Evaluation of the Intention-to-Treat Benefit of Living Donation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Awaiting a Liver Transplant

Indications and results of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

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

Current role and perspectives of living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review of the past 20 years

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses a significant global health challenge, and liver transplantation (LT) remains the best curative option. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) emerged as a potential solution to organ scarcity, reducing waitlist times. This comprehensive review explores LDLT practices, focusing on patient selection criteria and oncologic outcomes. A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines included 50 studies (2004-2023) with 8062 patients. Data encompassed baseline characteristics, HCC features, and oncologic outcomes. Further analysis categorized results by geography and publication year. Heterogeneity in patient demographics, tumor burden, and transplant characteristics was observed. Recent LDLT series demonstrated a shift towards refined selection criteria, increased neoadjuvant treatment, and improved oncologic outcomes. Geographic disparities revealed unique challenges in Eastern and Western practices. LDLT proves effective for HCC, addressing donor shortages. Evolving practices highlight the importance of refining inclusion criteria and optimizing tumor management. While geographic differences exist, LDLT, when judiciously applied, offers promising outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adult living-donor liver transplantation in Japan

AIM

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a highly effective life-saving procedure; however, it requires substantial medical resources, and the cost-effectiveness of LDLT versus conservative management (CM) for adult patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) remains unclear in Japan.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using the Diagnostic Procedure Combination (DPC) data from the nationwide database of the DPC research group. We selected adult patients (18 years or older) who were admitted or discharged between 2010 and 2021 with a diagnosis of ESLD with Child-Pugh class C or B. A decision tree and Markov model were constructed, and all event probabilities were computed in 3-month cycles over a 10-year period. The willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was set at 5 million Japanese yen (JPY) (49,801 US dollars [USD]) from the perspective of the public health-care payer.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, we identified 1297 and 111,849 patients in the LDLT and CM groups, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LDLT versus CM for Child-Pugh classes C and B was 2.08 million JPY/QALY (20,708 USD/QALY) and 5.24 million JPY/QALY (52,153 USD/QALY), respectively. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probabilities of being below the willingness-to-pay of 49,801 USD/QALY as 95.4% in class C and 48.5% in class B. Tornado diagrams revealed all variables in class C were below 49,801 USD/QALY while their ranges included or exceeded 49,801 USD/QALY in class B.

CONCLUSIONS

Living-donor liver transplantation for adult patients with Child-Pugh class C was cost-effective compared with CM, whereas LDLT versus CM for class B patients was not cost-effective in Japan.

Pursuing living donor liver transplantation improves outcomes of patients with autoimmune liver diseases: An intention-to-treat analysis

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers the opportunity to decrease waitlist time and mortality for patients with autoimmune liver disease (AILD), autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis. We compared the survival of patients with a potential living donor (pLDLT) on the waitlist versus no potential living donor (pDDLT) on an intention-to-treat basis. Our retrospective cohort study investigated adults with AILD listed for a liver transplant in our program between 2000 and 2021. The pLDLT group comprised recipients with a potential living donor. Otherwise, they were included in the pDDLT group. Intention-to-treat survival was assessed from the time of listing. Of the 533 patients included, 244 (43.8%) had a potential living donor. Waitlist dropout was higher for the pDDLT groups among all AILDs (pDDLT 85 [29.4%] vs. pLDLT 9 [3.7%], p < 0.001). The 1-, 3, and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were higher for pLDLT versus pDDLT among all AILDs (95.7% vs. 78.1%, 89.0% vs. 70.1%, and 87.1% vs. 65.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, pLDLT was associated with a 38% reduction in the risk of death among the AILD cohort (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.93 [ p <0.05]), and 60% among the primary sclerosing cholangitis cohort (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74 [ p <0.05]). There were no differences in the 1-, 3, and 5-year post-transplant survival between LDLT and DDLT (AILD: 95.6% vs. 92.1%, 89.9% vs. 89.4%, and 89.1% vs. 87.1%, p =0.41). This was consistent after adjusting for covariates (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.56-1.68 [ p >0.9]). Our study suggests that having a potential living donor could decrease the risk of death in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis on the waitlist. Importantly, the post-transplant outcomes in this population are similar between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

Indications to LDLT: a changing pathway?

Liver transplantation (LT) revolutionized the outlook for cirrhotic patients, offering a potential cure with over 80% life expectancy after 5 years. Cirrhosis, with or without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is the primary LT indication. Living donor LT (LDLT) initially explored as an alternative, declined due to poorer outcomes. Studies on LDLT improved outcomes through precise recipient selection, emphasizing the importance of careful donor/recipient matching. Emerging concepts like left lobe preference and minimally invasive donor approaches enhance LDLT outcomes. The RAPID technique shows promise in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic livers. LDLT gains significance in transplant oncology, particularly for liver tumors like colorectal liver metastases (CLM), offering better survival than alternatives. Optimal timing integrates chemotherapy with the transplant. As LT indications evolve, LDLT finds a growing role in oncology, surpassing deceased donor transplants in certain scenarios. The decreasing prevalence of virus-related uncompensated cirrhosis highlights the expanding space for LDLT in liver transplantation.

Transplant oncology - Current indications and strategies to advance the field

Liver transplantation (LT) was originally described by Starzl as a promising strategy to treat primary malignancies of the liver. Confronted with high recurrence rates, indications drifted towards non-oncologic liver diseases with LT finally evolving from a high-risk surgery to an almost routine surgical procedure. Continuously improving outcomes following LT and evolving oncological treatment strategies have driven renewed interest in transplant oncology. This is not only reflected by constant refinements to the criteria for LT in patients with HCC, but especially by efforts to expand indications to other primary and secondary liver malignancies. With new patient-centred oncological treatments on the rise and new technologies to expand the donor pool, the field has the chance to come full circle. In this review, we focus on the concept of transplant oncology, current indications, as well as technical and ethical aspects in the context of donor organs as precious resources.

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.

Benefit and harm of waiting time in liver transplantation for HCC

Liver transplantation is the most successful treatment for limited-stage HCC. The waiting time for liver transplantation (LT) can be a critical factor affecting the oncological prognosis and outcome of patients with HCC. Efficient strategies to optimize waiting time are essential to maximize the benefits of LT and to reduce the harm of delay in transplantation. The ever-increasing demand for donor livers emphasizes the need to improve the organization of the waiting list for transplantation and to optimize organ availability for patients with and without HCC. Current progress in innovations to expand the donor pool includes the implementation of living donor LT and the use of grafts from extended donors. By expanding selection criteria, an increased number of patients are eligible for transplantation, which necessitates criteria to prevent futile transplantations. Thus, the selection criteria for LT have evolved to include not only tumor characteristics but biomarkers as well. Enhancing our understanding of HCC tumor biology through the analysis of subtypes and molecular genetics holds significant promise in advancing the personalized approach for patients. In this review, the effect of waiting time duration on outcome in patients with HCC enlisted for LT is discussed.

Prognostic related gene index for predicting survival and immunotherapeutic effect of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common malignant liver tumor. It is an aggressive disease with high mortality rate. In this study, we investigated a new prognosis-related gene index (PRGI) that can predict the survival and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with HCC. RNA-seq data and clinical data of HCC samples were obtained from the cancer genome atlas and ICGC databases. Prognosis-related genes were obtained using log-rank tests and univariate Cox proportional hazards regression. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on the overall survival rate of patients with prognosis-related genes and multiple clinicopathological factors, and a nomogram was constructed. A PRGI was then constructed based on least absolute shrinkage and selection operator or multivariate Cox Iterative Regression. The possible correlation between PRGI and immune cell infiltration or immunotherapy efficacy was discussed. Eight genes were identified to construct the PRGI. PRGI can predict the infiltration of immune cells into the tumor microenvironment of HCC and the response to immunotherapy. PRGI can accurately predict the survival rate of patients with HCC, reflect the immune microenvironment, and predict the efficacy of immunotherapy.

The role of ischaemia-reperfusion injury and liver regeneration in hepatic tumour recurrence

The risk of cancer recurrence after liver surgery mainly depends on tumour biology, but preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that the degree of perioperative liver injury plays a role in creating a favourable microenvironment for tumour cell engraftment or proliferation of dormant micro-metastases. Understanding the contribution of perioperative liver injury to tumour recurrence is imperative, as these pathways are potentially actionable. In this review, we examine the key mechanisms of perioperative liver injury, which comprise mechanical handling and surgical stress, ischaemia-reperfusion injury, and parenchymal loss leading to liver regeneration. We explore how these processes can trigger downstream cascades leading to the activation of the immune system and the pro-inflammatory response, cellular proliferation, angiogenesis, anti-apoptotic signals, and release of circulating tumour cells. Finally, we discuss the novel therapies under investigation to decrease ischaemia-reperfusion injury and increase regeneration after liver surgery, including pharmaceutical agents, inflow modulation, and machine perfusion.

Current Status of Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Impact, Advantages, and Challenges

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

This review provides an overview of the current status of Living Donor Liver Transplant (LDLT). It discusses the impact of LDLT on waitlist and post-transplantation outcomes, highlighting the technical challenges and unique advantages of LDLT.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent findings show that LDLT offers several theoretical advantages over deceased donor liver transplant, including shorter wait times, better graft quality, and improved post-transplant outcomes. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are emerging as the leading indications for adult LDLT in the US. LDLT demonstrates comparable or better overall survival rates and organ-specific outcomes compared to deceased donor transplants. However, challenges exist, including donor and recipient risks such as biliary complications and small-for-size syndrome. Ongoing research focuses on refining surgical techniques, exploring minimally invasive approaches, utilizing predetermined donors to modulate the recipient's immune system, and ensuring ethical practices. LDLT is a valuable solution for patients with end-stage liver failure or disorders requiring transplantation. It offers advantages such as shorter wait times as well as improved waitlist and post-transplant outcomes. Continued research and advancements in LDLT will benefit patients in need of liver transplantation.

Comparing High- and Low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Living-Donor Liver Transplantation to Determine Clinical Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (CHALICE Study)

INTRODUCTION

Various studies have demonstrated that low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients have better outcomes with improved patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients. LDLT recipients gain the most from being transplanted at MELD <25-30; however, some existing data have outlined that LDLT may provide equivalent outcomes in high-MELD and low-MELD patients, although the term "high" MELD is arbitrarily defined in the literature and various cut-off scores are outlined between 20 and 30, although most commonly, the dividing threshold is 25. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare LDLT in high-MELD with that in low-MELD recipients to determine patient survival and graft survival, as well as perioperative and postoperative complications.

METHODS

Following PROSPERO registration CRD-42021261501, a systematic database search was conducted for the published literature between 1990 and 2021 and yielded a total of 10 studies with 2183 LT recipients; 490 were HM-LDLT recipients and 1693 were LM-LDLT recipients.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable mortality at 1, 3 and 5 years post-transplant (5-year HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.79; p-value 0.40) and graft survival (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.72, 1.63; p-value 0.71). No differences were observed in the rates of major morbidity, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary complications, intra-abdominal bleeding, wound infection and rejection; however, the HM-LDLT group had higher risk for pulmonary infection, abdominal fluid collection and prolonged ICU stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The high-MELD LDLT group had similar patient and graft survival and morbidities to the low-MELD LDLT group, despite being at higher risk for pulmonary infection, abdominal fluid collection and prolonged ICU stay. The data, primarily sourced from high-volume Asian centers, underscore the feasibility of living donations for liver allografts in high-MELD patients. Given the rising demand for liver allografts, it is sensible to incorporate these insights into U.S. transplant practices.

The Role of Donor Gamma-Glutamyl Transferase as a Risk Factor for Early Graft Function after Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Growing interest has been recently reported in the potential detrimental role of donor gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) peak at the time of organ procurement regarding the risk of poor outcomes after liver transplantation (LT). However, the literature on this topic is scarce and controversial data exist on the mechanisms justifying such a correlation. This study aims to demonstrate the adverse effect of donor GGT in a large European LT cohort regarding 90-day post-transplant graft loss.

METHODS

This is a retrospective international study investigating 1335 adult patients receiving a first LT from January 2004 to September 2018 in four collaborative European centers.

RESULTS

Two different multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the risk factors for 90-day post-transplant graft loss, introducing donor GGT as a continuous or dichotomous variable. In both models, donor GGT showed an independent role as a predictor of graft loss. In detail, the log-transformed continuous donor GGT value showed an odds ratio of 1.46 (95% CI = 1.03-2.07; p = 0.03). When the donor GGT peak value was dichotomized using a cut-off of 160 IU/L, the odds ratio was 1.90 (95% CI = 1.20-3.02; p = 0.006). When the graft-loss rates were investigated, significantly higher rates were reported in LT cases with donor GGT ≥160 IU/L. In detail, 90-day graft-loss rates were 23.2% vs. 13.9% in patients with high vs. low donor GGT, respectively (log-rank p = 0.004). Donor GGT was also added to scores conventionally used to predict outcomes (i.e., MELD, D-MELD, DRI, and BAR scores). In all cases, when the score was combined with the donor GGT, an improvement in the model accuracy was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Donor GGT could represent a valuable marker for evaluating graft quality at transplantation. Donor GGT should be implemented in scores aimed at predicting post-transplant clinical outcomes. The exact mechanisms correlating GGT and poor LT outcomes should be better clarified and need prospective studies focused on this topic.

Successful living donor liver transplantation from an HIV and HCV positive donor: report from the first case in the world

HIV (human-immunodeficiency-virus) and HCV (hepatitis-C-virus) infections cause millions of deaths across the world every year. Since the introduction of effective therapies for HIV, in the middle of 1990s, and HCV, after 2013, those two untreatable infections became completely controlled. Donor safety is the main goal in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). An accurate predonation screening is mandatory for excluding risk factors related with any increase of donors' short-term and long-term morbidity. We present the first LDLT from a donor with both HIV and HCV previous infections. Donor and recipient did not experience any complication. Individuals with well controlled HIV/HCV infections and without any risk factors may be suitable for donation of a part of their healthy liver. Abstract video, http://links.lww.com/QAD/C833.

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

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

Clinical consensus statement: Establishing the roles of locoregional and systemic therapies for the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and approximately one-third of patients present with intermediate-stage disease. The treatment landscape of intermediate-stage HCC is rapidly evolving due to developments in local, locoregional and systemic therapies. Treatment recommendations focused on this heterogenous disease stage and that take into account the Canadian reality are lacking. To address this gap, a pan-Canadian group of experts in hepatology, transplant, surgery, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, and medical oncology came together to develop consensus recommendations on management of intermediate-stage HCC relevant to the Canadian context.

METHODS

A modified Delphi framework was used to develop consensus statements with strengths of recommendation and supporting levels of evidence graded using the AHA/ACC classification system. Tentative consensus statements were drafted based on a systematic search and expert input in a series of iterative feedback cycles and were then circulated via online survey to assess the level of agreement.

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

The pre-defined ratification threshold of 80 % agreement was reached for all statements in the areas of multidisciplinary treatment (n = 4), intra-arterial therapy (n = 14), biologics (n = 5), radiation therapy (n = 3), surgical resection and transplantation (n = 7), and percutaneous ablative therapy (n = 4). These generally reflected an expansion in treatment options due to developments in previously established or emergent techniques, introduction of new and more active therapies and increased therapeutic flexibility. These developments have allowed for greater treatment tailoring and personalization as well as a paradigm shift toward strategies with curative intent in a wider range of disease settings.

Interval dynamics of transplantability for hepatocellular carcinoma after primary curative resection: risk factors for nontransplantable recurrence

BACKGROUND

To investigate the changes in transplantability between primary and recurrent Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after hepatic resection (HR) and the risk factors for nontransplantable recurrence (NTR).

METHODS

Consecutive 3122 patients who received HR for primary HCC between 2001 and 2019 were analyzed for changes in transplantability. Predictors of survival and NTR were evaluated using a competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 78.3 months, the 5-year overall survival rate was 82.6%. Also, 58.2% of them developed recurrence after a median of 45.6 months. Recurrence occurred in 1205 and 611 patients with primary transplantable and nontransplantable HCC, respectively, of whom 26.1% and 63.2%, respectively, had NTR. Tumor diameter >3 cm [subdistribution hazard ratios (95% CI), 2.00 (1.62-2.48)], major resection [1.20 (1.00-1.43)], pathological grade >2 [1.28 (1.07-1.52)], microvascular invasion [1.74 (1.45-2.08)], and early recurrence (<1 year) [9.22 (7.83-10.87)] were associated with NTR. The overall transplantable pool increased from 72.3% to 77.5%.

CONCLUSION

Microvascular invasion and early recurrence were risk factors for NTR. Nonetheless, the transplantable pool increased after HR, 41.8% of the patients had no recurrence and may not require liver transplantation. If the patient's liver function is acceptable, HR should be considered the treatment of choice for HCC.

Surgical Strategies for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Resection: A Review of Current Evidence

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer, and both liver resection and liver transplantation are considered potentially curative options. However, high recurrence rates affect the prognosis depending both on the primary HCC pathology characteristics or on the type and time of the relapse. While great attention has been usually posted on treatment algorithms for the first HCC, treatment algorithms for recurrent HCC (rHCC) are lacking. In these cases, surgery still represents a curative option with both redo hepatectomy and/or salvage liver transplantation, which are considered valid treatments in selected patients. In the current era of personalised medicine with promises of new systemic-targeted immuno-chemotherapies, we wished to perform a narrative review of the literature on the role of surgical strategies for rHCC.

Hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the most common cancers worldwide and represents a major global health-care challenge. Although viral hepatitis and alcohol remain important risk factors, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is rapidly becoming a dominant cause of hepatocellular carcinoma. A broad range of treatment options are available for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, including liver transplantation, surgical resection, percutaneous ablation, and radiation, as well as transarterial and systemic therapies. As such, clinical decision making requires a multidisciplinary team that longitudinally adapts the individual treatment strategy according to the patient's tumour stage, liver function, and performance status. With the approval of new first-line agents and second-line agents, as well as the establishment of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies as standard of care, the treatment landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma is more diversified than ever. Consequently, the outlook for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma has improved. However, the optimal sequencing of drugs remains to be defined, and predictive biomarkers are urgently needed to inform treatment selection. In this Seminar, we present an update on the causes, diagnosis, molecular classification, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

The liver transplant surgeon Mondays blues: an Italian perspective

Poor data exist on the influence of holidays and weekdays on the number and the results of liver transplantation (LT) in Italy. The study's main objective is to investigate the impact of holidays and the different days of the week on the LT number and early graft survival rates in a multi-centric Italian series. We performed a retrospective analysis on 1,026 adult patients undergoing first deceased-donor transplantation between January 2004 and December 2018 in the three university centers in Rome. During the 4,504 workdays, 881 LTs were performed (85.9%; one every 5.1 days on average). On the opposite, 145 LTs were done during the 975 holidays (14.1%; one every 7.1 days on average). Fewer LTs were performed on holidays (P = 0.004). There were no substantial differences in donor-, recipient- and transplant-related characteristics in LTs performed on weekdays or holidays. On Monday, fewer transplants were performed (vs. other weekdays: P < 0.0001; vs. Sunday: P = 0.03). At multivariable Cox regression analysis, LTs performed during the holiday or during the different days of the week were not found to be independent risk factors for the risk of 3- and 12-month graft loss. At three-month survival curves, no differences were observed among the transplants performed during the holidays versus the workdays (86.2 vs. 85.0%; P-0.70). The range of graft survival rates based on the day of the week was 81.6-86.9%, without showing any significant differences (P = 0.57). Fewer transplants are performed on holidays and Mondays. Survivals are not affected by holidays or the day the transplant is performed.

The impact of biological features for a better prediction of posttransplant hepatocellular cancer recurrence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Morphological criteria (i.e., Milan Criteria) have been considered for a long time to be the best tool for selecting patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) waiting for liver transplantation (LT). In the last ten years, a refinement of the selection criteria has been observed, with the introduction of biological tumor characteristics enabling to enlarge the number of potential transplant candidates and to select LT candidates with a lower risk of posttransplant recurrence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several biological tumor aspects have been explored and validated in international cohorts to expand the ability to predict patients at high risk for recurrence. Alpha-fetoprotein, radiological response to locoregional treatments, and other more recently proposed markers have been principally explored. Moreover, more complex statistical approaches (i.e., deep learning) have been advocated to explore the nonlinear intercorrelations between the investigated features.

SUMMARY

The addition of biological aspects to morphology has improved the ability to discriminate among high- and low-risk patients for recurrence. New prognostic algorithms based on the more sophisticated artificial intelligence approach are further improving the capability to select LT candidates with HCC.

National experience with living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an attractive option to decrease waitlist dropout, particularly for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who face lengthening waiting times. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) national database, trends in LDLT utilization for patients with HCC were evaluated, and post-LT outcomes for LDLT versus deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) were compared. From 1998 to 2018, LT was performed in 20,161 patients with HCC including 726 (3.6%) who received LDLT. The highest LDLT utilization was prior to the 2002 HCC Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception policy (17.5%) and dropped thereafter (3.1%) with a slight increase following the 6-month wait policy in 2015 (3.8%). LDLT was more common in patients from long-wait UNOS regions with blood type O, in those with larger total tumor diameter (2.3 vs. 2.1 cm, p = 0.02), and higher alpha-fetoprotein at LT (11.5 vs. 9.0 ng/ml, p = 0.04). The 5-year post-LT survival (LDLT 77% vs. DDLT 75%), graft survival (72% vs. 72%), and HCC recurrence (11% vs. 13%) were similar between groups (all p > 0.20). In conclusion, LDLT utilization for HCC has remained low since 2002 with only a slight increase after the 6-month wait policy introduction in 2015. Given the excellent post-LT survival, LDLT appears to be an underutilized but valuable option for patients with HCC, especially those at high risk for waitlist dropout.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes after living donor right hepatectomy via the following techniques: conventional open (Open), mini-laparotomy (Minilap), hybrid (Hybrid), totally laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic living donor right hepatectomy (Robotic).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2021 for comparative studies of patients who underwent living donor right hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies comprising 2,261 patients were included. Operation time was longer in Lap versus Minilap and Open (mean difference 65.09 min, 95% confidence interval 3.40-126.78 and mean difference 34.81 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.84-67.78), and in Robotic versus Hybrid, Lap, Minilap, and Open (mean difference 144.72 minutes, 95% confidence interval 89.84-199.59, mean difference 113.24 minutes, 95% confidence interval 53.28-173.20, mean difference 178.33 minutes, 95% confidence interval 105.58-251.08 and mean difference 148.05 minutes, 95% confidence interval 97.35-198.74, respectively). Minilap and Open were associated with higher blood loss compared to Lap (mean difference 258.67 mL, 95% confidence interval 107.00-410.33 and mean difference 314.11 mL, 95% confidence interval 143.84-484.37) and Robotic (mean difference 205.60 mL, 95% confidence interval 45.92-365.28 and mean difference 261.04 mL, 95% confidence interval 84.26-437.82). Open was associated with more overall complications compared to Minilap (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.11-6.08). Recipient biliary complication rate was higher in Minilap and Open versus Hybrid (odds ratio 3.91, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.55 and odds ratio 11.42, 95% confidence interval 2.27-57.49), and lower in Open versus Minilap (OR 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.34).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive donor right hepatectomy via the various techniques is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers, with no major differences in donor complication rates and comparable recipient outcomes once surgeons have mounted the learning curve.

Living Donor Liver Transplant Center Volume Influences Waiting List Survival Among Children Listed for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains infrequently performed in the United States and localized to a few centers. This study aimed to compare pediatric waiting list and posttransplant outcomes by LDLT center volume.

METHODS

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database was retrospectively reviewed for all pediatric (age <18 y) liver transplant candidates listed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019. The average annual number of LDLT, deceased donor partial liver transplant (DDPLT), and overall (ie, LDLT + DDPLT + whole liver transplants) pediatric liver transplants performed by each transplant center during the study period was calculated.

RESULTS

Of 88 transplant centers, only 44 (50%) performed at least 1 pediatric LDLT during the study period. LDLT, DDPLT, and overall transplant center volume were all positively correlated. LDLT center volume was protective against waiting list dropout after adjusting for confounding variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.97; P = 0.004), whereas DDPLT and overall center volume were not (P > 0.05); however, DDPLT center volume was significantly protective against both recipient death and graft loss, whereas overall volume was only protective against graft loss and LDLT volume was not protective for either.

CONCLUSIONS

High-volume pediatric LDLT center can improve waiting list survival, whereas DDPLT and overall volume are associated with posttransplant survival. Expertise in all types of pediatric liver transplant options is important to optimize outcomes.

Recipient and Donor Outcomes After Living-Donor Liver Transplant for Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases

Question

What are the estimated overall and recurrence-free survival outcomes after living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) in patients with liver-confined, unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM)?

Findings

In this cohort study of 10 adults with CRLM who received LDLT, Kaplan-Meier estimates of recurrence-free and overall survival at a median follow-up of 1.5 years were 62% and 100%, respectively. Perioperative outcomes for both recipients and donors were consistent with established benchmarks.

Meaning

The results suggest that LDLT may be a viable treatment option for select patients with unresectable CRLMs with favorable tumor biology.

Importance

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death, and nearly 70% of patients with this cancer have unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLMs). Compared with chemotherapy, liver transplant has been reported to improve survival in patients with CRLMs, but in North America, liver allograft shortages make the use of deceased-donor allografts for this indication problematic.

Objective

To examine survival outcomes of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) for unresectable, liver-confined CRLMs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study included patients at 3 North American liver transplant centers with established LDLT programs, 2 in the US and 1 in Canada. Patients with liver-confined, unresectable CRLMs who had demonstrated sustained disease control on oncologic therapy met the inclusion criteria for LDLT. Patients included in this study underwent an LDLT between July 2017 and October 2020 and were followed up until May 1, 2021.

Exposures

Living-donor liver transplant.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Perioperative morbidity and mortality of treated patients and donors, assessed by univariate statistics, and 1.5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of recurrence-free and overall survival for transplant recipients.

Results

Of 91 evaluated patients, 10 (11%) underwent LDLT (6 [60%] male; median age, 45 years [range, 35-58 years]). Among the 10 living donors, 7 (70%) were male, and the median age was 40.5 years (range, 27-50 years). Kaplan-Meier estimates for recurrence-free and overall survival at 1.5 years after LDLT were 62% and 100%, respectively. Perioperative morbidity for both donors and recipients was consistent with established standards (Clavien-Dindo complications among recipients: 3 [10%] had none, 3 [30%] had grade II, and 4 [40%] had grade III; donors: 5 [50%] had none, 4 [40%] had grade I, and 1 had grade III).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study’s findings of recurrence-free and overall survival rates suggest that select patients with unresectable, liver-confined CRLMs may benefit from total hepatectomy and LDLT.

Liver resection versus liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a meta-analysis of 18,421 patients

Background

Outcomes after liver resection (LR) and liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are heterogenous and may vary by region, over time periods and disease burden. We aimed to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between LT versus LR for HCC within the Milan criteria.

Methods

Two authors independently searched Medline and Embase databases for studies comparing survival after LT and LR for patients with HCC meeting the Milan criteria. Meta-analyses and metaregression were conducted using random-effects models.

Results

We screened 2,278 studies and included 35 studies with 18,421 patients. LR was associated with poorer OS [hazard ratio (HR) =1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-1.81; P<0.01] and DFS (HR =2.71; 95% CI: 2.23-3.28; P<0.01) compared to LT, with similar findings among intention-to-treat (ITT) studies. In uninodular disease, OS in LR was comparable to LT (P=0.13) but DFS remained poorer (HR =2.95; 95% CI: 2.30-3.79; P<0.01). By region, LR had poorer OS versus LT in North America and Europe (P≤0.01), but not Asia (P=0.25). LR had inferior survival versus LT in studies completed before 2010 (P=0.01), but not after 2010 (P=0.12). Cohorts that underwent enhanced surveillance had comparable OS after LT and LR (P=0.33), but cohorts undergoing usual surveillance had worse OS after LR (HR =1.95; 95% CI: 1.24-3.07; P<0.01).

Conclusions

Mortality after LR for HCC is nearly 50% higher compared to LT. Survival between LR and LT were similar in uninodular disease. The risk of recurrence after LR is threefold that of LT.

(Neo)adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy is Beneficial to the Long-term Survival of Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the most effective and safest treatment mode for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma through a network meta-analysis.

METHOD

A Bayesian model was used for a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of surgery alone, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Thirty clinical studies, including thirty-one articles, 4866 patients, were analyzed. Overall survival rate: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were significantly advantageous over surgery alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.93; HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.65-0.86]. There was no statistically significant difference between adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [HR 0.97, 95%CI 0.75-1.28]. Disease-free survival rate: Compared with surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had significant benefits [HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.78]; adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had similar, but not significant benefits [HR 0.7, 0.95%CI 0.45-1.06]. The difference between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was also not statistically significant [HR 0.94, 0.95%CI 0.61-1.43]. Surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: The R0 resection rate was significantly improved [relative risk (RR) 0.25, 95%CI 0.07-0.86], but the overall postoperative morbidity rate and 30-day postoperative mortality rate tended to increase [RR 1.27, 95%CI 0.8-2.01; RR 1.59, 95%CI 0.7-3.22]. Neither neoadjuvant chemotherapy nor neoadjuvant radiotherapy significantly altered the surgical safety or R0 resection rate.

CONCLUSION

Both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy appear to be the best supplements to surgery for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.