Multifaceted perspective of the waiting list for liver transplantation: the value of pharmacokinetic models

New Scenarios in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite liver transplantation (LT) is considered the optimal treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly in patients with impaired liver function, the shortage of donors has forced the application of very restrictive criteria for selecting ideal candidates for whom LT can offer the best outcome. With the evolving LT landscape due to the advent of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) and the steady increase in donors, major efforts have been made to expand the transplant eligibility criteria for HCC. In addition, the emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of HCC, with demonstrated efficacy in earlier stages, has revolutionized the therapeutic approach for these patients, and their integration in the setting of LT is challenging. Management of immunological compromise from ICIs, including the wash-out period before LT and post-LT immunosuppression adjustments, is crucial to balance the risk of graft rejection against HCC recurrence. Additionally, the effects of increased immunosuppression on non-hepatic complications must be understood to prevent them from becoming obstacles to long-term OS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this review, we will evaluate the emerging evidence and its implications for the future of LT in HCC. Addressing these novel challenges and opportunities, while integrating the current clinical evidence with predictive algorithms, would ensure a fair balance between individual patient needs and the overall population benefit in the LT system.

Challenges in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review of Current Controversies

Liver transplantation (LT) remains one of the most effective treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and significantly enhances patient survival. However, the application of LT for HCC faces challenges owing to advancements in cancer-specific treatment modalities and the increased burden of patients' comorbidities. This narrative review explores current controversies and advancements in LT for HCC. Key areas of focus include the management of comorbidities and patient education by advanced practice nurses, impacts of frailty on waitlists and post-LT outcomes, selection criteria for LT in the era of new downstaging tools, role of radiology in patient selection, and implications of potential immunotherapy use both before and after LT. Additionally, the importance of immunosuppression management with strategies aimed at minimizing rejection while considering the risk of HCC recurrence and the role of surveillance for HCC recurrence is highlighted. This review also underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for optimizing outcomes in patients with HCC undergoing LT.

Breakthroughs in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Therapies

Several breakthroughs in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapy across tumor stages provide hope to improve its dismal prognosis. Although surgical and local ablative therapies have few significant changes in technique, an improved understanding of tumor biology has facilitated increase numbers of patients who are now eligible to undergo curative-intent procedures. Most notably, acceptable post-transplant outcomes can be achieved in well selected patients whose tumors are downstaged into Milan Criteria. Adjuvant therapy in patients at high risk of recurrence also significantly improves recurrence-free survival after resection or ablation. For patients with liver-localized disease who are not eligible for curative-intent procedures, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) was historically the treatment modality of choice, regardless of tumor burden; however, there is now increased recognition of patients who are "TACE unsuitable" and may be better treated with systemic therapy. The greatest evolution in HCC treatment options has occurred with systemic therapy, where several new agents are now available in the first- and second-line setting, including immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Objective responses are observed in approximately 30% of patients and median survival is approaching 2 years. The availability of immune checkpoint inhibitors has renewed interest in combination therapies for earlier tumor stages, with several phase III trials ongoing. Considering increasing complexities of HCC care, requiring decisions between therapies delivered by different providers, multidisciplinary care is critical and is associated with improved clinical outcomes. In this review, we detail major breakthroughs in HCC therapy, how these breakthroughs can be applied in clinical practice, and remaining areas in need of further research.

Hepatocellular carcinoma downstaging for liver transplantation in the era of systemic combined therapy with anti-VEGF/TKI and immunotherapy

Hepatocellular carcinoma remains a global health challenge affecting close to 1 million cases yearly. Liver transplantation provides the best long-term outcomes for those meeting strict criteria. Efforts have been made to expand these criteria, whereas others have attempted downstaging approaches. Although locoregional approaches to downstaging are appealing and have demonstrated efficacy, limitations and challenges exists including poor imaging modality to assess response and appropriate endpoints along the process. Recent advances in systemic treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors have prompted the discussion regarding their role for downstaging disease prior to transplantation. Here, we provide a review of prior locoregional approaches for downstaging, new systemic agents and their role for downstaging, and finally, key and critical considerations of the assessment, endpoints, and optimal designs in clinical trials to address this key question.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

Limited tumour progression beyond Milan criteria while on the waiting list does not result in unacceptable impairment of survival

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Defining optimum management of patients progressing beyond Milan criteria on the waiting list is a controversial topic. Our aim was to determine whether the policy of allowing a limited progression beyond enlistment criteria permits acceptable post-transplant outcomes in terms of survival and recurrence.

METHODS

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma included on the waiting list for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) between January 1989 and December 2016 were analysed. Tumour features were assessed at inclusion on the waiting list, before OLT and at explant pathology. Patients were retained on the waiting list despite exceeding enlistment criteria if not presenting with macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread or cancer-related symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 495 patients constituted the target population. Comparison between the Milan-in (n = 434) and Milan-out (n = 61) groups showed statistically significant differences in: largest tumour size; BCLC stage; patients treated before OLT; alpha-fetoprotein, and time on the waiting list. Milan-out patients showed a significantly higher number of poorly differentiated nodules, satellitosis and microscopic vascular invasion. The 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year survival rate was 89.6%, 82.5%, 75%, and 55.5%, vs. 83.6%, 70.5%, 65.5%, and 53.9% for Milan-in/Milan-out patients, respectively. Recurrence rates at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years were 1.2%, 3.3%, 5.5%, and 10.8% vs. 7.1% 14.5%, 23%, and 23% for Milan-in and Milan-out patients, respectively (p <0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that although limited tumour progression without reaching major adverse predictors (vascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, cancer symptoms) has an expected impact on recurrence rate, overall survival remains above the minimum proposed benchmark of 65% at 5 years. The clinically relevant increase in tumour recurrence must be considered when analysing the benefit of this approach in the face of limited organ supply.

LAY SUMMARY

When considering orthotopic liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, optimum results are achieved when transplanting patients within the Milan criteria. However, the most appropriate strategy for patients who progress beyond these criteria while on the waiting list is still unclear. Herein, we show that transplantation is associated with acceptable overall survival in select patients who progress beyond the Milan criteria, although recurrence rates were notably higher. Therefore, the assessment of transplantation viability in these patients must consider the availability of organs and the impact on other patient categories.

Liver Transplantation Selection and Allocation Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A European Perspective

For patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), liver transplantation offers the best chance of cure. Over the past two decades, selection criteria to determine eligibility for liver transplantation have been constantly refined but a fair allocation strategy of liver grafts to HCC patients remains challenging. In Europe, over a dozen transplantation networks apply different liver transplantation criteria for HCC patients. In this review, we explore and compare candidate selection and liver graft allocation strategies for patients with HCC with a European perspective and discuss the ethical and technical challenges involved. In addition, we suggest possible paths for future improvement such as transitioning from fixed selection and allocation criteria to a more flexible model of benefit, which includes criteria concerning the graft, response to treatment, the biology of the tumor, and other relevant recipient factors.

Predictors of outcome after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond Milan criteria

The Milan criteria have been the cornerstone of selection policies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting liver transplantation (LT) globally for over two decades. Many groups have proposed the transplantation of patients with larger and more numerous tumors achieving comparable results. Many of these use radiologic morphometric criteria as surrogates for explant pathology to predict outcomes. Several other indices have been developed both within and beyond Milan incorporating biological indices as well as dynamic markers of response to pre-transplant locoregional treatments and waiting time. These have allowed for successful expansion of transplant selection criteria without compromising outcomes with limited organ supplies. In this review we will discuss the predictors of outcome in patients beyond Milan criteria.

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.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Where do we stand?

Hepatocellular carcinoma represents an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is the sixth most common cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer death. Liver transplantation is a key tool for the treatment of this disease in human therefore hepatocellular carcinoma is increasing as primary indication for grafting. Although liver transplantation represents an outstanding therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, due to organ shortage, the careful selection and management of patients who may have a major survival benefit after grafting remains a fundamental question. In fact, only some stages of the disease seem amenable of this therapeutic option, stimulating the debate on the appropriate criteria to select candidates. In this review we focused on current criteria to select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation as well as on the strategies (bridging) to avoid disease progression and exclusion from grafting during the stay on wait list. The treatments used to bring patients within acceptable criteria (down-staging), when their tumor burden exceeds the standard criteria for transplant, are also reported. Finally, we examined tumor reappearance following liver transplantation. This occurrence is estimated to be approximately 8%-20% in different studies. The possible approaches to prevent this outcome after transplant are reported with the corresponding results.

The efficacy of direct anti-HCV drugs improves early post-liver transplant survival and induces significant changes in waiting list composition

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) has dramatically changed the prognosis of patients with chronic hepatitis C. We aimed to evaluate the impact of DAA therapy on the composition of the liver transplant (LT) waiting list and the early post-transplant survival.

METHODS

We evaluated all patients admitted to the waiting list for a primary LT between 1st January 2008 and 31st of December 2016 in Catalonia, Spain. Time span was divided into two periods according to the availability of different antiviral therapies: 2008-2013 (interferon-based therapies) and 2014-2016 (DAA). Changes in the indications of LT and the aetiology of liver disease, as well as post-LT patient survival, were evaluated according to the year of inclusion and transplantation, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 1,483 patients. Admissions in the waiting list for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease decreased significantly, from 47% in 2008-2013 to 35% in 2014-2016 (p <0.001), particularly because of a reduction in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. In contrast, NASH-related inclusions increased from 4% to 7% (p = 0.003). Three-year post-LT patient survival increased significantly in the second period in the whole cohort (82% vs. 91%, p = 0.002), because of better survival in anti-HCV positive patients (76% vs. 91%, p = 0.001), but not in anti-HCV negative patients (88% vs. 91% p = 0.359). Anti-HCV positive serology, the time period of 2008-2013 and higher donor age were independently associated with post-LT mortality in the whole cohort; while time period and donor age were independently associated with post-LT mortality in anti-HCV positive recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

The high efficacy of DAAs is associated with significant changes in the composition of the LT waiting list and, more importantly, results in improved post-transplant survival.

LAY SUMMARY

The efficacy of the new direct-acting antivirals is associated with a significant improvement in survival of patients undergoing liver transplantation because of hepatitis C virus-related liver disease. In addition, it has decreased the number of patients with hepatitis C that need a liver transplant.

Liver transplantation versus liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in intention to treat: An attempt to perform an ideal meta-analysis

This meta-analysis compared the effects of liver transplantation (LT) and liver resection (LR) on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) small transplantable HCC or within Milan criteria. Articles comparing LR with LT for HCC, based on Milan criteria or small size, published up to June 2015 were selected, and a meta-analysis was performed. No randomized controlled trial has been published to date comparing survival outcomes in patients with HCC who underwent LR and LT. Nine studies were identified, including 570 patients who underwent LR and 861 who underwent LT. For HCC within the Milan criteria, the 1-year OS rates following LR and LT were 84.5% (473/560) and 84.4% (710/841), respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.33; P = 0.8), and the 5-year OS rates were 47.9% (273/570) and 59.3% (509/858), respectively (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.02; P = 0.06). One-year DFS rates were similar (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.39-2.61; P = 1.00), whereas the 3-year DFS rate was significantly lower in the LR group (54.4%, 210/386) than in the LT group (74.2%, 317/427; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.80; P = 0.02), and the 5-year DFS rate was significantly lower for LR than LT (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.53; P < 0.01). For small HCCs, the 5-year OS rate was significantly lower for patients who underwent LR than LT (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.48; P < 0.001). In conclusion, relative to LR, LT in patients with HCC meeting the Milan criteria had no benefits before 10 years for OS. For DFS, the benefit is obtained after 3 years. Liver Transplantation 23 836-844 2017 AASLD.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: outcomes and novel surgical approaches

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the best treatment option for patients with early-stage tumours and accounts for ∼20-40% of all liver transplantations performed at most centres worldwide. The Milan criteria are the most common criteria to select patients with HCC for transplantation but they can be seen as too restrictive. Several proposals have been made for a moderate expansion of the criteria, which result in good outcomes but with an increase in the risk of tumour recurrence. In this Review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the outcomes after liver transplantation for HCC, focusing on tumour recurrence in terms of surveillance, prevention and treatment. Additionally, novel surgical techniques have been developed to increase the available pool of organs for liver transplantation (such as living donor liver transplantation, donation after circulatory death and split livers), but the effect of these techniques on patients with HCC is still under debate. Thus, we will describe these techniques and expose the benefits and disadvantages of each surgical approach. Finally, we will comment on the limitations of the current priority policies for liver transplantation and the need to further refine them to better serve the population.

Evidence-Based Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Evidence-based management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is key to their optimal care. For individuals at risk for HCC, surveillance usually involves ultrasonography (there is controversy over use of biomarkers). A diagnosis of HCC is made based on findings from biopsy or imaging analyses. Molecular markers are not used in diagnosis or determination of prognosis and treatment for patients. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer algorithm is the most widely used staging system. Patients with single liver tumors or as many as 3 nodules ≤3 cm are classified as having very early or early-stage cancer and benefit from resection, transplantation, or ablation. Those with a greater tumor burden, confined to the liver, and who are free of symptoms are considered to have intermediate-stage cancer and can benefit from chemoembolization if they still have preserved liver function. Those with symptoms of HCC and/or vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic cancer are considered to have advanced-stage cancer and could benefit from treatment with the kinase inhibitor sorafenib. Patients with end-stage HCC have advanced liver disease that is not suitable for transplantation and/or have intense symptoms. Studies now aim to identify molecular markers and imaging techniques that can detect patients with HCC at earlier stages and better predict their survival time and response to treatment.

Influence of Waiting List in Recurrence Disease of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We describe the results of our liver transplantation (LT) patients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 2004 to 2012 to determine the differences on the basis of time on the waiting list to establish the risk of recurrence of liver disease.

METHODS

Clinical variables were recorded for both donors and recipients as well as variables of diagnosis, the use of transarterial chemoembolization during the waiting list time (WLT), complications, re-transplantation, and exitus. Fifty-eight patients were analyzed. Mean age was 57 ± 8 years (men, 83%; 48 patients). Viral etiology of HCC was 50% (n = 29); alcoholic, 26% (n = 15); and others, 24% (n = 14).

RESULTS

Exitus was established in 24 patients (41%); only 5 patients (7%) were attributable to HCC. In the cohort of patients with less than 6 months of WLT, we registered both higher rates of downstaging protocols (10.7% vs 7.5%) and tumor size (3 cm vs 2 cm) compared with the other group. Bivariate studies were conducted according to the WLT (WLT <6 months, WLT ≥6 months), finding differences in recurrence of liver disease (P < .05). This fact was confirmed after a binary logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results in a subgroup of less than 6 months of WLT included patients with increased tumor size or presentation of multiple nodes, with a worse prognosis and therefore to be prioritized in the treatment of LT. Therefore, in our population there is a significant risk of tumor recurrence in patients with less WLT for LT, but it cannot be overestimated to all type of patients with HCC.

A Multistep, Consensus-Based Approach to Organ Allocation in Liver Transplantation: Toward a "Blended Principle Model"

Since Italian liver allocation policy was last revised (in 2012), relevant critical issues and conceptual advances have emerged, calling for significant improvements. We report the results of a national consensus conference process, promoted by the Italian College of Liver Transplant Surgeons (for the Italian Society for Organ Transplantation) and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver, to review the best indicators for orienting organ allocation policies based on principles of urgency, utility, and transplant benefit in the light of current scientific evidence. MELD exceptions and hepatocellular carcinoma were analyzed to construct a transplantation priority algorithm, given the inequity of a purely MELD-based system for governing organ allocation. Working groups of transplant surgeons and hepatologists prepared a list of statements for each topic, scoring their quality of evidence and strength of recommendation using the Centers for Disease Control grading system. A jury of Italian transplant surgeons, hepatologists, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists, representatives of patients' associations and organ-sharing organizations, transplant coordinators, and ethicists voted on and validated the proposed statements. After carefully reviewing the statements, a critical proposal for revising Italy's current liver allocation policy was prepared jointly by transplant surgeons and hepatologists.

Toward a better liver graft allocation that accounts for candidates with and without hepatocellular carcinoma

In some countries where the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is used for graft allocation, selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receive a fixed number of exception points at listing, and increasing priority on the list by accruing additional exception points at regular time intervals. This system originally aimed at balancing the risks of HCC patients of developing contraindications and of non-HCC patients of dying before transplantation, is not ideal because it appears to offer an advantage to HCC patients, regardless of tumor characteristics and response to loco-regional treatment. Scores modulated by HCC characteristics have been proposed. They are based on a more refined estimate of the risk of pretransplant drop-out or of the posttransplant transplant benefit expressed as the life-years gained for each graft. This review describes the newly proposed systems, and discusses their advantages and drawbacks. We believe that the current exception points allocation should be revised and that drop-out-equivalent or transplant benefit-equivalent models should be studied further. As with all policy changes, these should be done under close monitoring that allows subsequent revisions.

Sorafenib use in the transplant setting

Liver transplantation (LT) is an established treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and sorafenib (SFN) is a validated treatment for patients harboring advanced tumors. It is still not clear whether the combination of the 2 treatments, with SFN used in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or recurrence setting, is useful and cost-effective. This article summarizes the present evidence in favor of and against the use of SFN in the setting of LT for HCC, and it also includes the problem of toxicity, particularly when mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, which play a central role in regulating cellular growth and proliferation, are used as immunosuppressants. Overall, the data do not support the use of SFN in the pre- or post-LT setting as adjuvant therapy, and additional studies are needed to reach sound conclusions on the topic.

Is resectable hepatocellular carcinoma a contraindication to liver transplantation? A novel decision model based on "number of patients needed to transplant" as measure of transplant benefit

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Number-needed-to-treat is used in assessing the effectiveness of a health-care intervention, and reports the number of patients who need to be treated to prevent one additional bad outcome. Although largely used in medical literature, there are no studies measuring the benefit of liver transplantation (LT) over hepatic resection (HR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in terms of "Number of patients needed to transplant (NTT)."

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) Classes B-C, very large (>10 cm) and multi-nodular (>2 nodules) tumours, macroscopic vascular invasion and extra-hepatic metastases.

STUDY POPULATION

1028 HCC cirrhotic patients from one Eastern (n=441) and two Western (n=587) surgical units. Patient survival observed after HR by proportional hazard regression model was compared to that predicted after LT by the Metroticket calculator. The benefit obtainable from LT compared to resection was analysed in relationship with number of nodules (modelled as ordinal variable: single vs. oligonodular), size of largest nodule (modelled as a continuous variable), presence of microscopic vascular invasion (MVI), and time horizon from surgery (5-year vs. 10-year).

RESULTS

330 patients were beyond the Milan criteria (32%) and 597 (58%) had MVI. The prevalence of MVI was 52% in patients within Milan criteria and 71% in those beyond (p<0.0001). In the 5-year transplant benefit analysis, nodule size and HCC number were positive predictors of transplant benefit, while MVI had a strong negative impact on NTT. Transplantation performed as an effective therapy (NTT <5) only in oligonodular HCC with largest diameter >3cm (beyond conventional LT criteria) when MVI was absent. The 10-year scenario increased drastically the transplant benefit in all subgroups of resectable patients, and LT became an effective therapy (NTT <5) for all patients without MVI whenever tumor extension and for oligonodular HCC with MVI within conventional LT criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on NTT analysis, the adopted time horizon (5-year vs. 10-year scenario) is the main factor influencing the benefit of LT in patients with resectable HCC and Child A cirrhosis.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical frontiers and perspectives

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death and is currently the main event leading to death in patients with cirrhosis. Evolving information suggests that the metabolic syndrome with non-alcoholic liver disease may be an important cause of HCC in addition to viral hepatitis and alcohol-induced liver disease. The molecular pathogenesis is extremely complex and heterogeneous. To date the molecular information has not impacted on treatment decisions. Periodic surveillance imaging of patients with cirrhosis is widely practiced, especially because diagnostic, radiographic criteria for early-stage HCC have been defined (including nodules between 1 and 2 cm) and effective treatment is available for tumours detected at an early stage. Worldwide the approach to resection versus transplantation varies depending upon local resources, expertise and donor availability. The criteria for transplantation are discussed, and the controversial areas highlighted with evidence-based recommendations provided. Several approaches are available for intermediate stage disease, including radiofrequency ablation, transarterial chemoembolisation and radioembolisation; the rationale for these therapies is buttressed by appropriate outcome-based studies. For advanced disease, systemic therapy with sorafenib remains the option best supported by current data. Thus, while several trials have failed to improve the benefits of established therapies, studies assessing the sequential or combined application of those already known to be beneficial are needed. Also, new concepts are provided in regards to selecting and stratifying patients for second-line studies, which may help explain the failure of prior studies.

Transplant benefit for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Although liver transplantation is theoretically the best treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it is limited by the realities of perioperative complications, and the shortage of donor organs. Furthermore, in many cases there are available alternative treatments such as resection or locoregional therapy. Deciding upon the best option for a patient with HCC is complicated, involving numerous ethical principles including: urgency, utility, intention-to-treat survival, transplant benefit, harm to candidates on waiting list, and harm to living donors. The potential contrast between different principles is particularly relevant for patients with HCC for several reasons: (1) HCC candidates to liver transplantation are increasing; (2) the great prognostic heterogeneity within the HCC population; (3) in HCC patients tumor progression before liver transplantation may significantly impair post transplant outcome; and (4) effective alternative therapies are often available for HCC candidates to liver transplantation. In this paper we suggest that allocating organs by transplant benefit could help balance these competing principles, and also introduce equity between patients with HCC and nonmalignant liver disease. We also propose a triangular equipoise model to help decide between deceased donor liver transplantation, living donor liver transplantation, or alternative therapies.