Living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparable survival and recurrence

Survival benefit of living donor liver transplant for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

With the increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in both the United States and globally, the role of liver transplantation in management continues to be an area of active conversation as it is often considered the gold standard in the treatment of HCC. The use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and the indications in the setting of malignancy, both generally and in HCC specifically, are frequently debated. In terms of both overall survival and recurrence-free survival, LDLT is at least equivalent to DDLT, especially when performed for disease within Milan criteria. Emerging and compelling evidence suggests that LDLT is superior to DDLT in treating HCC as there is a significant decrease in waitlist mortality. As the oncologic indications for liver transplantation continue to expand and the gap between organ demand and organ availability continues to worsen, high volumes centers should consider using LDLT to shrink the ever-expanding waitlist.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma beyond the Milan Criteria: A Specific Role for Living Donor Liver Transplantation after Neoadjuvant Therapy

PURPOSE

This study was designed to elucidate the various new classifications and the use of LDLT and bridging therapy for HCC in this context beyond the Milan criteria (MC).

METHODS

The clinical data of patients with HCC outside the MC who underwent LT at Jena University between January 2007 and August 2023 were retrospectively analysed. Eligible patients were classified according to various classification systems. Clinicopathological features, overall and disease-free survival rates were compared between LT and LDLT within the context of bridging therapy.

THE RESULTS

Among the 245 patients analysed, 120 patients did not meet the MC, and 125 patients met the MC. Moreover, there were comparable overall survival rates between patients outside the MC for LT versus LDLT (OS 44.3 months vs. 28.3 months; 5-year survival, 56.4% vs. 40%; p = 0.84). G3 tumour differentiation, the presence of angioinvasion and lack of bridging were statistically significant risk factors for tumour recurrence according to univariate and multivariate analyses (HR 6.34; p = 0.0002; HR 8.21; p < 0.0001; HR 7.50; p = 0.0001). Bridging therapy before transplantation provided a significant survival advantage regardless of the transplant procedure (OS: p = 0.008; DFS: p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HCC outside the MC who underwent LT or LDLT had worse outcomes compared to those of patients who met the MC but still had a survival advantage compared to patients without transplantation. Nevertheless, such patients remain disadvantaged on the waiting list, which is why LDLT represents a safe alternative to LT and should be considered in bridged HCC patients because of differences in tumour differentiation, size and tumour marker dynamics.

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.

Can living donor liver transplantation provide similar outcomes to deceased-donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A potential solution to the deceased organ shortage is to include live organ donations and to identify patients with lower rates of HCC recurrence to fairly allocate liver grafts. Our aims were to detect the long-term outcomes of LDLT versus DDLT for HCC and predictors of recurrence after transplantation.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies from inception to July 2021 and a systematic review and meta-analysis were done.

RESULTS

35 studies with a total of 7822 patients were included. The 1-, 3-, 4 year-OS showed trivial improvement for LDLT recipients. However, the two modalities had similar 5-, 6- and 10-year OS. A significant improvement in the ITT-OS was observed for LDLT recipients. Regarding the DFS and recurrence after transplantation, no significant difference was observed between LDLT and DDLT. In addition to that, the pooled hazard ratio of the included studies showed that Milan criteria, level of AFP, presence of vascular invasion, tumor differentiation were significant predictors of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The cancer biology (not the graft type) is the most important determinant of recurrence and survival after LT. However, LDLT provided much better survival benefits to HCC patients especially in regions that suffer from low deceased organ availability.

Liver transplantation for HCC: validation of prognostic power of the RETREAT score for recurrence in a UK cohort

BACKGROUND

The Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant (RETREAT) score as a prognostic index for recurrence has been reported previously and has not been validated outside the USA. Our study has validated the score in a single center UK cohort of patients being transplanted for HCC.

METHODS

LT for HCC between 2008 and 2018 at our center were analyzed. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was compared by the RETREAT score and validated using Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI) by comparing it to Milan criteria.

RESULTS

346 adult HCC patients were transplanted of whom 313 were included. 28 (8.9%) had a recurrence. Summation of largest diameter and total number of viable tumors (HR = 1.19, p < 0.001), micro-/macro-vascular invasion (HR = 3.74, p = 0.002) and AFP>20 ng/ml (HR = 3.03, p = 0.005) were associated with recurrence on multivariate analysis. RFS decreased with increasing RETREAT score (log-rank p = 0.016). RETREAT performed better than Milan with significant NRI at 1- and 2-years post-transplant (0.43 (p = 0.004) and 0.38 (p = 0.03) respectively).

CONCLUSION

LT outcomes using the revised UK criteria are equivalent to Milan criteria. Further, RETREAT score was validated as a prognostic index for the first time in a UK cohort and may assist risk stratification, selection for adjuvant therapies and guide surveillance.

Prognostic Factors of Liver Transplantation for HCC: Comparative Literature Review

PURPOSE

The aim of the review study is investigation of the prognostic factors of the liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

A literature review has been made, especially in countries where dominantly living donor liver transplantation is performed, such as Turkey. Liver transplantation from deceased donor and from living donor has been evaluated about as advantages and disadvantages, and their effects on prognosis have been compared. In addition, hepatocellular carcinoma series of Koç University Liver Transplantation center has been presented.

RESULTS

Liver transplantation is still the best treatment option with 5-year 50% survival rate for hepatocellular carcinoma even in patient who has locally advanced tumor. The patient's survival is not only an important issue but also the living donor's safety is controversial particularly when expectation of recipient's 5-year survival is below 50% due to donor complication.

CONCLUSION

Detailed preoperative examination, appropriate patient selection, and timing of surgery are seen the most important issues in liver transplant's patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Staging: Differences Between Radiologic and Pathologic Systems and Relevance to Patient Selection and Outcomes in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplant is indicated with curative intent for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The radiologic T category is used to determine candidacy and priority of patients on the waiting list. After transplant, the explant liver pathologic TNM stage is used as a predictor of postoperative outcomes and overall prognosis. Although the comparison of radiologic and pathologic T categories for concordance is often considered to be straightforward, the staging conventions significantly differ. Not accounting for these differences is in part the reason for the high rates of radiologic-pathologic discordance reported in the literature, with inconsistent terminology being an additional source of confusion when evaluating concordance. These factors may affect the understanding of important radiopathologic phenotypes of disease and the adequate investigation of their prognostic capabilities. The aims of this article are to provide an overview of the pathologic and radiologic TNM staging systems for HCC while describing staging procedures, emphasize the differences between these staging systems to highlight the limitations of radiologic-pathologic stage correlation, present a review of the literature on the prognostic value of individual features used for HCC staging; and signal significant aspects of preoperative risk stratification that could be improved to positively impact posttransplant outcomes.

Recent advances in the surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing, despite effective antiviral treatment for hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus infection and the application of preventive measures such as vaccination at birth against HBV infection. This is mainly due to the increase in metabolic syndrome and its hepatic components, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis. Liver resection and transplantation are the main treatment options, offering long-term survival and potential cure. In this review, the recent advances in the surgical management of HCC are presented. More specifically, the role of liver resection in the intermediate and advanced stages, according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification, is analyzed. In addition, the roles of minimally invasive surgery and of living-related liver transplantation in the management of patients with HCC are discussed. Finally, recent data on the role of molecular markers in the early diagnosis and recurrence of HCC are presented. The management of HCC is complex, as there are several options for each stage of the disease. In order for, each patient to get the maximum benefit, an individualized approach is suggested, in specialized liver units, where cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards.

Outcomes after liver transplantation in Korea: Incidence and risk factors from Korean transplantation registry

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To analyze the incidence and risk factors of outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) in the Korean population.

METHODS

This study analyzed data from the liver cohort of Korean Organ Transplantation Registry (KOTRY) who had LT between May 2014 and December 2017. Study measures included the incidence of post-LT outcomes in recipients of living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT). Cox multivariate proportional hazards model was used to determine the potential risk factors predicting the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2,563 adult recipients with LT (LDLT, n=1,956; DDLT, n=607) were included, with mean±standard deviation age of 53.9±8.9 years, and 72.2% were male. The post-LT outcomes observed in each LDLT and DDLT recipients were death (4.0% and 14.7%), graft loss (5.0% and 16.1%), rejection (7.0% and 12.0%), renal failure (2.7% and 13.8%), new onset of diabetes (12.5% and 15.4%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence (both 6.7%). In both LDLT and DDLT recipients, the most common post-LT complications were renal dysfunction (33.6% and 51.4%), infection (26.7% and 48.4%), and surgical complication (22.5% and 23.9%). Incidence of these outcomes were generally higher among recipients of DDLT than LDLT. Multivariate analysis indicated recipient age and DDLT as significant risk factors associated with death and graft loss. DDLT and ABO incompatible transplant were prognostic factors for rejection, and HCC beyond Milan criteria at pre-transplant was a strong predictor of HCC recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This study is a good indicator of the post-LT prognosis in the Korean population and suggests a significant burden of post-LT complications.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within or Beyond the Milan Criteria: Comparable Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) vs deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain controversial. We compared the long-term outcomes between LDLT and DDLT in patients with HCCs within or beyond the Milan criteria.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 896 patients who underwent liver transplantation (829 LDLTs and 67 DDLTs) for HCC from June 2005 to May 2015. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test.

RESULTS

RFS at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after LDLT was 89.6%, 84.6%, 82.4%, and 79.6%, respectively, and, after DDLT, was 92.4%, 86.2%, 82.4%, and 82.4%, respectively, and OS at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after LDLT was 96.1%, 88.1%, 85.6%, and 82.7%, respectively, and, after DDLT, was 97.0%, 83.6%, 82.1%, and 77.3%, respectively, with no significant differences in RFS (P = .838) or OS (P = .293) between groups. No statistically significant differences after LDLT or DDLT were identified in RFS (89.8% vs 98.1%, respectively, at 5 years; P = .053) or OS (90.4% vs 90.6% , respectively, at 5 years; P = .583) for HCCs meeting the Milan criteria as well as for those beyond the Milan criteria (RFS, 37.8% vs 28.6%, respectively, at 5 years; P = .560 and OS, 57.3% vs 50.0%, respectively, at 5 years; P = .743).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent LDLT for HCCs showed comparable long-term outcomes to patients who underwent DDLT. Patients with HCCs within the Milan criteria demonstrated acceptable long-term outcomes after both LDLT and DDLT.

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence in living and deceased donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background:

Although a number of technical problems and donor safety issues associated with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have been resolved, some initial clinical studies showed an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in LDLT. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess differences in tumor recurrence between LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).

Methods:

After systematic retrievals of studies about LDLT and DDLT for HCC, articles were selected with a rationale of emphasizing inter-group comparability. Results from multivariate analyses were combined and discussed together with univariate analyses. In subgroup analysis, the impact of organ allocation policy was taken into consideration.

Results:

Seven articles were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, a salient result that emerged from the seven studies was a significant increased risk of HCC recurrence in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group (P = 0.01). The most significant increase in hazard ratio was found in studies where organs tended to be allocated to non-tumor patients.

Conclusions:

An increased risk for HCC recurrence in LDLT as compared with DDLT patients was found. The relatively shorter preoperative observation windows in LDLT may lead to fewer cases of HCC with invasive features being screened out, which may provide a possible explanation for the high rates of HCC recurrence.

Living or deceased organ donors in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC patients were not well defined and it was necessary to reassess.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and WanFang database for eligible studies. Perioperative and survival outcomes of HCC patients underwent LDLT were pooled and compared to those underwent DDLT.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies with 5376 HCC patients were included. For HCC patients underwent LDLT and DDLT, there were comparable rates of overall survival (OS) (1-year, RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 1.00-1.09, P = 0.03; 3-year, RR = 1.03, 95%CI = 0.96-1.11, P = 0.39; 5-year, RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 0.95-1.13, P = 0.43), disease free survival (DFS) (1-year, RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.95-1.05, P = 0.99; 3-year, RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.94-1.08, P = 0.89; 5-year, RR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.93-1.09, P = 0.85), recurrence (1-year, RR = 1.41, 95%CI = 0.72-2.77, P = 0.32; 3-year, RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.57-1.39, P = 0.60; and 5-year, RR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.56-1.31, P = 0.47), perioperative mortality within 3 months (RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.50-1.59, p = 0.70) and postoperative complication (RR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.70-1.39, P = 0.94). LDLT was associated with better 5-year intention-to-treat patient survival (ITT-OS) than DDLT (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.01-1.22, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that LDLT was not inferior to DDLT in consideration of comparable perioperative and survival outcomes. However, in terms of 5-year ITT-OS, LDLT was a possibly better choice for HCC patients.

Surgical Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of cancer-related death worldwide. In select patients, surgical treatment in the form of either resection or transplantation offers a curative option. The aims of this review are to (1) review the current American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/European Association for the Study of the Liver guidelines on the surgical management of HCC and (2) review the proposed changes to these guidelines and analyze the strength of evidence underlying these proposals. Three authors identified the most relevant publications in the literature on liver resection and transplantation for HCC and analyzed the strength of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification. In the United States, the liver allocation system provides priority for liver transplantation to patients with HCC within the Milan criteria. Current evidence suggests that liver transplantation may also be indicated in certain patient groups beyond Milan criteria, such as pediatric patients with large tumor burden or adult patients who are successfully downstaged. Patients with no underlying liver disease may also benefit from liver transplantation if the HCC is unresectable. In patients with no or minimal (compensated) liver disease and solitary HCC ≥2 cm, liver resection is warranted. If liver transplantation is not available or contraindicated, liver resection can be offered to patients with multinodular HCC, provided that the underlying liver disease is not decompensated. Many patients may benefit from surgical strategies adapted to local resources and policies (hepatitis B prevalence, organ availability, etc). Although current low-quality evidence shows better overall survival with aggressive surgical strategies, this approach is limited to select patients. Larger and well-designed prospective studies are needed to better define the benefits and limits of such approach.

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation preoperative survey using MDCT, a single medical center experience in Taiwan

This study evaluated multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scans performed on potential living donors for adult-to-adult liver transplantation (LDLT), with the aim of identifying significant findings that could be used to exclude potential transplantation donors. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 151 consecutive potential adult donors for LDLT from May 2007 to January 2015. Liver parenchyma steatosis, focal hepatic mass or intraabdominal malignancy, vascular variations, and donor liver volume were evaluated via MDCT. Grounds for excluding potential donors were also recorded and analyzed. Of the 151 potential donors, nine (6.0%) had moderate to severe fatty liver, 37 (24.5%) had hepatic arterial variants, 22 (14.6%) had significant portal venous variants, and more than half were found to have right accessory inferior hepatic vein. No intraabdominal malignancies were found. Eighty-eight potential donors were rejected, with the most common cause being insufficient recipient volume or remnant donor volume (47.7%), moderate to severe parenchymal steatosis (10.2%), and recipient expiration prior to transplantation (8.0%). An additional 16 potential donors were excluded by the surgical team due to the complexity of their portal venous variations. The rate of exclusion by pre-transplant imaging evaluation with MDCT was 33.8%. MDCT can provide accurate quantification of donor liver volume and steatosis severity along with precise demonstration of vascular variants, which are crucial for the preoperative evaluation of LDLT. However, MDCT may be ineffective for evaluating the biliary system without hepatobiliary-excreted contrast agent and has the disadvantage of ionizing radiation.

The Impact of Liver Graft Injury on Cancer Recurrence Posttransplantation

Liver transplantation is the most effective treatment for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. However, cancer recurrence, posttransplantation, remains to be the critical issue that affects the long-term outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma recipients. In addition to tumor biology itself, increasing evidence demonstrates that acute-phase liver graft injury is a result of hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury (which is an inevitable consequence during liver transplantation) and may promote cancer recurrence at late phase posttransplantation. The liver grafts from living donors, donors after cardiac death, and steatotic donors have been considered as promising sources of organs for liver transplantation and are associated with high incidence of liver graft injury. The acute-phase liver graft injury will trigger a series of inflammatory cascades, which may not only activate the cell signaling pathways regulating the tumor cell invasion and migration but also mobilize the circulating progenitor and immune cells to facilitate tumor recurrence and metastasis. The injured liver graft may also provide the favorable microenvironment for tumor cell growth, migration, and invasion through the disturbance of microcirculatory barrier function, induction of hypoxia and angiogenesis. This review aims to summarize the latest findings about the role and mechanisms of liver graft injury resulted from hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury on tumor recurrence posttransplantation, both in clinical and animal cohorts.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: an (almost) exclusive Eastern procedure?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most prevalent cancer and it is linked with chronic liver disease. Liver transplantation (LT) is the best curative treatment modality, since it can cure simultaneously the underlying liver disease and HCC. Milan criteria (MC) are the benchmark for selecting patients with HCC for LT, achieving up to 91% 1-year survival post transplantation. However, when considering intention-to-treat (ITT) rates are substantially lower, mainly due dropout. Additionally, Milan criteria (MC) are too restrictive and more inclusive criteria have been reported with good outcomes. Mainly, in Eastern countries, deceased donors are scarce, therefore Asian centers have developed living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) to a state-of-art status. There are many eastern centers reporting huge numbers of LDLT with outstanding results. Regarding HCC patients, they have reported many criteria including more advanced tumors achieving reasonable outcomes. Western countries have well-established deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) programs. However, organ shortage and restrictive criteria for listing patients with HCC endorses LDLT as a good option to offer curative treatment to more HCC patients. However, there are some controversial reports claiming higher rates of HCC recurrence after LDLT than DDLT. An extensive review included 30 studies with cohorts of HCC patients who underwent LDLT in both East and West countries. We reported also the results of our Institution, in Brazil, where it was performed the first LDLT. This review also addresses the eligibility criteria for transplanting patients with HCC developed in Western and Eastern countries.

The International Liver Transplantation Society Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipient Guideline

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasingly embraced around the world as an important strategy to address the shortage of deceased donor livers. The aim of this guideline, approved by the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS), is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT. Recommendations were developed from an analysis of the National Library of Medicine living donor transplantation indexed literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Writing was guided by the ILTS Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines (www.ilts.org). Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations support specific approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care of living donor liver transplant recipients.

Compared to cadaveric liver transplantation, live donor LT (LDLT) is challenged by ethical, medical and surgical considerations, many of which are still unresolved. The aim of this guideline is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT.

Clinical validity of Metroticket calculator in transplant patients undergoing prior chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM

To test the predictive performance of the Metroticket calculator for survival after liver transplantation (LT) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing prior transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

METHODS

A total of 142 patients treated with TACE and subsequent LT who had arterial enhancing HCC(s) were entered into this analysis. Tumor parameters measured by the enhancement radiological method pre-LT or by pathology post-LT were incorporated into the Metroticket analysis. The calculator was validated in terms of calibration and discrimination capacity.

RESULTS

Mean 3- and 5-year survival rates predicted in the radiological model for all 142 patients were 76.4 and 70.1 %, respectively, lying comfortably within the 95 % confidence interval (CI) of the observed survival rate estimates (72.8-86.2 and 68.6-83.2 %, respectively). In the pathological model incorporating microvascular invasion, the mean anticipated survival rate at 5 years of 120 patients with viable nodules on explants was 69.5 %, also lying inside the 95 % CI of the actuarial rates (67.9-83.5 %). The c-indices as measures of discriminatory power were 0.61 and 0.62, respectively, for the 3- and 5-year predictions in the radiological model, and 0.72 for the 5-year prediction in the pathological model. The corresponding findings were similar for subgroups with hepatitis B virus infection and undergoing living-donor LT.

CONCLUSIONS

The Metroticket calculation based on explant data accurately predicts post-LT survival of HCC patients with prior TACE. Imaging estimate-based predictions before LT appear to provide poorer discrimination than calibration.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma from living-donor vs. deceased donor

With the increasing prevalence of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the possible increased recurrence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in LDLT recipients in comparison with deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients has become a matter of debate. The aim of this review is to encompass current opinions and clinical reports regarding differences in the outcome, especially the recurrence of HCC, between LDLT and DDLT. In reviewing literatures, some studies reported increased recurrence rates among LDLT recipients, a majority of authors, including large database studies, reported comparable recurrence-free survival and recurrence rates between LDLT and DDLT. The postulated reasons for the increased recurrence in LDLT were the effect of graft regeneration on tumor progression, fast-tracking of patients into liver transplantation, and the more aggressive tumor characteristics in LDLT, however, many Asian LDLT centers have reported the comparable outcomes with those of DDLT in Western countries, even with the expanded criteria for HCC. In the absence of a prospective study regarding the use of LDLT versus DDLT for HCC patients, there is no evidence to support the higher HCC recurrence after LDLT than DDLT, and LDLT remains a reasonable treatment option for HCC patients with cirrhosis, especially in Asian countries where the number of deceased donor is scarce.

Current Treatment Approaches to HCC with a Special Consideration to Transplantation

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. The mainstay of treatment of HCC has been both resectional and transplantation surgery. It is well known that, in selected, optimized patients, hepatectomy for HCC may be an option, even in patients with underlying cirrhosis. Resectable patients with early HCC and underlying liver disease are however increasingly being considered for transplantation because of potential for better disease-free survival and resolution of underlying liver disease, although this approach is limited by the availability of donor livers, especially in resectable patients. Outcomes following liver transplantation improved dramatically for patients with HCC following the implementation of the Milan criteria in the late 1990s. Ever since, the rather restrictive nature of the Milan criteria has been challenged with good outcomes. There has also been an increase in the donor pool with marginal donors including organs retrieved following cardiac death being used. Even so, patients still continue to die while waiting for a liver transplant. In order to reduce this attrition, bridging techniques and methods for downstaging disease have evolved. Additionally new techniques for organ preservation have increased the prospect of this potentially curative procedure being available for a greater number of patients.

Living vs. deceased-donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

With the scarcity of deceased donor liver grafts, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is gaining popularity as an alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, as the evidence of cases of LDLT accumulates, several authors have reported higher HCC recurrence rates after LDLT. The suggested reasons for the higher recurrence rates following LDLT are related to the small-for-size graft in LDLT, surgical procedures that are specific to LDLT, and the fast-track to LDLT. Fast-tracking to LDLT may not allow sufficient time for evaluation of the biological aggressiveness of tumors, which may result in high recurrence rates due to inclusion of patients with more inherently aggressive tumors. Actually, some studies that reported higher recurrence rates with LDLT included a larger number of cases of HCC with microvascular invasion or poorly differentiated HCC. In order to exclude biologically aggressive HCC preoperatively, selection criteria incorporating tumor markers, such as alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP), as well as morphological tumor number and size have been proposed. With more reliable selection criteria incorporating biological markers to eliminate biologically aggressive HCC, LDLT can be a viable treatment option for patients with HCC, providing similar recurrence rates as those achieved with DDLT.

Living donor liver transplantation in the USA

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) accounts for a small volume of the transplants in the USA. Due to the current liver allocation system based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), LDLT has a unique role in providing life-saving transplantation for patients with low MELD scores and significant complications from portal hypertension, as well as select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Donor safety is paramount and has been a topic of much discussion in the transplant community as well as the general media. The donor risk appears to be low overall, with a favorable long-term quality of life. The latest trend has been a gradual shift from right-lobe grafts to left-lobe grafts to reduce donor risk, provided that the left lobe can provide adequate liver volume for the recipient.

Impact of non-oncological factors on tumor recurrence after liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary neoplasm of the liver and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Liver transplantation (LT) has become one of the best curative therapeutic options for patients with HCC, although tumor recurrence after LT is a major and unaddressed cause of mortality. Furthermore, the factors that are associated with recurrence are not fully understood, and most previous studies have focused on the biological properties of HCC, such as the number and size of the HCC nodules, the degree of differentiation, the presence of hepatic vascular invasion, elevated serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein, and the tumor stage outside of the Milan criteria. Thus, little attention has been given to factors that are not directly related to HCC (i.e., "non-oncological factors"), which have emerged as predictors of tumor recurrence. This review was performed to assess the effects of non-oncological factors on tumor recurrence after LT. The identification of these factors may provide new research directions and clinical strategies for the prophylaxis and surveillance of tumor recurrence after LT, which can help reduce recurrence and improve patient survival.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: Where are we?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second cause of death due to malignancy in the world, following lung cancer. The geographic distribution of this disease accompanies its principal risk factors: Chronic hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infection, alcoholism, aflatoxin B1 intoxication, liver cirrhosis, and some genetic attributes. Recently, type II diabetes has been shown to be a risk factor for HCC together with obesity and metabolic syndrome. Although the risk factors are quite well known and it is possible to diagnose HCC when the tumor is less than 1 cm diameter, it remains elusive at the beginning and treatment is often unsuccessful. Liver transplantation is thus far considered the best treatment for HCC as it cures HCC and the underlying liver disease. Using the Milan criteria, overall survival after liver transplantation for HCC is about 70% after 5 years. Many attempts have been made to go beyond the Milan Criteria and according to recent works reasonably good results have been achieved by using a histochemical marker such as cytokeratine 19 and the so-called "up to seven criteria" to divide patients into categories according to their risk of relapse. In addition to liver transplantation other therapies have been proposed such as resection, tumor ablation by different means, embolization and chemotherapy. An important step in the treatment of advanced HCC has been the introduction of sorafenib, the first oral, systemic drug that has provided significant improvement in survival. Treatment of HCC patients must be multidisciplinary and by using the different approaches discussed in this review it is possible to offer prolonged survival and quite good and sometimes even excellent quality of life to many patients.

Donor miR-196a-2 polymorphism is associated with hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation in a Han Chinese population

Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of death after liver transplantation (LT). We aim to evaluate the association of donor and recipient single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with the risk of HCC recurrence after LT. A total of 155 adult patients who underwent primary LT for HCC were enrolled. Ten SNPs associated with HCC susceptibility were genotyped. Patients who received donor livers with the rs11614913 homozygous CC variant presented significantly higher recurrence rates of HCC (41.7 vs. 15.3%, p = 0.009) and lower cumulative tumor-free survival (p = 0.005) than those who received TT wild-type donor livers. The donor rs11614913 genetic variant was an independent risk factor for HCC recurrence (odds ratio = 2 per each C allele, p < 0.05) and could significantly improve the predictive abilities of clinical models (Milan, UCSF and Hangzhou criteria). Donor livers homozygous for rs11614913 CC were associated with a higher miR-196a expression than TT (p = 0.002). In a lentiviral infection of mouse liver and orthotopic mouse model of HCC, the liver miR-196a overexpression group showed a significantly larger tumor size than the control group (p = 0.001). There is a close association between the tumor size and expression of miR-196a in the liver (r = 0.693, p = 0.001). In conclusion, the donor miR-196a-2 rs11614913 polymorphism is associated with HCC recurrence after LT and improves the predictive value of clinical models. The overexpression of miR-196a in the liver might provide a tumor-favorable environment for the development of HCC.

Diagnostic and therapeutic management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an increasing health problem, representing the second cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The major risk factor for HCC is cirrhosis. In developing countries, viral hepatitis represent the major risk factor, whereas in developed countries, the epidemic of obesity, diabetes and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis contribute to the observed increase in HCC incidence. Cirrhotic patients are recommended to undergo HCC surveillance by abdominal ultrasounds at 6-mo intervals. The current diagnostic algorithms for HCC rely on typical radiological hallmarks in dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, while the use of α-fetoprotein as an independent tool for HCC surveillance is not recommended by current guidelines due to its low sensitivity and specificity. Early diagnosis is crucial for curative treatments. Surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation and liver transplantation are considered the cornerstones of curative therapy, while for patients with more advanced HCC recommended options include sorafenib and trans-arterial chemo-embolization. A multidisciplinary team, consisting of hepatologists, surgeons, radiologists, oncologists and pathologists, is fundamental for a correct management. In this paper, we review the diagnostic and therapeutic management of HCC, with a focus on the most recent evidences and recommendations from guidelines.

Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation: an update

Liver transplantation is the only curative alternative for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are not eligible for resection and/or with decompensated cirrhosis. According to Milan criteria the 5-year survival rate is 70-85%, with a recurrence-free survival of 75%. However, HCC recurrence rate after liver transplantation remains a significant problem in the clinical practice. The prognosis in patients with HCC recurrence is poor. The treatment of choice for HCC recurrence is surgery, but it seems that a systemic treatment based on combination of an mTOR inhibitor with sorafenib can be used. Data on safety and efficacy are limited, clinical monitoring is necessary. The aim of this review is to underline the main concerns, pitfalls and warnings for these patients.

Current developments in pediatric liver transplantation

In 1953, the pioneer of human orthotopic liver transplantation (LT), Thomas E Starzl, was the first to attempt an orthotopic liver transplant into a 3 years old patient suffering from biliary atresia. Thus, the first LT in humans was attempted in a disease, which, up until today, remains the main indication for pediatric LT (pLT). During the last sixty years, refinements in diagnostics and surgical technique, the introduction of new immunosuppressive medications and improvements in perioperative pediatric care have established LT as routine procedure for childhood acute and chronic liver failure as well as inherited liver diseases. In contrast to adult recipients, pLT differs greatly in indications for LT, allocation practice, surgical technique, immunosuppression and post-operative life-long aftercare. Many aspects are focus of ongoing preclinical and clinical research. The present review gives an overview of current developments and the clinical outcome of pLT, with a focus on alternatives to full-size deceased-donor organ transplantation.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma comparing the Milan, UCSF, and Asan criteria: long-term follow-up of a Western single institutional experience

BACKGROUND

In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the outcome after liver transplantation (LT) is excellent if tumor characteristics are within the Milan criteria (MC). Expanded Asan criteria (AC) have not yet been validated in Western countries.

METHODS

A total of 76 patients with HCC underwent LT. Patients were divided and compared according to Milan, UCSF, and Asan criteria. Differences between pre- and post-operative assessment were evaluated. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between groups. Predictors of recurrence were investigated.

RESULTS

Asan criteria provided 26% and 15% more criteria-fitting patients than MC and UCSF pre-operatively while 49% and 35% at pathological evaluation. Discrepancy between pre- and post-operative evaluation was 32% for MC, 33% for UCSF, and 18% for AC (p = 0.06). After a median follow-up of 70.5 months, patients exceeding MC but fulfilling Asan had comparable 5-yr OS and DFS to patients fulfilling MC (p = 0.17; p = 0.29). Patients exceeding UCSF but fulfilling AC had comparable 5-yr OS and DFS to patients fulfilling UCSF (p = 0.26; p = 0.32). Number of nodules, macro-vascular invasion, capsular invasion, and exceeding AC predicted recurrence at multivariate analysis (p = 0.01, 0.03, 0.01, 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The extension to AC allows increasing the number of patients eligible for LT without affecting OS and DFS.

Hong Kong consensus recommendations on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is particularly prevalent in Hong Kong because of the high prevalence of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection; HCC is the fourth commonest cancer in men and the seventh commonest in women, and it is the third leading cause of cancer death in Hong Kong. The full spectrum of treatment modalities for HCC is available locally; however, there is currently no local consensus document detailing how these modalities should be used.

SUMMARY

In a series of meetings held between May and October 2013, a multidisciplinary group of Hong Kong clinicians - liver surgeons, medical oncologists, clinical oncologists, hepatologists, and interventional radiologists - convened to formulate local recommendations on HCC management. These recommendations consolidate the most current evidence pertaining to HCC treatment modalities, together with the latest thinking of practicing clinicians engaged in HCC management, and give detailed guidance on how to deploy these modalities effectively for patients in various disease stages.

KEY MESSAGES

Distinct from other regional guidelines, these recommendations provide guidance on the use of antiviral therapy to reduce the incidence of HCC in CHB patients with cirrhosis and to reduce recurrence of CHB-related HCC.

Living-donor vs deceased-donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

With the increasing prevalence of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), some authors have reported a potential increase in the HCC recurrence rates among LDLT recipients compared to deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients. The aim of this review is to encompass current opinions and clinical reports regarding differences in the outcome, especially the recurrence of HCC, between LDLT and DDLT. While some studies report impaired recurrence - free survival and increased recurrence rates among LDLT recipients, others, including large database studies, report comparable recurrence - free survival and recurrence rates between LDLT and DDLT. Studies supporting the increased recurrence in LDLT have linked graft regeneration to tumor progression, but we found no association between graft regeneration/initial graft volume and tumor recurrence among our 125 consecutive LDLTs for HCC cases. In the absence of a prospective study regarding the use of LDLT vs DDLT for HCC patients, there is no evidence to support the higher HCC recurrence after LDLT than DDLT, and LDLT remains a reasonable treatment option for HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Living donor liver transplantation does not increase tumor recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma compared to deceased donor transplantation

AIM: To compare the recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-positive hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).

METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical data from 408 liver cancer patients from February 1999 to September 2012. We used the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test to analyze the characteristics of LDLT and DDLT. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the RFS and OS in HCC.

RESULTS: Three hundred sixty HBV-positive patients (276 DDLT and 84 LDLT) were included in this study. The mean follow-up time was 27.1 mo (range 1.1-130.8 mo). One hundred eighty-five (51.2%) patients died during follow-up. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates for LDLT were 85.2%, 55.7%, and 52.9%, respectively; for DDLT, the RFS rates were 73.2%, 49.1%, and 45.3% (P = 0.115). The OS rates were similar between the LDLT and DDLT recipients, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 81.8%, 49.5%, and 43.0% vs 69.5%, 43.0%, and 38.3%, respectively (P = 0.30). The outcomes of HCC according to the Milan criteria after LDLT and DDLT were not significantly different (for LDLT: 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS: 94.7%, 78.7%, and 78.7% vs 89.2%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, P = 0.50; for DDLT: 86.1%, 68.8%, and 68.8% vs 80.5%, 62.2%, and 59.8% P = 0.53).

CONCLUSION: The outcomes of LDLT for HCC are not worse compared to the outcomes of DDLT. LDLT does not increase tumor recurrence of HCC compared to DDLT.

Challenges in living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation is a procedure that has waned in its application over the past decade but remains a beneficial procedure for properly selected candidates. This review discusses some of the newer, relevant studies in the field, focusing on outcomes with hepatocellular carcinoma, ABO-incompatible transplant, and issues in donor complications and safety.

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

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

Hepatic venous congestion in living donor grafts in liver transplantation: is there an effect on hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence?

A certain degree of graft congestion in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a right liver graft may be inevitable because of the mismatch between the inflow and outflow structures of the liver. The subsequent inflammatory reaction and rapid regeneration of the graft have been suggested as causes of tumor recurrence. Therefore, we investigated the influence of graft congestion on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after LDLT. Two hundred eighty-nine LDLT patients for HCC within the University of California San Francisco criteria between November 1999 and February 2012 were investigated. Patients were assigned to groups on the basis of the degree of congestion (≤10% for group A and >10% for group B), which was determined by 3-dimensional reconstruction of posttransplant multidetector helical computed tomography within 2 weeks. Perioperative characteristics, regeneration rates after 6 months, and recurrence rates were compared between the groups, and a multivariate analysis of the influence of congestion on tumor recurrence was subsequently completed. No significant difference in demographics was found. Group B had more elevated peak posttransplant levels of aspartate aminotransferase (296.26 versus 227.53, P = 0.05), alanine aminotransferase (382.91 versus 276.98, P = 0.04), and highly selective C-reactive protein (5.41 versus 3.55, P < 0.001); a higher noncongestive section regeneration rate (25.8% versus 13.6%, P = 0.012); and a higher recurrence rate (30.4% versus 9.7%, P = 0.01) than group A. Graft congestion > 10% [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-8.35, P = 0.03], microvascular invasion (HR = 5.43, 95% CI = 2.04-14.44, P < 0.01), and an alpha-fetoprotein level > 200 IU/L (HR = 2.98, 95% CI = 1.10-8.03, P = 0.03) were significantly related to tumor recurrence. Liver congestion may promote the recurrence of HCC after LDLT; therefore, it should be minimized.

Section 2. Small-for-size liver graft and hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence

Liver transplantation (LT) is the most effective treatment for small and unresectable hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). With scarcity of deceased donor livers, living donor LT (LDLT) is the alternative to deceased donor LT (DDLT). Animal studies have suggested that regeneration of the partial liver graft encourages HCC recurrence. Increased recurrence was observed in a few studies. Thus, there is the belief that the use of small-for-size graft carries the potential risk of disease recurrence. Nevertheless, those studies were retrospective, with sample sizes not large enough for conclusions.Living donor LT can be performed when a suitable donor is available. The fast tracking of patients for transplantation without a period of observation is an issue. Meta-analyses, however, showed no significant increase in HCC recurrence after LDLT. Patients listed for DDLT and without suitable living donors have to endure a long wait, during which the aggressiveness of their HCC is observed. Such observation almost guarantees slow disease progression when they get transplanted. Nevertheless, a long wait has the disadvantage of transplanting patients with more advanced tumors, although still within standard criteria. Judicious use of deceased donor grafts is the responsibility of the transplant community.Living donor LT for HCC should only be performed after careful assessment of the recipient and tumor status. Although tumor size and number are references widely adopted in tumor staging, biological staging of tumors using positron emission tomography could provide additional information of tumor behavior. A high level of serum α-fetoprotein also warns against LT because it is predictive of a high HCC recurrence rate.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary tumor of the liver and is considered an aggressive tumor with mean survival estimated between 6 and 20 months. Hepatitis B and C are the most common etiologies. Pathological, laboratory and radiologic imaging all aid in diagnosis but much controversy exists in the utilization of any given modality. Many treatment options exist for management of HCC, each has its own limitation. Liver transplantation offers the most reasonable expectation for curative treatment while simultaneously removing the burden of the diseased liver. Still, advancements in the field have thus far not yet matched its potential, although new immunosuppressive and chemotherapy regimen may allow transplantation to push the envelope once again.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: how far have we come and what is the future?

SUMMARY: 

Liver transplantation is the best treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma in the setting of chronic liver disease, completely removing malignancy and underlying diseased liver tissue. Technical aspects of liver transplantation have improved over the years, along with outcomes. But challenges continue in the areas of expanding existing indications for transplant with limited organ supply, calling for optimization of patient selection and the development of alternative or adjunctive treatment options. Expansion of existing transplant criteria will help identify patients most likely to have good outcomes. Locoregional and systemic treatments showing therapeutic promise are being investigated for use in achieving acceptable oncologic effect. Improvements in post-transplant treatment and continued attempts to enlarge the donor pool will continue to provide avenues for further improvements in outcomes.

Liver transplantation for malignancy: Current treatment strategies and future perspectives

In 1967, Starzl et al performed the first successful liver transplantation for a patient diagnosed with hepatoblastoma. In the following, liver transplantation was considered ideal for complete tumor resection and potential cure from primary hepatic malignancies. Several reports of liver transplantation for primary and metastatic liver cancer however showed disappointing results and the strategy was soon dismissed. In 1996, Mazzaferro et al introduced the Milan criteria, offering liver transplantation to patients diagnosed with limited hepatocellular carcinoma. Since then, liver transplantation for malignant disease is an ongoing subject of preclinical and clinical research. In this context, several aspects must be considered: (1) Given the shortage of deceased-donor organs, long-term overall and disease free survival should be comparable with results obtained in patients transplanted for non-malignant disease; (2) In this regard, living-donor liver transplantation may in selected patients help to solve the ethical dilemma of optimal individual patient treatment vs organ allocation justice; and (3) Ongoing research focusing on perioperative therapy and anti-proliferative immunosuppressive regimens may further reduce tumor recurrence in patients transplanted for malignant disease and thus improve overall survival. The present review gives an overview of current indications and future perspectives of liver transplantation for malignant disease.

Ethnic disparities and liver transplantation rates in hepatocellular carcinoma patients in the recent era: results from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. After the implementation of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease system, rates of liver transplantation (LT) for HCC patients increased. However, it is not clear whether this trend has continued into recent times. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry (1998-2010), we retrospectively analyzed trends for LT among HCC patients in 3 time periods: 1998-2003, 2004-2008, and 2009-2010. A total of 60,772 HCC patients were identified. In the more recent time periods, the proportion of localized-stage HCC increased (45.0% in 1998-2003, 50.4% in 2004-2008, and 51.7% in 2009-2010; P < 0.001). Although the proportion of HCC patients within the Milan criteria also increased with time (22.8% in 1998-2003, 31.8% in 2004-2008, and 37.1% in 2009-2010; P < 0.001), the proportion of those patients undergoing LT increased from 1998-2003 to 2004-2008 but decreased from 2004-2008 to 2009-2010. However, the actual frequencies of LT were similar in 2004-2008 (208.2 per year) and 2009-2010 (201.5 per year). A multivariate logistic regression, including sex, age, ethnicity, Milan criteria, tumor stage, tumor size and number, and time periods, demonstrated a lower likelihood of LT in 2009-2010 versus 1998-2003 [odds ratio (OR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.57-0.71]. Blacks (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.41-0.56), Asians (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.57-0.73), and Hispanics (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.68-0.85) were all less likely to undergo LT in comparison with non-Hispanic whites. Despite the increasing proportion of patients with HCC diagnosed at an earlier stage, LT rates declined in the most recent era. In addition, ethnic minorities were significantly less likely to undergo LT. The growing imbalance between the number of transplant-eligible HCC patients and the shortage of donor livers emphasizes the need to improve donor availability and curative alternatives to LT.

Living-donor or deceased-donor liver transplantation for hepatic carcinoma: A case-matched comparison

AIM: To compare the surgical outcomes between living-donor and deceased-donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatic carcinoma.

METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2010, 257 patients with pathologically confirmed hepatic carcinoma met the eligibility criteria of the study. Forty patients who underwent living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) constituted the LDLT group, and deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) was performed in 217 patients. Patients in the LDLT group were randomly matched (1:2) to patients who underwent DDLT using a multivariate case-matched method, so 40 patients in the LDLT group and 80 patients in the DDLT group were enrolled into the study. We compared the two groups in terms of clinicopathological characteristics, postoperative complications, long-term cumulative survival and relapse-free survival outcomes. The modified Clavien-Dindo classification system of surgical complications was used to evaluate the severity of perioperative complications. Furthermore, we determined the difference in the overall biliary complication rates in the perioperative and follow-up periods between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

RESULTS: The clinicopathological characteristics of the enrolled patients were comparable between the two groups. The duration of operation was significantly longer (553 min vs 445 min, P < 0.001) in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group. Estimated blood loss (1188 mL vs 1035 mL, P = 0.055) and the proportion of patients with intraoperative transfusion (60.0% vs 43.8%, P = 0.093) were slightly but not significantly greater in the LDLT group. In contrast to DDLT, LDLT was associated with a lower rate of perioperative grade II complications (45.0% vs 65.0%, P = 0.036) but a higher risk of overall biliary complications (27.5% vs 7.5%, P = 0.003). Nonetheless, 21 patients (52.5%) in the LDLT group and 46 patients (57.5%) in the DDLT group experienced perioperative complications, and overall perioperative complication rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.603). No significant difference was observed in 5-year overall survival (74.1% vs 66.6%, P = 0.372) or relapse-free survival (72.9% vs 70.9%, P = 0.749) between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

CONCLUSION: Although biliary complications were more common in the LDLT group, this group did not show any inferiority in long-term overall survival or relapse-free survival compared with DDLT.

Living-donor liver transplantation associated with higher incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence than deceased-donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is becoming an important tool in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment. However, the oncologic outcome between LDLT and deceased-donor LT (DDLT) for HCC remains controversial. This study aims to compare the HCC recurrence rates after LDLT versus DDLT.

METHODS

Two hundred sixteen patients (166 LDLTs and 50 DDLTs) who underwent LT for HCC within University of California-San Francisco criteria were retrospectively reviewed. LDLT patients were divided into two groups: small living-donor graft (LDG; graft-to-recipient body weight ratio <1.0, n=59) and nonsmall LDG (graft-to-recipient body weight ratio ≥1.0, n=107). Patients were further stratified into low- and high-risk settings by the number of risk factors for recurrence.

RESULTS

The recurrence-free survival was lower in LDLT compared with DDLT (88.6% and 80.7% vs. 96.0% and 94.0% at 1 and 5 years; P=0.045). There was no significant difference between two groups regarding the majority of clinical and tumor characteristics, with the exception of a higher proportion of microvascular invasion presence in LDLT. After the adjustment for microvascular invasion, LDLT was identified as an independent risk factor for recurrence. Moreover, recurrence-free survival between small and nonsmall LDG was not statistically significant. In low-risk setting (≤1 risk factor), LDLT showed comparable outcome with DDLT. However, the risk of recurrence was higher in LDLT than DDLT in high-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, LDLT showed poorer outcome than DDLT. This should be considered to select optimal strategy for HCC.

Deceased-donor split-liver transplantation in adult recipients: is the learning curve over?

BACKGROUND

Infants have the highest wait-list mortality of all liver transplantation candidates. Deceased-donor split-liver transplantation, a technique that provides both an adult and pediatric graft, might be the best way to decrease this disproportionate mortality. Yet concern for an increased risk to adult split recipients has discouraged its widespread adoption. We aimed to determine the current risk of graft failure in adult recipients after split-liver transplantation.

STUDY DESIGN

United Network for Organ Sharing data from 62,190 first-time adult recipients of deceased-donor liver transplants (1995-2010) were analyzed (889 split grafts). Bivariate risk factors (p < 0.2) were included in Cox proportional hazards models of the effect of transplant type on graft failure.

RESULTS

Split-liver recipients had an overall hazard ratio of graft failure of 1.26 (p < 0.001) compared with whole-liver recipients. The split-liver hazard ratio was 1.45 (p < 0.001) in the pre-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era (1995-2002) and 1.10 (p = 0.28) in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era (2002-2010). Interaction analyses suggested an increased risk of split-graft failure in status 1 recipients and those given an exception for hepatocellular carcinoma. Excluding higher-risk recipients, split and whole grafts had similar outcomes (hazard ratio = 0.94; p = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of graft failure is now similar between split and whole-liver recipients in the vast majority of cases, which demonstrates that the expansion of split-liver allocation might be possible without increasing the overall risk of long-term graft failure in adult recipients. Additional prospective analysis should examine if selection bias might account for the possible increase in risk for recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma or designated status 1.

Evaluation of eligibility criteria in living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma by α-SMA-positive cancer-associated fibroblasts

The eligibility criteria of liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) must clearly confirm the prognosis not only from pathological diagnosis but also from pre-operative imaging diagnosis. In the present study, we evaluated published eligibility criteria for LT based on both pre-operative imaging diagnosis and pathological diagnosis using living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients at our hospital by α-smooth muscle actin (SMA)-positive cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) in HCC. The Up-to-seven (Up-to-7), Asan and Tokyo criteria were evaluated, in both overall survival and HCC disease-free survival, to be statistically significantly beneficial criteria to define post-LDLT prognosis. Recipients only within Up-to-7 criteria based on both pre-operative imaging diagnosis and pathological diagnosis survived without HCC recurrence. Recipients with proliferation of α-SMA-positive CAFs in HCC had significantly poorer prognosis. All survival recipients without HCC recurrence, who were above the Up-to-7 criteria in pathological diagnosis, had no proliferation of α-SMA-positive CAFs. As a result of multivariate analysis, the significant independent factors defining prognosis of recipients after LDLT for HCC were Up-to-7 criteria and proliferation of α-SMA-positive CAFs. The ideal eligibility criteria for LDLT with HCC is Up-to-7 criteria and α-SMA-positive CAFs was considered to be an important factor in HCC recurrence. LDLT should be limited to recipients within Up-to-7 criteria or without proliferation of α-SMA-positive CAFs.

Up-to-seven criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma liver transplantation: A single center analysis

AIM: To detect whether the up-to-seven should be used as inclusion criteria for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS: Between April 2002 and July 2008, 220 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who were diagnosed with HCC and underwent liver transplantation (LT) at our liver transplantation center were included. These patients were divided into three groups according to the characteristics of their tumors (tumor diameter, tumor number): the Milan criteria group (Group 1), the in up-to-seven group (Group 2) and the out up-to-seven group (Group 3). Then, we compared long-term survival and tumor recurrence of these three groups.

RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of transplant recipients were comparable among these three groups, except for the type of liver graft (deceased donor liver transplant or live donor liver transplantation). There were also no significant differences in the pre-operative α-fetoprotein level. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival and tumor-free survival rate for the Milan criteria group were 94.8%, 91.4%, 89.7% and 91.4%, 86.2%, and 86.2% respectively; in the up-to-seven criteria group, these rates were 87.8%, 77.8%, and 76.6% and 85.6%, 75.6%, and 75.6% respectively (P < 0.05). However, the advanced HCC patients’ (in the group out of up-to-seven criteria) overall and tumor-free survival rates were much lower, at 75%, 53.3%, and 50% and 65.8%, 42.5%, and 41.7%, respectively (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Considering that patients in the up-to-seven criteria group exhibited a considerable but lower survival rate compared with the Milan criteria group, the up-to-seven criteria should be used carefully and selectively.