), and explant data used to calculate the Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant score. The primary exposure was pre-/post-policy era, divided on October 8, 2015. Survival analysis techniques were used to evaluate the unadjusted and sequentially adjusted association between policy era and HCC recurrence, accounting for competing risks.

RESULTS

A total of 7940 patients were included, 5879 (74.0%) pre-policy era and 2061 (26.0%) post-policy era. Post-policy patients were older, received more LRT, and had lower alpha-fetoprotein levels and smaller tumor sizes at transplant. Incidence rates of HCC recurrence were 19.8 and 13.7 events per 1000 person-years for pre- and post-policy eras, respectively. Post-policy era was associated with an unadjusted 35% reduction in the risk of HCC recurrence ( P  < 0.001). After adjusting for recipient, donor, and tumor characteristics at listing this association remained (subhazard ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.86; P  = 0.001); however, after additionally adjusting for LRT episodes and Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant score, there was no longer a statistically significant association (subhazard ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.00; P  = 0.054).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a significant reduction in post-LT HCC recurrence after policy implementation. This may be due to waitlist selection of healthier patients, increased LRT utilization, and potential selection of favorable tumor biology.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Narrative Review and A Glimpse into The Future

Liver transplantation (LT) is a highly effective treatment for carefully selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this review, we explored the development of LT selection criteria and organ allocation policies, comparing original data to underscore their historical progression into the intricate task of quantitatively estimating pre- and post-LT survivals. We emphasized the role of biomarkers such as serum alpha-fetoprotein, Des-gamma-carboxy-prothrombin, circulating tumor cells, and circulating tumor DNA in predicting patient outcomes. Additionally, we examined the transplant-associated survival benefits and the difficulties in accurately calculating these benefits. We also reviewed recent advancements in targeted therapy and checkpoint inhibitors for advanced, inoperable HCC and projected their integration into LT for HCC. We further discussed the growing use of living donor liver transplants in the United States and compared its outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplants. Furthermore, we examined the progress in machine perfusion techniques, which have shown potential in improving patient outcomes and enlarging the donor pool. These advancements present opportunities to enhance LT patient survivals, refine selection criteria, establish new priority metrics, develop innovative bridging and downstaging strategies, and formulate redesigned LT strategies for HCC treatments.

Impact of Median MELD at Transplant Minus 3 National Policy on Quality of Transplanted Livers for Patients With and Without Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been overprioritized in the deceased donor liver allocation system. The United Network for Organ Sharing adopted a policy in May 2019 that limited HCC exception points to the median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at transplant in the listing region minus 3. We hypothesized this policy change would increase the likelihood to transplant marginal quality livers into HCC patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of a national transplant registry, including adult deceased donor liver transplant recipients with and without HCC from May 18, 2017, to May 18, 2019 (prepolicy) to May 19, 2019, to March 1, 2021 (postpolicy). Transplanted livers were considered of marginal quality if they met ≥1 of the following: (1) donation after circulatory death, (2) donor age ≥70, (3) macrosteatosis ≥30% and (4) donor risk index ≥95th percentile. We compared characteristics across policy periods and by HCC status.

RESULTS

A total of 23 164 patients were included (11 339 prepolicy and 11 825 postpolicy), 22.7% of whom received HCC exception points (prepolicy versus postpolicy: 26.1% versus 19.4%; P = 0.03). The percentage of transplanted donor livers meeting marginal quality criteria decreased for non-HCC (17.3% versus 16.0%; P < 0.001) but increased for HCC (17.7% versus 19.4%; P < 0.001) prepolicy versus postpolicy. After adjusting for recipient characteristics, HCC recipients had 28% higher odds of being transplanted with marginal quality liver independent of policy period (odds ratio: 1.28; confidence interval, 1.09-1.50; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at transplant in the listing region minus 3 policy limited exception points and decreased the quality of livers received by HCC patients.

Survival benefit from liver transplantation for patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma

Background & Aims

In the USA, inequal liver transplantation (LT) access exists between patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Survival benefit considers survival without and with LT and could equalise LT access. We calculated bias-corrected LT survival benefit for patients with(out) HCC who underwent a transplant, based on longitudinal data in a recent United States cohort.

Methods

Adult LT candidates with(out) HCC between 2010 and 2019 were included. Waitlist survival over time was contrasted to post-transplant survival, to estimate 5-year survival benefit from the moment of LT. Waitlist survival was modelled with a bias-corrected Cox regression, and post-transplant survival was estimated through Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

Mean HCC survival without LT was always lower than non-HCC waitlist survival. Below model for end-stage liver disease (sodium) (MELD(-Na)) 30, patients with HCC gained more life-years from LT than patients without HCC at the same MELD(-Na) score. Only patients without HCC below MELD(-Na) 9 had negative benefit. Most patients with HCC underwent a transplant below MELD(-Na) 14, and most patients without HCC underwent a transplant above MELD(-Na) 26. Liver function [MELD(-Na), albumin] was the main predictor of 5-year benefit. Therefore, during 5 years, most patients with HCC gained 0.12 to 1.96 years from LT, whereas most patients without HCC gained 2.48 to 3.45 years.

Conclusions

On an individual level, performing a transplant in patients with HCC resulted in survival benefit. However, on a population level, benefit was indirectly decreased, as patients without HCC were likely to gain more survival owing to decreased liver function. For patients who underwent a transplant, a constructed online calculator estimates 5-year survival benefit given specific patient characteristics. Survival benefit scores could serve to equalise LT access.

Impact and implications

Benefit is a comparison of the survival with and without liver transplantation, and it is important when deciding who should undergo a transplant. Liver function is most important when predicting possible benefit from transplantation. Patients with liver cancer die sooner on the waiting list than similar patients without liver cancer. However, patients with liver cancer more often have better liver function. Most patients without liver cancer derive more benefit from transplantation than patients with liver cancer.

The number of hepatocellular carcinoma foci as predictor of poor response to tumor-directed therapies in patients awaiting liver transplantation: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tumor-directed therapies (TDTs) are a constitutive part of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment in patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). While most patients benefit from TDTs as a bridge to LT, some patients drop out from the waiting list due to tumor progression. The study aimed to determine the risk factors for poor treatment outcome following TDTs among patients with HCC awaiting LT.

METHODS

A total of 123 patients with HCC were evaluated with 92 patients meeting Milan Criteria enrolled in the prospective cohort study. Tumor response was evaluated using the modified Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors for HCC 1 month after the procedure. The risk factors for progressive disease (PD) and dropout were evaluated.

RESULTS

After TDT, 55 patients (59.8%) achieved complete or partial response (44.6% and 15.2% respectively), 17 patients (18.5%) had stable disease, and 20 patients (21.7%) were assessed as PD. Multivariate analysis revealed a significant and independent association between the number of HCC foci and PD ( P  = 0.03, OR = 2.68). There was no statistically significant association between treatment response and demographics, MELDNa score, pre-and post-treatment alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), cumulative tumor burden the largest tumor size, or TDT modality. PD was the major cause of dropout in our cohort. Pre-treatment AFP levels ≥200 ng/ml had a strong association with dropout after TDTs ( P  = 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the presence of multifocal HCC is the sole prognostic factor for PD following TDTs in HCC patients awaiting LT. We recommend prioritizing patients with multifocal HCC within Milan criteria by exception points for LT to improve the dropout rate.

Bridging therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma awaiting liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis on intention-to-treat outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Locoregional therapies are commonly used as bridging strategies to decrease the drop-out of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting liver transplantation (LT). The present paper aims to assess the outcomes of bridging therapies in patients with HCC considered for LT according to an intention-to-treat (ITT) survival analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medline and Web of Science databases were searched for reports published before May 2021. Papers assessing adult patients with HCC considered for LT and reporting ITT survival outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently identified, extracted the data, and evaluated the papers according to Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Outcomes analyzed were: drop-out rate; time on the waiting list; 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival after LT and based on an ITT analysis.

RESULTS

The search identified 3106 records; six papers (1043 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Patients with HCC, listed for LT and submitted to bridging therapies presented a longer waiting time before LT (MD 3.77, 95% CI 2.07-5.48) in comparison with the non-interventional group. However, they presented a raised post LT after 1-year (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.18-3.41), 3-years (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.01-2.15), and 5-years (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.06-2.13) survival.

CONCLUSION

Patients submitted to bridging procedures, despite having a longer interval on the waiting list, presented better post-LT survival outcomes. Bridging therapies for selected patients at low risk of post-procedural complications and long expected intervals on the waiting list should be encouraged. However, further clinical trials should confirm the survival benefit of bridging therapies in patients with HCC listed for LT.

Is Liver Transplant Justified at Any MELD Score?

BACKGROUND

Assessing the survival benefit of transplantation in patients with end-stage liver disease is critical in guiding the decision-making process for liver allocation. Previous studies established increased mortality risk for those transplanted below Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) 18 compared with candidates who remained on the waitlist; however, improved outcomes of liver transplantation and a changing landscape in the donor supply warrant re-evaluation of this idea.

METHODS

Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we analyzed 160 290 candidates who were waitlisted for liver transplantation within MELD cohorts. We compared patients who were transplanted in a MELD cohort with those listed but not transplanted in that listed MELD cohort with an intent-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Those transplanted at a MELD between 6 and 11 showed a 31% reduction in adjusted mortality (HR = 0.69 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.75]; P < 0.001) compared with the intent-to-treat cohort in a Cox multivariate regression. This mortality benefit increased to a 37% adjusted reduction for those transplanted at MELD between 12 and 14 (HR = 0.63 [95% CI, 0.60-0.66]; P < 0.001) and a 46% adjusted reduction for those transplanted at a MELD between 15 and 17 (HR = 0.54 [95% CI, 0.52-0.57]; P < 0.001), effects that remained in sensitivity analyses excluding patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, encephalopathy, ascites, and variceal bleeds. A multivariate analysis of patients transplanted at MELD < 18 found younger age and cold ischemia time were protective, whereas older age, lower functional status, and socioeconomic factors increased mortality risk.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings challenge the current practice of deferring liver transplants below a particular MELD score by demonstrating survival benefits for most transplant patients at the lowest MELD scores and providing insight into who benefits within these subgroups.

Status 1B designation does not adequately prioritize children with acute-on-chronic liver failure for liver transplantation

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is an acute decompensation of chronic liver disease leading to multiorgan failure and mortality. The objective of this study was to evaluate characteristics and outcomes of children with ACLF who are at the highest priority for liver transplantation (LT) on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database-listed as status 1B. The characteristics and outcomes of 478 children with ACLF listed as status 1B on the UNOS LT waiting list from 2007-2019 were compared with children with similar or higher priority listing for transplant: 929 with acute liver failure (ALF) listed as status 1A and 808 with metabolic diseases and malignancies listed as status 1B (termed "non-ACLF"). Children with ACLF had comparable rates of cumulative organ failures compared with ALF (45% vs. 44%; p > 0.99) listings, but higher than non-ACLF (45% vs. 1%; p < 0.001). ACLF had the lowest LT rate (79%, 84%, 95%; p < 0.001), highest pre-LT mortality (20%, 11%, 1%; p < 0.001), and longest waitlist time (57, 3, 56 days; p < 0.001), and none recovered without LT (0%, 4%, 1%; p < 0.001). In survival analyses, ACLF was associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for post-LT mortality (HR, 1.50 vs. ALF [95% confidence interval, CI, 1.02-2.19; p = 0.04] and HR, 1.64 vs. non-ACLF [95% CI, 1.15-2.34; p = 0.01]). ACLF has the least favorable waitlist and post-LT outcomes of all patients who are status 1A/1B. Increased prioritization on the LT waiting list may offer children with ACLF an opportunity for enhanced outcomes.

Microwave ablation as bridging to liver transplant for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of microwave (MW) ablation as first-line locoregional therapy (LRT) for bridging patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to liver transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 88 patients who received percutaneous MW ablation for 141 tumors as first-line LRT for HCC and listed for liver transplantation at a single medical center between 2011 and 2019. Overall survival rate status-post liver transplant, waitlist retention and disease progression were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier techniques.

RESULTS

Of 88 patients (72M, 16F, mean age 60 years, MELD=11.2) listed for transplant, median waitlist time was 9.4 months (IQR: 5.5 - 18.9). Seventy-one patients (80.7%) received transplant after median wait time of 8.5 months. Seventeen patients (19.3%) were removed from the waitlist, four (4.5%) due to tumors outside of the Milan criteria (HCC-specific dropout). No difference in tumor size or AFP was seen in transplanted vs. non-transplanted patients at time of ablation (2.1 vs. 2.1 cm and 34.4 vs. 34.7 ng/mL for transplanted vs. non-transplanted, respectively, p>0.05). Five of 88 patients (5.1%) experienced adverse events after ablation; however, all recovered. There were no cases of tract seeding. The local tumor progression (LTP) rate was 7.2%. The overall survival status-post liver transplant at 5-years was 76.7% and the disease-specific survival after LT was 89.6% with a median follow-up of 61 months for all patients.

CONCLUSION

MW ablation appears to be safe and effective for bridging patients with HCC to liver transplant without waitlist removal from seeding, adverse events, or local tumor progression.

Are Current National Review Board Downstaging Protocols for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Too Restrictive?

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is an effective strategy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). To qualify for standardized LT model for end-stage liver disease exception points, the United Network for Organ Sharing National Liver Review Board (NLRB) requires that the presenting and final HCC tumor burden be within the University of California San Francisco criteria, which were recently expanded (within expanded UCSF [W-eUCSF]). Current NLRB criteria may be too restrictive because it has been shown previously that the initial burden does not predict LT failure when tumors downstage to UCSF. This study aims to assess LT outcomes for HCC initially presenting beyond expanded UCSF (B-eUCSF) criteria in a large multicenter collaboration.

STUDY DESIGN

Comparisons of B-eUCSF and W-eUCSF candidates undergoing LT at seven academic institutions between 2001 and 2017 were made from a multi-institutional database. Survival outcomes were compared by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of 1,846 LT recipients with HCC, 86 (5%) met B-eUCSF criteria at initial presentation, with the remainder meeting W-eUCSF criteria. Despite differences in tumor burden, B-eUCSF candidates achieved comparable 1-, 5- and 10-year overall (89%, 70%, and 55% vs 91%, 74%, and 60%, respectively; p = 0.2) and disease-free (82%, 60%, and 53% vs 89%, 71%, and 59%, respectively; p = 0.07) survival to patients meeting W-eUCSF criteria after LT. Despite increased tumor recurrence in B-eUCSF vs W-eUCSF patients (24% vs 10%, p = 0.0002), post-recurrence survival was similar in both groups (p = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Transplantation for patients initially presenting with HCC B-eUSCF criteria offers a survival advantage similar to those with tumors meeting W-eUCSF criteria at presentation. The current NLRB policy is too stringent, and considerations to expand criteria should be discussed.

The Effect of Acuity Circles on Deceased Donor Transplant and Offer Rates Across Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores and Exception Statuses

Acuity circles (AC), the new liver allocation system, was implemented on February 4, 2020. Difference-in-differences analyses estimated the effect of AC on adjusted deceased donor transplant and offer rates across Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) categories and types of exception statuses. The offer rates were the number of first offers, top 5 offers, and top 10 offers on the match run per person-year. Each analysis adjusted for candidate characteristics and only used active candidate time on the waiting list. The before-AC period was February 4, 2019, to February 3, 2020, and the after-AC period was February 4, 2020, to February 3, 2021. Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 and PELD/MELD scores 33 to 36 had higher transplant rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 after AC compared with before AC (transplant rate ratios: PELD/MELD scores 29-32, _2.34 3.32_4.71 ; PELD/MELD scores 33-36, _1.70 2.51_3.71 ). Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 or higher had higher offer rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28, and candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 had the largest difference (offer rate ratios [ORR]: first offers, _2.77 3.95_5.63 ; top 5 offers, _3.90 4.39_4.95 ; top 10 offers, _4.85 5.30_5.80 ). Candidates with exceptions had lower offer rates than candidates without exceptions for offers in the top 5 (ORR: hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], _0.68 0.77_0.88 ; non-HCC, _0.73 0.81_0.89 ) and top 10 (ORR: HCC, _0.59 0.65_0.71 ; non-HCC, _0.69 0.75_0.81 ). Recipients with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 and an HCC exception received a larger proportion of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors after AC than before AC, although the differences in the liver donor risk index were comparatively small. Thus, candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 34 and no exceptions had better access to transplant after AC, and donor quality did not notably change beyond the proportion of DCD donors.

Changing opportunities for liver transplant for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Aim was to study the early impact of acuity circle-based allocation implementation system, on liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

METHODS

We assessed characteristics of HCC and non-HCC deceased donor orthotopic liver transplants (OLT) in the year before (2/2019-2/2020) and after (3/2020-2/2021) introduction of the acuity circle policy using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database.

RESULTS

Total OLTs reduced from 6699 in the pre-acuity circle era to 6660 in the post-acuity circle era (-0.6%); this decrease is mostly driven by a decrease in HCC transplants (1529 to 1351; -11.6%). Six out of 11 regions had a reduction in the absolute number and percentage of HCC transplants with significant reductions in regions 2 (-37.8%, p<0.001) and 4 (-28.3%, p = 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The introduction of median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) at transplant minus 3 (MMaT-3) exception points, has created differential opportunities for HCC patients, in low-MELD as opposed to high-MELD areas, despite having the same disease. This effect has become more prominent following the implementation of acuity circle-based allocation system. Ongoing investigation of these trends is needed to ensure that HCC patients are not disparately disadvantaged due to their location. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A novel waitlist dropout score for hepatocellular carcinoma - identifying a threshold that predicts worse post-transplant survival

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It has been suggested that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at high risk of wait-list dropout would have done poorly after liver transplantation (LT) because of tumour aggressiveness. To test this hypothesis, we analysed risk of wait-list dropout among patients with HCC in long-wait regions (LWRs) to create a dropout risk score, and applied this score in short (SWRs) and mid-wait regions (MWRs) to evaluate post-LT outcomes. We sought to identify a threshold in dropout risk that predicts worse post-LT outcome.

METHODS

Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, including all patients with T2 HCC receiving priority listing from 2010 to 2014, a dropout risk score was created from a developmental cohort of 2,092 patients in LWRs, and tested in a validation cohort of 1,735 patients in SWRs and 2,894 patients in MWRs.

RESULTS

On multivariable analysis, 1 tumour (3.1-5 cm) or 2-3 tumours, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) >20 ng/ml, and increasing Child-Pugh and model for end-stage liver disease-sodium scores significantly predicted wait-list dropout. A dropout risk score using these 4 variables (C-statistic 0.74) was able to stratify 1-year cumulative incidence of dropout from 7.1% with a score ≤7 to 39.5% with a score >23. Patients with a dropout risk score >30 had 5-year post-LT survival of 60.1% vs. 71.8% for those with a score ≤30 (p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in post-LT survival below this threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided evidence that patients with HCC with the highest dropout risk have aggressive tumour biology that would also result in poor post-LT outcomes when transplanted quickly. Below this threshold risk score of ≤30, priority status for organ allocation could be stratified based on the predicted risks of wait-list dropout without significant differences in post-LT survival.

LAY SUMMARY

Prioritising patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplant based on risk of wait-list dropout has been considered but may lead to inferior post-transplant survival. In this study of nearly 7,000 patients, we created a threshold dropout risk score based on tumour and liver-related factors beyond which patients with hepatocellular carcinoma will likely have poor post-liver transplant outcomes (60% at 5 years). For patients below this risk score threshold, priority status could be stratified based on the predicted risk of wait-list dropout without compromising post-transplant survival.

Artificial intelligence in transplantation (machine-learning classifiers and transplant oncology)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To highlight recent efforts in the development and implementation of machine learning in transplant oncology - a field that uses liver transplantation for the treatment of hepatobiliary malignancies - and particularly in hepatocellular carcinoma, the most commonly treated diagnosis in transplant oncology.

RECENT FINDINGS

The development of machine learning has occurred within three domains related to hepatocellular carcinoma: identification of key clinicopathological variables, genomics, and image processing.

SUMMARY

Machine-learning classifiers can be effectively applied for more accurate clinical prediction and handling of data, such as genetics and imaging in transplant oncology. This has allowed for the identification of factors that most significantly influence recurrence and survival in disease, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, and thus help in prognosticating patients who may benefit from a liver transplant. Although progress has been made in using these methods to analyse clinicopathological information, genomic profiles, and image processed data (both histopathological and radiomic), future progress relies on integrating data across these domains.

A Pre-TACE Radiomics Model to Predict HCC Progression and Recurrence in Liver Transplantation. A Pilot Study on a Novel Biomarker

BACKGROUND

Despite Trans-Arterial Chemo Embolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a significant number of patients will develop progression on the liver transplant (LT) waiting list or disease recurrence post-LT. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of a pre-TACE radiomic model, an imaging-based tool to predict these adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed the pre-TACE computed tomography images of patients waiting for a LT. The primary endpoint was a combined event that included waitlist dropout for tumor progression or tumor recurrence post-LT. The radiomic features were extracted from the largest HCC volume from the arterial and portal venous phase. A third set of features was created, combining the features from these 2 contrast phases. We applied a LASSO feature selection method and a support vector machine classifier. Three prognostic models were built using each feature set. The models' performance was compared using 5-fold cross-validated Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (AUC).

RESULTS

88 patients were included, of whom 33 experienced the combined event (37.5%). The median time to dropout was 5.6 months (IQR:3.6-9.3), and the median time for post-LT recurrence was 19.2 months (IQR:6.1-34.0). Twenty-four patients (27.3%) dropped out, and 64 (72.7%) patients were transplanted. Of these, 14 (21.9%) had recurrence post-LT. Model performance yielded a mean AUC of 0.70(±0.07), 0.87(±0.06) and 0.81(±0.06) for the arterial, venous and the combined models, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A pre-TACE radiomics model for HCC patients undergoing LT may be a useful tool for outcome prediction. Further external model validation with a larger sample size is required.

The role of interventional radiology in the pre-liver transplant patient

Each year approximately 8500 patients undergo liver transplantation in the USA for acute and chronic liver failure. Over the years, the success of liver transplantation has led to more clinical indications for liver transplantation. These expanded indications, without a proportionate increase in donors, result in increased competition for the limited pool of transplantable whole or partial grafts. The likelihood of receiving a deceased donor graft depends on many clinical variables, including the acute and chronic fitness of the candidate aligning with the timing of donor organ availability. Several types of patients are candidates for transplant: patients with acute fulminant hepatic failure who will die without a transplant, patients with decompensated cirrhosis, and patients with HCC and compensated cirrhosis. Interventional radiology can preserve equity between these subgroups and reduce patient dropout by increasing the physiologic and anatomic fitness of the candidate before and after formal listing. The primary determinants of candidacy fitness and dropout are the severity of clinical symptoms related to portal hypertension and the presence of hepatocellular cancer. There is a subgroup of patients whose disease severity is not accurately reflected by the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), such as patients with chronic cholestasis that also may benefit from IR management.

Evolution of Liver Transplant Selection Criteria and U.S. Allocation Policy for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) is an optimal treatment option for early-stage unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis as it provides a treatment for underlying liver disease as well as a decreased incidence of recurrent cancer compared with alternative treatment strategies. A primary barrier to LT for HCC is the critical shortage of available liver allografts. The system of prioritization and access to deceased donor transplantation for patient with HCC in the United States has continued to evolve, while variable approaches including no additional priority, are in use around the world. While the Milan criteria remain the most well-established pretransplantation selection criteria, multiple other algorithms which expand beyond Milan have been proposed. The current review focuses on liver allocation for HCC as well as the principles and varied models available for pretransplant patient selection.

The Impact of Allocation Changes on Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Since the establishment of the Milan criteria, liver transplantation (LT) has been identified as an optimal therapy for selected patients with early stage, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) complicating cirrhosis, although a major limitation is the critical shortage of available deceased donor liver allografts. This review focuses on the evolution of liver allocation for HCC in the United States and what the most recent revisions to the allocation system mean for patients with HCC.

A 2020 update on liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most frequent liver tumor and is associated with chronic liver disease in 90% of cases. In selected cases, liver transplantation represents an effective therapy with excellent overall survival.

AREA COVERED

Since the introduction of Milan criteria in 1996, numerous alternative selection systems to LT for HCC patients have been proposed. Debate remains about how best to select HCC patients for transplant and how to prioritize them on the waiting list.

EXPERT OPINION

The selection of the best scoring system to propose in the context of LT for HCC is far to be identified. In this review, we analyze and categorize the various selection systems, assessing their roles in the different decisional phases.

T2 Hepatocellular Carcinoma Exception Policies That Prolong Waiting Time Improve the Use of Evidence-based Treatment Practices

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background.

A United Network for Organ Sharing policy change in 2015 created a 6-mo delay in the receipt of T2 hepatocellular carcinoma exception points. It was hypothesized that the policy changed locoregional therapy (LRT) practices and explant findings because of longer expected waiting time.

Methods.

Patients transplanted with a first T2 hepatocellular carcinoma exception application between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014 (prepolicy; N = 6562), and those between August 10, 2015 and December 2, 2019 (postpolicy; N = 2345), were descriptively compared using data from United Network for Organ Sharing.

Results.

Median time from first application to transplantation was more homogenous across the US postpolicy, due to greater absolute increases in Regions 3, 6, 10, and 11 (>120 d). During waitlisting, postpolicy candidates received more LRT overall (P < 0.001), with more notable increases in previously short-wait regions. Postpolicy explants were overall more likely to have ≥1 tumor with complete necrosis (23.9 versus 18.4%; P < 0.001) and less likely have ≥1 tumor with no necrosis (32.6% versus 38.5%; P < 0.001). Significant geographic variability in explant treatment response was observed prepolicy with recipients in previously short-wait regions having more frequent tumor viability at transplant. Postpolicy, there were no differences in the prevalence of recipients with ≥1 tumor with 100% or 0% necrosis across regions (P = 0.9 and 0.2, respectively).

Conclusions.

The 2015 T2 exception policy has led to reduced geographic variability in the use of pretransplant LRT and in less frequent tumor viability on explant for recipients in previously short-waiting times.

Donation After Circulatory Death Is Associated With Similar Posttransplant Survival in All but the Highest-Risk Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

Liver transplantation (LT) recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receive a higher proportion of livers from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors compared with non-HCC etiologies. Nevertheless, data on outcomes in patients with HCC receiving DCD grafts are limited. We evaluated the influence of DCD livers on post-LT outcome among HCC patients. We identified 7563 patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database who underwent LT with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score exceptions from 2012 to 2016, including 567 (7.5%) who received a DCD donor organ and 6996 (92.5%) who received a donation after brain death (DBD) donor organ. Kaplan-Meier probabilities of post-LT HCC recurrence at 3 years were 7.6% for DCD and 6.4% for DBD recipients (P = 0.67) and post-LT survival at 3 years was 81.1% versus 85.5%, respectively (P = 0.008). On multivariate analysis, DCD donor (hazard ratio, 1.38; P = 0.005) was an independent predictor of post-LT mortality. However, a survival difference after LT was only observed in subgroups at higher risk for HCC recurrence including Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant (RETREAT) score ≥4 (DCD 57.0% versus DBD 72.6%; P = 0.02), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥100 (60.1% versus 76.9%; P = 0.049), and multiple viable tumors on last imaging before LT (69.9% versus 83.1%; P = 0.002). In this analysis of HCC patients receiving DCD versus DBD livers in the UNOS database, we found that patients with a low-to-moderate risk of HCC recurrence (80%-90% of the DCD cohort) had equivalent survival regardless of donor type. It appears that DCD donation can best be used to increase the donor pool for HCC patients with decompensated cirrhosis or partial response/stable disease after locoregional therapy with AFP at LT <100 ng/mL.

Comparison of Wait-List Mortality Between Cholangiocarcinoma and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Liver Transplant Candidates

Despite the divergent disease biology of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), wait-list prioritization is identical for both diagnoses. We compared wait-list and posttransplant outcomes between CCA and HCC liver transplantation patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exceptions using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. The 408 CCA candidates listed between 2003 and mid-2017 were matched to 2 HCC cohorts by listing date (±2 months, n = 816) and by Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) region and date (±6 months, n = 408). Cumulative incidence competing risk regression examined the effects of diagnosis, OPTN region, and center-level CCA listing volume on wait-list removal due to death/being too ill (dropout). Cox models evaluated the effects of diagnosis, OPTN region, center-level CCA volume, and waiting time on graft failure among deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients. After adjusting for OPTN region and CCA listing volume (all P ≥ 0.07), both HCC cohorts had a reduced likelihood of wait-list dropout compared with CCA candidates (HCC with period matching only: subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.93; P = 0.02 and HCC with OPTN region and period matching: SHR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.87; P = 0.007). The cumulative incidence rates of wait-list dropout at 6 and 12 months were 13.2% (95% CI, 10.0%-17.0%) and 23.9% (95% CI, 20.0%-29.0%) for CCA candidates, 7.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-10.0%) and 12.7% (95% CI, 10.0%-17.0%) for HCC candidates with region and listing date matching, and 7.1% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.0%) and 12.6% (95% CI, 10.0%-15.0%) for HCC candidates with listing date matching only. Additionally, HCC DDLT recipients had a 57% reduced risk of graft failure compared with CCA recipients (P < 0.001). Waiting time was unrelated to graft failure (P = 0.57), and there was no waiting time by diagnosis cohort interaction effect (P = 0.47). When identically prioritized, LT candidates with CCA have increased wait-list dropout compared with those with HCC. More granular data are necessary to discern ways to mitigate this wait-list disadvantage and improve survival for patients with CCA.

Risk assessment criteria in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: proposal to improve transplant oncology

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma has proved to be a highly effective cure if the right patient can be selected. Milan criteria has traditionally guided physicians toward appropriate liver allocation but changes in clinical practice, patient populations and recent developments in biomarkers are decreasing Milan criteria’s utility. At the same time, the literature has flooded with a diversity of new criteria that demonstrate strong predictive power and are better suited for current clinical practice. In this article, the utility of newly proposed criteria will be reviewed and important issues to improve future criteria will be addressed in hopes of opening a discussion on how key questions surrounding criteria for liver transplantation of hepatocellular carcinoma can be answered.

MELD EXCEPTION POINTS PROVIDE AN ENOURMOUS ADVANTAGE FOR RECEIVING A LIVER TRANSPLANT IN BRAZIL

BACKGROUND

Current policy for listing to liver transplant (LT) may place cirrhotic patients without MELD exception points (CIR) in a disadvantageous position if compared to patients enlisted with appealed MELD scores - patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or special conditions other than hepatocellular carcinoma (SPE). Transplant rates, delisting, and waitlist mortality of CIR, HCC, and SPE candidates were compared.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to counterweight the listing rate and speed of listing of HCC, SPE, and CIR patients. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the outcomes of patients enlisted for SPE to those of HCC and CIR. In several countries worldwide, SPE patients also receive appealed MELD scores in a similar way of HCC patients.

METHODS

Two cohorts of patients listed for LT in a single institution were evaluated. The first cohort (C1, n=180) included all patients enlisted on August 1st, 2008, and all additional patients listed from this date until July 31st, 2009. The second cohort (C2, n=109) included all patients present on the LT list on October 1st, 2012, and all additional patients listed from this date until May 2014.

RESULTS

In both cohorts, HCC patients had a higher chance of receiving a LT than CIR patients (C1HR =2.05, 95%CI=1.54-2.72, P<0.0001; C2HR =3.17, 95%CI =1.83-5.52, P<0.0001). For C1, 1-year waiting list mortality was 21.6% (30.0% for CIR vs 9.5% for HCC vs 7.1% for SPE) (P<0.001). For C2, 1-year waiting list mortality was 13.3% (25.7% for CIR, 8.3% for HCC, and 4.0% for SPE) (P<0.001). Post-transplant survival was similar among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to CIR, SPE and HCC patients had lower wait list mortality. CIR patients had the highest waitlist mortality and the lowest odd of LT. Current LT allocation system does not allow equitable organ allocation.

Improved survival after treatments of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease associated hepatocellular carcinoma

Worldwide, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has reached epidemic proportions and in parallel, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become one of the fastest growing cancers. Despite the rise in these disease entities, detailed long-term outcomes of large NAFLD-associated HCC cohorts are lacking. In this report, we compared the overall and recurrence-free survival rates of NAFLD HCC cases to patients with HBV and HCV-associated HCC cases. Distinguishing features of NAFLD-associated HCC patients in the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis setting were also identified. We conducted a retrospective study of 125 NAFLD, 170 HBV and 159 HCV HCC patients, utilizing clinical, pathological and radiographic data. Multivariate regression models were used to study the overall and recurrence-free survival. The overall survival rates were significantly higher in the NAFLD-HCC cases compared to HBV-HCC (HR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.80) and HCV-HCC (HR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17-0.77) cases. The NAFLD-HCC patients had a trend for higher recurrence-free survival rates compared to HBV and HCV-HCC cases. Within the NAFLD group, 18% did not have cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis; Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 12.34, 95% CI 2.59-58.82) and high BMI (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.33) were significantly associated with having cirrhosis. NAFLD-HCC cases were less likely to exhibit elevated serum AFP (p < 0.0001). After treatments, NAFLD-related HCC patients had longer overall but not recurrence-free survival rates compared to patients with viral-associated HCC. Non-Hispanic ethnicity and normal BMI differentiated non-cirrhosis versus cirrhosis NAFLD HCC. Further studies are warranted to identify additional biomarkers to stratify NAFLD patients without cirrhosis who are at risk for HCC.

Unfair Advantages for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Listed for Liver Transplant in Short-Wait Regions Following 2015 Hepatocellular Carcinoma Policy Change

For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplantation (LT), United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) enacted policy changes in 2015 to improve equity between HCC and non-HCC patients. We evaluated the impact of these changes on regional disparities in wait-list dropout and LT. We included patients in the UNOS database listed with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease HCC exceptions in long-wait regions (LWRs), mid-wait regions (MWRs), and short-wait regions (SWRs) before these policy changes (era 1, January 1 to December 31, 2013) and after (era 2, October 7, 2015, to October 7, 2016). Cumulative incidence of wait-list dropout and LT were evaluated using competing risk regression. Median time to LT increased by 3.6 months (3.1 to 6.7 months) in SWRs and 1.3 months (6.9 to 8.2 months) in MWRs (P < 0.001), with a slight decrease in LWRs (13.4 to 12.9 months; P = 0.02). The 2-year cumulative incidence of dropout increased from 9.7% to 14.8% in SWRs (P = 0.03) and from 18.9% to 22.6% in MWRs (P = 0.18) but decreased in LWRs from 26.7% to 24.8% (P = 0.31). Factors predicting wait-list dropout included listing in era 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17), in LWRs (HR, 2.56), and in MWRs (HR, 1.91). Regional differences in wait-list outcomes decreased with policy changes, but HCC patients in SWRs remain advantaged. Recent policy change may narrow these disparities.

Primary Liver Cancers: Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma and Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The incidence of liver cancers has continued to increase over the past few decades and mortality related to liver cancer has increased by more than 2% annually since 2007. This article reviews the essential workup and treatment options necessary for general surgeons as they treat patients with primary liver cancers.

HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA PATIENTS ARE ADVANTAGED IN THE CURRENT BRAZILIAN LIVER TRANSPLANT ALLOCATION SYSTEM. A COMPETING RISK ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

In Brazil, the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is used to prioritize patients for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receive standardized MELD exception points to account for their cancer risk of mortality, which is not reflected by their MELD score.

OBJECTIVE

To compare DDLT rates between patients with and without HCC in Rio Grande do Sul, the Southernmost state of Brazil.

METHODS

- We retrospectively studied 825 patients on the liver-transplant waiting list from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016, in a transplant center located in Porto Alegre, the capital of Rio Grande do Sul, to compare DDLT rates between those with and without HCC. The time-varying hazard of waiting list/DDLT was estimated, reporting the subhazard ratio (SHR) of waiting list/DDLT/dropout with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The final competing risk model was adjusted for age, MELD score, exception points, and ABO group.

RESULTS

Patients with HCC underwent a transplant almost three times faster than patients with a calculated MELD score (SHR 2.64; 95% CI 2.10-3.31; P<0.001). The DDLT rate per 100 person-months was 11.86 for HCC patients vs 3.38 for non-HCC patients. The median time on the waiting list was 5.6 months for patients with HCC and 25 months for patients without HCC.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that, in our center, patients on the waiting list with HCC have a clear advantage over candidates listed with a calculated MELD score.

Modeling of implementation of the new Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing policy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Aim: To simulate effects of the new Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing policy on the patients' characteristics and post orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) outcome. Materials & methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who were listed for OLT 2002-2014. All patients (actual group) versus simulated group with new 6-month delay in assigning Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score exception and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exception cap of 34 were compared. Results & conclusion: With the new policy, 7,745 (30.4%) of the transplanted patients would have received a delayed transplantation or not be transplanted. The simulated group also showed significantly higher mean overall survival after OLT (p < 0.002) and received more locoreginal treatments (p < 0.001).

Comparison of Liver Transplant Wait-List Outcomes Among Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Public vs Private Medical Insurance

IMPORTANCE

There are well-documented racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in access to health care among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, there are little data on the association of insurance type with liver transplant (LT) wait-list outcomes for patients with HCC.

OBJECTIVE

To examine LT wait-list outcomes for patients with HCC and public insurance compared with patients with private insurance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This single-center cohort study included 705 adult patients with HCC who had Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exceptions and were included on a waiting list for LT from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016. Patients with Kaiser Permanente medical insurance, other private medical insurance, or public medical insurance were included. Data analysis was conducted from May 2018 to October 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was cumulative incidence of LT waiting list dropout within 2 years of waiting list enrollment (baseline). Secondary outcomes included competing-risks analysis to identify risk factors associated with wait-list outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 705 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 61 [57-65] years; 537 [76.2%] men) with HCC on an LT waiting list, 349 patients (49.5%) had Kaiser Permanente insurance, 157 patients (22.3%) had other private insurance, and 199 patients (28.2%) had public insurance. Median (interquartile range) follow-up was 13.2 (7.8-18.7) months. Tumor characteristics were similar among insurance types. The cumulative incidence of dropout owing to tumor progression or death within 2 years of baseline was 21.8% (95% CI, 17.2%-26.7%) among the Kaiser Permanente insurance group, 25.5% (95% CI, 18.6%-33.0%) among the other private insurance group, and 35.5% (95% CI, 28.3%-42.7%) among the public insurance group (P < .001). The cumulative incidence of LT within 2 years of baseline was 67.3% (95% CI, 61.2%-72.6%) among the Kaiser Permanente insurance group, 64.1% (95% CI, 55.2%-71.7%) among the other private insurance group, and 48.5% (95% CI, 40.4%-56.1%) among the public insurance group (P < .001). In competing-risks multivariable analysis compared with patients with Kaiser Permanente insurance, patients with public insurance were associated with increased risk of dropout (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69 [95% CI, 1.17-2.43]; P = .005), but patients with other private insurance were not (HR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.94-2.08]; P = .10). Waiting list dropout was also significantly associated with an α-fetoprotein level 100 ng/mL or higher (HR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.98-3.88]; P < .001), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score at baseline (HR per point, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.09]; P < .001), and 3 or more lesions at baseline (HR vs 1 lesion of 2- to 3-cm diameter, 2.07 [95% CI, 1.27-3.37]; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this large cohort of patients with HCC on an LT waiting list, patients with public insurance were associated with worse wait-list outcomes compared with patients with Kaiser Permanente insurance or other private insurance, despite similar tumor-related characteristics at baseline. Improved health care coordination and delivery may be options to reduce these disparities.

Predictors of low risk for dropout from the liver transplant waiting list for hepatocellular carcinoma in long wait time regions: Implications for organ allocation

All patients with hepatocellular carcinoma meeting United Network for Organ Sharing T2 criteria currently receive the same listing priority for liver transplant (LT). A previous study from our center identified a subgroup with a very low risk of waitlist dropout who may not derive immediate LT benefit. To evaluate this issue at a national level, we analyzed within the United Network for Organ Sharing database 2052 patients with T2 hepatocellular carcinoma receiving priority listing from 2011 to 2014 in long wait time regions 1, 5, and 9. Probabilities of waitlist dropout were 18.3% at 1 year and 27% at 2 years. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with a lower risk of waitlist dropout included Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Na < 15, Child's class A, single 2- to 3-cm lesion, and α-fetoprotein ≤20 ng/mL. The subgroup of 245 (11.9%) patients meeting these 4 criteria at LT listing had a 1-year probability of dropout of 5.5% vs 20% for all others (P < .001). On explant, the low dropout risk group was more likely to have complete tumor necrosis (35.5% vs 24.9%, P = .01) and less likely to exceed Milan criteria (9.9% vs 17.7%, P = .03). We identified a subgroup with a low risk of waitlist dropout who should not receive the same LT listing priority.

Development of a Korean Liver Allocation System using Model for End Stage Liver Disease Scores: A Nationwide, Multicenter study

The previous Korean liver allocation system was based on Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores, but increasing numbers of deceased donors created a pressing need to develop an equitable, objective allocation system based on model for end-stage liver disease scores (MELD scores). A nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of candidates registered for liver transplantation from January 2009 to December 2011 was conducted at 11 transplant centers. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to stratify MELD score ranges according to waitlist survival. Of the 2702 patients that registered for liver transplantation, 2248 chronic liver disease patients were eligible. CART analysis indicated several MELD scores significantly predicted waitlist survival. The 90-day waitlist survival rates of patients with MELD scores of 31-40, 21-30, and ≤20 were 16.2%, 64.1%, and 95.9%, respectively (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the 14-day waitlist survival rates of severely ill patients (MELD 31-40, n = 240) with MELD scores of 31-37 (n = 140) and 38-40 (n = 100) were 64% and 43.4%, respectively (P = 0.001). Among patients with MELD > 20, presence of HCC did not affect waitlist survival (P = 0.405). Considering the lack of donor organs and geographic disparities in Korea, we proposed the use of a national broader sharing of liver for the sickest patients (MELD ≥ 38) to reduce waitlist mortality. HCC patients with MELD ≤ 20 need additional MELD points to allow them equitable access to transplantation. Based on these results, the Korean Network for Organ Sharing implemented the MELD allocation system in 2016.

Reduced Access to Liver Transplantation in Women: Role of Height, MELD Exception Scores, and Renal Function Underestimation

BACKGROUND

Sex-based disparities in liver transplantation (LT) are incompletely understood. We assessed the role of height, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD-Na, and exception points in the disparate access to LT.

METHODS

Adults waitlisted for LT at Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network between 2002 and 2013 were included. Covariates associated with likelihood of LT were analyzed by Cox proportional model. In a separate cohort of waitlisted adults with glomerular filtration rate measurement by iothalamate clearance (n = 611), we determined the number of creatinine-derived MELD points in men versus women, across all ranges of glomerular filtration rate. The impact of correcting the MELD score deficit in women on LT was modeled.

RESULTS

Among 90 720 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network registrants, women had higher mortality than men (4 years after listing: 22% vs 18%, P < 0.0001), and lower likelihood of LT (49% vs 58%, P < 0.0001); women were 20% less likely to be transplanted (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.81). Differences in height and MELD exception scores accounted for most of the LT deficit in women (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.94). Women received between 1 and 2.4 fewer creatinine-derived MELD points than men with similar renal dysfunction. MELD-Na worsened the gender disparity. Addition of 1 or 2 MELD points to women significantly impacted LT access.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in height and MELD exception points explained most of the sex-based disparity in LT. Additionally, MELD score underestimated disease severity in women by up to 2.4 points and MELD Na exacerbated this disparity. The degree of underestimation based on MELD had significant impact on allocation.

Improved liver transplant waitlist mortality and lower risk of disease progression among chronic hepatitis C patients awaiting liver transplantation after the introduction of direct-acting antiviral therapies in the United States

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection achieve high cure rates, reducing HCV-related disease progression to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. We aim to evaluate the impact of DAAs on US liver transplant (LT) waitlist outcomes. We retrospectively evaluated US adults (age ≥18) with and without chronic HCV listed for LT before and after the widespread use of sofosbuvir, allowing a 6-month period after approval (Era 1: 1/1/2002-5/31/2014 vs Era 2: 6/1/2014-12/31/2016) using the United Network for Organ Sharing registry. Overall, LT waitlist survival and likelihood of receiving LT were evaluated with multivariate Cox regression models. From 2002 to 2016, 158 045 patients were listed for LT. While the number of patients listed for HCV has been decreasing since 2012, the proportion of HCV patients with concurrent HCC is increasing by 3.33% per year (R² : 0.99, P < 0.001 by simple linear regression). While there was no difference in likelihood of LT between HCV and non-HCV patients, those listed in Era 2 had lower likelihood of LT (HR: 0.91, P < 0.001), more pronounced in the HCV cohort (HR: 0.83, P < 0.001) compared to the non-HCV cohort (HR: 0.93, P < 0.001). Compared to non-HCV patients, higher waitlist mortality was seen in HCV patients in Era 1 (HR: 1.08, P < 0.001) but not in Era 2 (HR: 1.02, P = 0.75). Since the introduction of DAAs for HCV treatment, number of patients with HCV listed for LT has declined. In the post-DAA era, HCV patients on the LT waitlist had improved waitlist mortality.

Liver transplantation and waitlist mortality for HCC and non-HCC candidates following the 2015 HCC exception policy change

Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non-HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6 months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013-2017 SRTR data, we identified 39  350 adult, first-time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non-HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013-October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015-October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6-fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHR = 3.49 3.69 3.89 ) and a 2.2-fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHR = 2.09 2.21 2.34 ). Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHR = 0.54 0.63 0.73 ) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHR = 0.81 0.95 1.11 ). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest-first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non-HCC candidates.

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Sodium Velocity Predicts Overall Survival in Nonmetastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The significance of short-term changes in model for end-stage liver disease and Sodium (MELD-Na) following hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis is unknown. In this report, we explore the value of the rate of short-term changes in MELD-Na as an independent predictor of mortality in patients with nonmetastatic HCC.

METHODS

We reviewed a cohort of patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic HCC at our institution between 2001 and 2011. We evaluated potential predictors of overall survival, including baseline MELD-Na and the change in MELD-Na over 90 days. We explored survival times of cohorts grouped by baseline MELD-Na and the change in MELD-Na.

RESULTS

182 patients met eligibility criteria. With a median follow-up of 21 months for surviving patients, 110 deaths were observed (60%). Median MELD-Na at the time of diagnosis was 9.7 (IQR 7.5 to 13.9). The median changes in percentage of MELD-Na over 90 days were an increase of 9% (IQR -4% to 55%). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated that both baseline MELD-Na (HR=1.07 per unit increase, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11, p<0.001) and changes in MELD-Na exceeding 40% (HR=3.69, 95% CI 2.39 to 5.69, p<0.001) were independently associated with increased mortality risk. Median survival among patients whose changes in MELD-Na were greater than 40% was 4.5 months, and median survival among the 131 other patients was 25.8 months (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a subset of HCC patients who have extremely poor prognosis by incorporating the rate of short-term change in MELD-Na to baseline MELD-Na score.