Is transarterial chemoembolization necessary before liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma?

Association between bridging therapy and posttransplant outcomes in patients with HCC within Milan criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Liver transplantation is the curative therapy of choice for patients with early-stage HCC. Locoregional therapies are often employed as a bridge to reduce the risk of waitlist dropout; however, their association with posttransplant outcomes is unclear. We conducted a systematic review using Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies published between database inception and August 2, 2023, which reported posttransplant recurrence-free survival and overall survival among patients transplanted for HCC within Milan criteria, stratified by receipt of bridging therapy. Pooled HRs were calculated for each outcome using the DerSimonian and Laird method for a random-effects model. We identified 38 studies, including 19,671 patients who received and 20,148 patients who did not receive bridging therapy. Bridging therapy was not associated with significant differences in recurrence-free survival (pooled HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77-1.08; I2 =39%) or overall survival (pooled HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.95-1.24; I2 =47%). Results were relatively consistent across subgroups, including geographic location and study period. Studies were discordant regarding the differential strength of association by pretreatment tumor burden and pathologic response, but potential benefits of locoregional therapy were mitigated in those who received 3 or more treatments. Adverse events were reported in a minority of studies, but when reported occurred in 6%-15% of the patients. Few studies reported loss to follow-up and most had a risk of residual confounding. Bridging therapy is not associated with improvements in posttransplant recurrence-free or overall survival among patients with HCC within Milan criteria. The risk-benefit ratio of bridging therapy likely differs based on the risk of waitlist dropout.

Transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation and risk of post-transplant vascular complications: a multicentre observational cohort and propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) on the waiting list for liver transplantation may be associated with an increased risk for hepatic artery complications. The present study aims to assess the risk for, primarily, intraoperative technical hepatic artery problems and, secondarily, postoperative hepatic artery complications encountered in patients who received TACE before liver transplantation.

METHODS

Available data from HCC liver transplantation recipients across six European centres from January 2007 to December 2018 were analysed in a 1 : 1 propensity score-matched cohort (TACE versus no TACE). Incidences of intraoperative hepatic artery interventions and postoperative hepatic artery complications were compared.

RESULTS

Data on postoperative hepatic artery complications were available in all 876 patients (425 patients with TACE and 451 patients without TACE). Fifty-eight (6.6 per cent) patients experienced postoperative hepatic artery complications. In total 253 patients who had undergone TACE could be matched to controls. In the matched cohort TACE was not associated with a composite of hepatic artery complications (OR 1.73, 95 per cent c.i. 0.82 to 3.63, P = 0.149). Data on intraoperative hepatic artery interventions were available in 825 patients (422 patients with TACE and 403 without TACE). Intraoperative hepatic artery interventions were necessary in 69 (8.4 per cent) patients. In the matched cohort TACE was not associated with an increased incidence of intraoperative hepatic artery interventions (OR 0.94, 95 per cent c.i. 0.49 to 1.83, P = 0.870).

CONCLUSION

In otherwise matched patients with HCC intended for liver transplantation, TACE treatment before transplantation was not associated with higher risk of technical vascular issues or hepatic artery complications.

Long-term survival and postoperative complications of pre-liver transplantation transarterial chemoembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to conduct a contemporary systematic review of high quality non-randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of pre-liver transplantation (LT) transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) on long-term survival and complications of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

BACKGROUND

TACE is used as a neoadjuvant therapy to mitigate waitlist drop-out for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Previous studies have conflicting conclusions on the effect of TACE on long-term survival and complications of HCC patients undergoing LT.

METHODS

CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Baseline characteristics included number of patients outside Milan criteria, tumour diameter, MELD score, and time on the waiting list. Primary outcomes included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included tumour recurrence, 30-day postoperative mortality, and hepatic artery and biliary complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-one high-quality NRCTs representing 8242 patients were included. Tumour diameter was significantly larger in TACE patients (3.49 cm vs 3.15 cm, P = 0.02) and time on the waiting list was significantly longer in TACE patients (4.87 months vs 3.46 months, P = 0.05), while MELD score was significantly higher in non-TACE patients (10.81 vs 12.35, P = 0.005). All primary and secondary outcomes displayed non-significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with TACE had similar survival and postoperative outcomes to non-TACE patients, however, they had worse prognostic features compared to non-TACE patients. These findings strongly support the current US and European clinical practice guidelines that neoadjuvant TACE can be used for patients with longer expected waiting list times (specifically >6 months). Randomised controlled trials would be needed to increase the quality of evidence.

Neoadjuvant Transarterial Chemoembolization Improves Survival After Liver Transplant in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Our aims were to determine whether transarterial chemoembolization before liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma improves posttransplant survival and whether patients downstaged by transarterial chemoembolization within Milan criteria have a posttransplant survival benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, survival rates of 87 patients treated with and 68 patients not treated with transarterial chemoembolization before liver transplant were compared using 2-sample t tests and multivariate Cox regression. We also compared posttransplant survival of patients within Milan criteria versus those downstaged after transarterial chemoembolization. We controlled for disease severity by assessing, among other variables, tumor diameter before and at transplant and alpha-fetoprotein levels before transplant and transarterial chemoembolization.

RESULTS

Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 84%, 71%, and 63%, respectively. These rates were 91%, 78%, and 73% for patients who received and 76%, 63%, and 54% for patients who did not receive transarterial chemoembolization. Hazard ratios were 0.56 for having versus not having transarterial chemoembolization (P = .04), 1.06 for total tumor diameter on explantation (P = .01), 1.5 for largest tumor > 3 cm (P = .15), and 2.9 for pretransplant alpha-fetoprotein > 659 ng/mL (P = .006). A higher end-stage liver disease score correlated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.53; P < .001). Laboratory values, lipiodol uptake, imaging response, and downstaging into Milan criteria were not correlated with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who were treated with neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization had better survival rates posttransplant than those not treated with transarterial chemoembolization. A high pretransplant alpha-fetoprotein level was negatively correlated with survival. Patients downstaged to Milan criteria after transarterial chemoembolization fared equally well versus those who met Milan criteria initially. Pretreatment with transarterial chemoembolization was positively correlated with survival posttransplant, with patients having a 44% reduction in posttransplant mortality.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Posttransplant Hepatic Artery and Biliary Complications in Patients Treated With Transarterial Chemoembolization Before Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatic artery complications are feared complications after liver transplantation and may compromise the biliary tract, graft, and patient survival. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare risk of hepatic artery and biliary complications after liver transplantation in patients who underwent neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) versus no TACE.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE OvidSP, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases to identify studies concerning hepatocellular cancer patients undergoing preliver transplantation TACE. Quality assessment of studies was done by the validated checklist of Downs and Black. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the incidence of all hepatic artery complications, hepatic artery thrombosis, and biliary tract complications, using binary random-effect models.

RESULTS

Fourteen retrospective studies, representing 1122 TACE patients, met the inclusion criteria. Postoperative hepatic artery complications consisted of hepatic artery thrombosis, stenosis, and (pseudo)-aneurysms. Preliver transplantation TACE was significantly associated with occurrence of posttransplant hepatic artery complications (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.26; P = 0.02). No significant association between neoadjuvant TACE and hepatic artery thrombosis alone or biliary tract complications was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with TACE before liver transplantation may be at increased risk for development of hepatic artery complications after liver transplantation.

Does neoadjuvant doxorubicin drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization improve survival in patients undergoing liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma?

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma who did and did not have neoadjuvant doxorubicin drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 94 patients with HCC transplanted between 2000 and 2014 in a single tertiary center. Pre- and postoperative features, DFS and OS were compared between patients who received pre-OLT DEB-TACE (n=34, DEB-TACE group) and those who did not (n=60, non-TACE group). Radiologic and histologic response to neoadjuvant treatment as well as its complications were also studied.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in post-transplantation DFS and OS rates between groups (5-year DFS: 70% in DEB-TACE group vs. 63% in non-TACE group, P = 0.454; 5-year OS: 70% in DEB-TACE group vs. 65% in non-TACE group, P = 0.532). The DEB-TACE group had longer OLT waiting time compared with the non-TACE group (110 vs. 72 days; P = 0.01). On univariate and multivariate analyses, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels >500 ng/mL prior to OLT were associated with decreased OS and DFS regardless of neoadjuvant approach (hazard ratio of 6, P = 0.001 and 5.5, P = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent neoadjuvant DEB-TACE and OLT for hepatocellular carcinoma had no statistically different OS or DFS at 3 and 5 years from patients undergoing OLT alone.

Transarterial chemoembolization prior to liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A debate exists over whether using preoperative transarterial chemoembolization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation. Numerous studies have been investigating on this, but there is still no unanimous conclusion about the effect of preoperative transarterial chemoembolization. We conducted the meta-analysis of all available studies to systematically evaluate the influence of preoperative transarterial chemoembolization on liver transplant.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed by two authors (Si TF. and Guan RY.) through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Science Citation Index Expanded, combined with Manual Retrieval and Cited Reference Search. The searching cut-off date was 2016/07/31, and all the data obtained were statistically analyzed using Review Manager version 5.1 software (Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011) recommended by Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

The study showed that there was no difference between the experimental group and the control group on perioperative mortality (RR = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.49-2.48], P = 0.82) or biliary complications (RR = 0.96, 95%CI = [0.66-1.39], P = 0.83). Preoperative transarterial chemoembolization had no obvious effect on improving overall survival (HR = 1.05, 95%CI = [0.65-1.72], P = 0. 83) but would result in a higher rate of vascular complications (RR = 2.01, 95%CI = [1.23-3.27], P = 0.005) and a reduction of disease free survival (HR = 1.66, 95%CI = [1.02-2.70], P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis also revealed that patients from transarterial chemoembolization group in Asia had a much lower overall survival rate (HR = 2.65, 95%CI = [1.49-4.71], P = 0.0009) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the possible adverse impacts on liver transplantation and the variation in sensitivity to transarterial chemoembolization, clinicians should be more cautious when considering transarterial chemoembolization as the bridging therapy for patients in the waiting list.

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

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

Preoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization cannot improve the long term outcome of radical therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma

Combinations of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radical therapies (pretransplantation, resection and radiofrequency ablation) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been reported as controversial issues in recent years. A consecutive sample of 1560 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A/B HCC who underwent solitary Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), resection or liver transplantation (LT) or adjuvant pre-operative TACE were included. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates and tumor-free survival rates were comparable between the solitary radical therapy group and TACE combined group in the whole group and in each of the subgroups (RFA, resection and LT) (P > 0.05). In the subgroup analysis, according to BCLC stage A or B, the advantages of adjuvant TACE were also not observed (P > 0.05). A Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) more than 4, multiple tumor targets, BCLC stage B, and poor histological grade were significant contributors to the overall and tumor-free survival rates. In conclusions, our results indicated that preoperative adjuvant TACE did not prolong long-term overall or tumor-free survival, but LT should nevertheless be considered the first choice for BCLC stage A or B HCC patients. Radical therapies should be performed very carefully in BCLC stage B HCC patients.

Bridging locoregional therapy: Longitudinal trends and outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

The purpose of this article is to analyze longitudinal trends in locoregional therapy (LRT) use and review locoregional therapy's role in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to orthotropic liver transplantation Porrett et al. (2006) . LRT has a role in both bridge to transplantation and downstaging of patients not initially meeting Milan or UCSF Criteria. Due to the lack of randomized controlled trials, no specific bridging LRT modality is recommended over another for treating patients on the waiting list, however each modality has unique and patient-specific advantages. Pre-transplant LRT use in the United States has increased dramatically over the last two decades with more than 50% of the currently listed patients receiving LRT Freeman et al. (2008) . Despite these national trends, significant differences in LRT utilization, referral patterns, recurrence rates and survival have been observed among UNOS regions, socioeconomic levels and races. The use of LRT as a biologic selection tool based on response to treatment has shown promising results in its ability to predict successful post-transplant outcomes.

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

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

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

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

Transarterial embolization as neo-adjuvant therapy pretransplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Neo-adjuvant transarterial therapies are commonly used for patients with HCC in the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT) to delay tumour progression, however, their effectiveness is not well-established. We studied the effect of pre-LT transarterial therapies on post-LT HCC recurrence, using the explanted liver histology to assess therapeutic efficacy and the predictors of response to these therapies.

METHODS

We included 150 consecutive patients from our prospectively compiled database, listed for liver transplantation using the Milan criteria. Transarterial embolization without chemotherapeutic agents was the transarterial therapy used as standard of care. PVA particles were the embolizing agent of choice.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven (45%) patients had TAE as bridging therapy to liver transplantation, of which 60 were transplanted after 2001. The majority of patients (36, 54%) had partial tumour necrosis after transarterial therapy, whereas 22 (33%) had complete tumour necrosis and 9 (13%) had no necrosis. HCC post-transplant recurrence was independently associated with no neo-adjuvant transarterial therapy (OR 5.395, 95% CI 1.289-22.577; P = 0.021) and the total radiological size of HCC nodules (OR 1.037, 95% CI 1.006-1.069; P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-transplant TAE with the more permanently occluding PVA particles significantly reduces post-transplant HCC recurrence in patients within the Milan criteria.

Sorafenib delays recurrence and metastasis after liver transplantation in a rat model of hepatocellular carcinoma with high expression of phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase

Liver transplantation (LT) is one of the curative treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, cancer recurrence and metastasis after LT are common in some HCC patients with high-risk factors (even in those within the Milan criteria). It remains unclear whether adjuvant therapy with sorafenib inhibits HCC recurrence and metastasis after LT. Therefore, we performed orthotopic LT in an August Irish Copenhagen (ACI) rat model of HCC. Because LT involves immune rejection and tolerance and it is unknown whether sorafenib influences the immune response, we also investigated the effects of sorafenib on immune balance. In this study, we established an allogeneic rat LT model in which liver grafts were taken from Lewis rats and transplanted into ACI rats with orthotopic HCC, and they were administered cyclosporine A to prevent acute allograft rejection. From day 7 after LT, sorafenib was administrated at 30 mg/kg/day for 3 weeks. Our results showed that the serum levels of vascular endothelial growth factor and hepatocyte growth factor significantly increased after LT, and the T helper 1 (T(h)1)/T helper 2 (T(h)2) immune balance was shifted toward a T(h)2 response after immunosuppressant administration. In comparison with controls, the rats in the sorafenib group showed significantly inhibited extracellular signal-regulated kinase phosphorylation and improved progression-free survival and overall survival. The tumor proliferation rate and angiogenesis in posttransplant recurrent tumor tissues decreased in the sorafenib group, and the tumor apoptosis rate increased. There was no significant difference in the T(h)1/T(h)2 immune balance between the sorafenib and control groups. In conclusion, adjuvant therapy with sorafenib is highly effective at inhibiting cancer recurrence and metastasis without influencing the immune balance after LT for HCC with high expression of phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase. This study suggests that sorafenib may have potential, particularly as part of a stratified medicine approach to HCC treatment after LT.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization on tumor recurrence and patient survival after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) has gained wide acceptance as a bridge to liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Aim of this analysis was to compare long-term results with and without neoadjuvant TACE and to identify subgroups, which particularly benefit from TACE. Patients with HCC transplanted at our center were retrospectively analyzed. The following were excluded to increase consistency: incidental-HCC, Child-C, living-related-LT, other HCC-specific-treatment. Of 336 patients, 177 were subject of this analysis, 71 received TACE and 106 no HCC therapy. Patients with and without TACE showed similar five-yr survival (73/67%) and recurrence rates (23/29%). Progression on the waiting list was associated with a higher recurrence rate in the TACE (50 vs.12%) and the non-TACE group (40 vs. 22%). HCC recurrence was reduced in patients inside Milan (0.053) and UCSF (0.037) criteria by neoadjuvant TACE but not outside UCSF (0.99). Also a trend towards an improved survival was seen within these criteria. Our large single center experience suggests that TACE lowers the HCC recurrence rate in patients inside the Milan and UCSF criteria. Moreover, the response to TACE is a good indicator of low recurrence rates. The effect of TACE might be more pronounced in patients with longer waiting time than in this cohort (mean, 4.6 months).

Preoperative portal venous and hepatic arterial embolization of tumor

Although the goal of embolization is usually to create therapeutic ischemia or hemostasis without surgery, the rationale for preoperative embolotherapy is different in several respects. First, the aim is to prepare patients for definitive surgical resection rather than cure or palliation, and, thus, the goals and expectations are limited and defined by close communication between the interventionalist and the surgeon. Second, when considering segmental resection, the normal liver should be protected from procedural damage. Third, the search for extrahepatic disease is crucial for these patients because resection is typically abandoned in favor of alternative therapies for patients with systemic disease. Finally, intraoperative ultrasound should always be considered to survey the future liver remnant for unsuspected small tumors and allow ablation of these lesions to maximize the success of partial hepatectomy. This article describes preoperative hepatic arterial and portal venous embolization in patients with or without cirrhosis complicated by tumors judged eligible for surgical resection or orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Each type of embolization will be reviewed in terms of indications and contraindications, technique, and complications. Finally, the outcomes will be evaluated in terms of morbidity, mortality, and tumor recurrence rates.

Outcome of supraselective transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common tumor in cirrhotic patients with a median survival of only 8-10 months if untreated. Supraselective transarterial chemoembolization (STACE) is supposed to be a well-established method for treating HCC patients. In the present study, we evaluated the effect of STACE on post-transplant survival in patients with HCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The charts of 53 HCC patients were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-seven patients had STACE as a bridging therapy while 26 patients were scheduled for liver transplantation (LTX) without prior STACE therapy. A total of 53% of the patients who underwent LTX preoperatively fulfilled the Milan criteria, while 70.6% fulfilled the expanded University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) transplant criteria. Primary endpoint was the post-transplant survival. Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier-method, log rank, and chi square tests.

RESULTS

Between the LTX groups (STACE vs. non-STACE), there was no significant difference in terms of age, Child classification, Okuda stage, co-morbidities, underlying disease, and post-transplant survival (p > 0.05). Independent of prior STACE, however, disease-free survival after LTX was highly significantly prolonged if LTX was performed within 3 months after initial diagnosis of HCC (p < 0.01) or if patients met the expanded transplant UCSF criteria (p = 0.02). Post-transplant survival did not depend on tumor size.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that STACE performed prior to LTX does not secure any post-transplant survival benefit, while early LTX, i.e. within 3 months after HCC diagnosis, does improve survival regardless of whether STACE was performed or not. Additionally, fulfillment of the expanded transplant UCSF criteria leads to a prolonged post-transplant survival.

Chemoembolization decreases drop-off risk of hepatocellular carcinoma patients on the liver transplant list

INTRODUCTION

The drop-off risk for patients awaiting liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is 22%. Transplant liver availability is expected to worsen, resulting in longer waiting times and increased drop-off rates. Our aim was to determine whether chemoembolization can decrease this risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty-seven consecutive HCC patients listed for liver transplant (Milan criteria) underwent statistical comparability adjustments using the propensity score (Wilcoxon, Fisher's, and chi-square tests). Forty-three nonchemoembolization patients and 22 chemoembolization patients were comparable for Child-Pugh and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, tumor size and number, alpha fetoprotein (AFP) levels, and cause of cirrhosis. We calculated the risk of dropping off the transplant list by assigning a transplant time to those who dropped off (equal probability with patients who were on the list longer than the patient in question). The significance level was obtained by calculating the simulation distribution of the difference compared with the permutations of chemoembolization versus nonchemoembolization assignment of the patients. Kaplan-Meier estimators (log-rank test) were used to determine survival rates.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 187 ± 110 weeks (range 38 to 435, date of diagnosis). The chemoembolization group had an 80% drop-off risk decrease (15% nonchemoembolization versus 3% chemoembolization, p = 0.04). Although survival was better for the chemoembolization group, it did not reach statistical significance. Two-year survival for the nonchemoembolization and chemoembolization group was 57.3% ± 7.1% and 76.0% ± 7.9%, respectively (p = 0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

Chemoembolization appears to result in a significant decrease in the risk of dropping off liver transplant list for patients with HCC and results in a tendency toward longer survival.

[Liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma]

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common malignancy, with a new incidence of more than 11,000 cases per year and the second most common cause of malignancy-related death in Korean males. In Korea, more than 80% of all HCCs have developed from hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related cirrhotic livers. Liver transplantation (LT) is the only treatment that offers a chance of cure for HCC and the underlying liver cirrhosis simultaneously, but the availability of liver grafts and the aggressiveness of tumor recurrence are critical limiting factors of LT for HCC patients. The serious shortage of deceased-donors on strong demand for LT leads to the development of living-donor LT (LDLT) as a practical alternative replacing deceased-donor LT. Considering that HCC recurrence is the most common cause of posttransplant patient death, recipient candidates should be prudently selected through objectively established criteria. Uniquely, some Asian major LDLT centers challenged the Milan criteria, accepting a much higher number of HCC nodules instead of tumor size expansion. The eligibility criteria of LDLT for HCC are likely to be expanded more than before, but it still requires further qualified risk-benefit analyses. The development of new effective treatment modalities for HCC recurrence will reasonably expand the selection criteria further wide without the expense of recurrence rate. This article is mainly focused on the role of LT for HCC and discussed on the validity of currently available indication criteria.

Liver transplantation for HCC: its role: Eastern and Western perspectives

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only treatment that offers a chance of cure for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the underlying liver cirrhosis simultaneously, but the availability of liver grafts and the aggressiveness of tumor recurrence are critical limiting factors of LT for patients with HCC. In most Asian countries, the serious shortage of deceased donors and the strong demand for LT has lead to the development of living-donor LT (LDLT) as a practical alternative replacing deceased-donor LT (DDLT). Grafts in Western countries are issued from DDLT and graft allocations are under the responsibilities of state agencies which apply strict rules based on the MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) score. Considering that HCC recurrence is the most common cause of post-transplant patient death, recipient candidates should be prudently selected through objectively established criteria. Points in addition to the MELD score can be allotted to patients with HCC providing that the HCC remains within the Milan criteria. The increasing number of LT candidates with HCC results in increasing waiting periods, which necessitate the consideration of pretransplant treatment of HCC, including partial liver resection. Both specific Western units and some Asian major LDLT centers have challenged the Milan criteria. The eligibility criteria of both DDLT and LDLT for HCC are likely to be expanded more than before, but this still requires further qualified risk-benefit analyses. The development of new effective treatment modalities before LT and for HCC recurrence might expand the selection criteria further without incurring an increased recurrence rate.

TACE versus TAE as therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) improves survival in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The optimal schedule, best anticancer agent and best technique are still unclear. TACE may not be better than transarterial embolization (TAE). HCC is very chemoresistant, thus embolization may be more important than chemotherapy. Lipiodol cannot be considered as an embolic agent and there are no data to show that it can release chemotherapeutic agents slowly. It can mask residual vascularity on CT imaging and its use is not recommended. Both TACE and TAE result in hypoxia, which stimulates angiogenesis, promoting tumor growth; thus combination of TACE with antiangiogenic agents may improve current results. To date, there is no evidence that TACE pre-liver transplantation or resection helps to expand current selection criteria for patients with HCC, nor results in less recurrence after surgery. Combination with other techniques, such as radiofrequency ablation and drugs, may enhance the effect of TACE. New trials are being conducted to clarify these issues.

Upper gastrointestinal tumors: current status and future perspectives

Recent therapeutic developments that have provided new promising and successful approaches to the treatment of solid tumors are in large part due to the increasing understanding of their molecular biology. Despite this progress, these new therapies have provided minimal benefit in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. Hence, the overall survival of patients with upper GI tumors remains dismal. These disappointing results are largely due to the lack of early detection strategies, inadequate medical treatments and the poor understanding of upper GI tumor biology. Clinically, the treatment paradigm has been evolving for these malignancies. Esophageal cancer is now commonly treated with preoperative chemoradiation in the USA, in both academic and community cancer centers, due to its theoretical advantages. Adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation are also frequently used in patients with pancreatic cancer. Exciting prospects remain in the medical and surgical treatment of these malignancies with the inclusion of biologic agents in many protocols, newer chemotherapeutic agents (such as S-1 in the treatment of gastric cancer), and the use of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of premalignant and, possibly, early malignant lesions of the esophagus and stomach. This review focuses on the current practice in the management of upper GI tumors and summarizes the recent advances in the field.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death, particularly in Asia where the major etiology, chronic hepatitis B virus infection, is endemic. The tumor frequently develops in a background of cirrhosis, and liver transplantation offers a chance to cure both the tumor and the underlying cirrhosis. The Milan criteria based on tumor size and number as an estimate of tumor burden are conventionally the gold standard in determining eligibility for transplantation, and the outcome is excellent. The shortage of organs from deceased donors has curtailed the adoption of extended criteria and led to the problems of long waiting times and dropouts. Several measures have been taken to tackle these issues, including prioritization of patients with HCC, use of pretransplant adjuvant treatment to prevent tumor progression, and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). With a high incidence of HCC and a low organ donation rate, Asia has developed a distinctive pattern of indication and strategy in the application of liver transplantation. Over the last decade, the number of liver transplants in Asia has increased rapidly, by 10-fold, largely as a result of the development of LDLT. The proportion of patients who undergo liver transplantation for HCC is increasing and HCC comprises one third of the indication for liver transplantation in Asia. LDLT is the dominant strategy, accounting for 96% of the liver transplants for HCC. Many transplant programs accept patients beyond the Milan criteria, and the reported 3-year survival rate is about 60%. With the promotion of organ donation, better quantification of the benefit of LDLT for extended indications, and identification of predictors for survival, the practice of liver transplantation for HCC in Asia will continue to evolve.

Sensitive serum parameters for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence monitoring after liver transplantation: a case report

Liver cell malignancy can be seen as one of the most common indications for hepatic transplantation, but the recurrence potential of the disease significantly limits its beneficial effects. Hepatic factors influencing the recurrence rate, such as nodule size and criteria wherein transplantations are expedited, are still investigated. Pretransplant intraarterial or percutaneous treatment seem to be predictive for recurrence-free patient survival. Early detection of malignancies via serum parameters as a prognostic factor seems promising. This article reports a special case, where despite an elevated, sensitive, serum marker profile, no HCC recurrence was detected over a 2-year follow-up.

Tumor recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: recurrence pathway and prognostic factors

INTRODUCTION

Liver transplantation (OLT) has been advocated as a good management option for patients with carcinoma hepatocellular (HCC). More recurrences are extrahepatic due to many pathological factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From April 1986 to December 2003, we performed 95. OLTs for HCC including 73% men of mean age of 54.7 years and 25.3% not filling Mazzaferro's criteria.

RESULTS

The recurrence incidence was 15.8% (n = 15), including only extrahepatic lesions in 11 (mainly lung recurrence, seven) and hepatic plus extrahepatic in four. Main late mortality was due to tumor recurrence (n = 12, 33.3%). No differences were observed among sex, preoperative chemoembolization, age, Child, Okuda, etiology, or satellite nodules. A greater incidence of tumor recurrence was observed with a preoperative biopsy (45.5% vs 5.9%, P = .0001); and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) > 200 ng/mL (37.5% vs 13.3%, P = .08); known HCC (25.5% vs 3.1%, P = .008); vascular invasion (42.1% vs 10.3%, P = .001); > 5 cm single nodule (50% vs 13%, P = .004); more than three nodules (50% vs 13.9%, P = .01); moderately to poorly differentiated tumors (37.5% vs 12.7%, P = .01); pTNM IV (50% vs 8.7%, P = .0001); and not meeting Milan criteria (40.9% vs 9.2%, P = .001). These are the same factors for extrahepatic recurrence. For hepatic recurrence the prognostic factors were: vascular invasion (15.8% vs 1.5%, P = .008), more than three nodules (25% vs 2.5%, P = .004), moderately to poorly differentiated tumors (18.8% vs 1.4%, P = .003), pTNM IV (16.7% vs 1.4%, P = .006), and not meeting Milan criteria (13.6% vs 1.5%, P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence incidence with Milan criteria was less than 10%, mainly extrahepatic (lung). Prognostic factors for tumor recurrence were pathological features, namely vascular invasion, more than three nodules, size larger than 5 cm, moderately to poorly differentiated tumors, pTNM IV stage. The use of preoperative chemoembolization did not decrease the recurrence rate. A preoperative biopsy increased the incidence of extrahepatic recurrence.

Allocation policy for hepatocellular carcinoma in the MELD era: room for improvement?

Currently, liver transplantation is the optimal cure for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) limited to the liver. The requisite use of a scarce resource and the effective "competition" between transplant candidates with and without HCC necessitates an allocation policy that defines the subset of HCC patients appropriate for transplantation and their equitable waiting-list prioritization relative to non-HCC patients. Under Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) allocation, HCC candidates must meet the Milan criteria (single tumor < or =5 cm in diameter or 2 or 3 tumors, each <3 cm in diameter) to qualify for exceptional HCC waiting-list consideration. Their waiting-list prioritization is based on estimating progression risk beyond the Milan criteria (termed dropout), an event for HCC patients considered equivalent to death for non-HCC patients. Although the Milan criteria may be too restrictive, thereby denying deserving patients access to transplantation, high rates of understaging by pretransplantation radiographic imaging and concern for erosion of recurrence-free survival rates have dampened enthusiasm for relaxation of tumor guidelines. The efficacy of pretransplantation locoregional therapies to reduce dropout, downstage patients, and/or decrease posttransplantation recurrence remains to be determined. Genomic, molecular, or clinical criteria to accurately differentiate HCC patients whose disease will recur from those whose disease will not recur would resolve much of the current controversy regarding appropriate criteria for HCC patients to qualify for transplantation.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Preoperative Chemoembolization in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Liver Transplantation: Influence of Emergent Versus Elective Procedures on Patient Survival and Tumor Recurrence Rate

Our purpose was to compare the recurrence rate and survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had elective transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), immediate preoperative TACE, or no treatment prior to orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). A total of 132 patients with HCC had TACE prior to OLT. Eighteen patients had no TACE before OLT and functioned as a control group. The urgent group included 35 patients embolized less than 24 h before OLT and the elective group included 97 patients embolized greater than 1 day before transplantation. These groups were compared with regard to tumor staging, hepatic synthetic function, and post-TACE tumor necrosis and survival and recurrence rates. Patients were followed for a mean of 780 days post OLT (1-2912 days). The tumor staging was similar between groups but the Childs-Pugh score in the urgent and untreated group was significantly higher than that of the other groups. The degree of necrosis at explant was also significantly different between the two treated groups, with an average 35% necrosis in the patients embolized less than 24 h before OLT vs 77% in the elective group (p < 0.002). Recurrence rate in the urgent group was 8 of 35 (23%) in a median of 580 days, 20 of 97 (21%) in a median of 539 days in the elective group, and 2 of 18 (11%) in a median of 331 days in the no-TACE group. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 91%, 80%, and 72% in the elective group, 79%, 58%, and 39% in the urgent group, and 69%, 61%, and 41% in the no-TACE group, respectively. The urgent and no-TACE groups had significantly worse survival compared with the other groups; however, the tumor recurrence rates were statistically the same among all three groups. TACE within 24 h of OLT causes an average of 35% necrosis and elective TACE increases necrosis further to 77%. Despite this difference, the tumor recurrence rate in the three groups is equivalent and no different from that in the group that received no treatment before OLT. The decreased survival in the immediate and no-TACE groups was due to non-cancer-related deaths.

Comparison of two techniques of transarterial chemoembolization before liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-control study

Supraselective transarterial chemoembolization (STACE) more efficiently targets chemotherapy delivered via the feeding arterial branches of the tumor than does conventional transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, the hypothesis of its greater efficacy compared with the latter is subject to controversy. The aim of the present study was to compare STACE to conventional TACE in a controlled study of candidates for liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients were matched for factors associated with HCC recurrence and survival. Sixty patients were included: 30 who were treated with STACE and 30 treated with conventional TACE. The 2 groups were similar in terms of matched criteria. In the overall population (uni- and multinodular HCC), there was no marked difference between the 2 groups in 5-year disease-free survival: 76.8% vs. 74.8%. In sensitivity analysis of patients considered to be the best candidates for TACE (uninodular HCC < or =5 cm), there was a trend toward significance between STACE and TACE in 5-year disease-free survival: 87% vs. 64% (P = 0.09). The only factor associated with complete tumor necrosis was STACE in the overall population (30.8% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.02), with a similar trend in the subgroup of patients with a single nodule (33.3% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.06), whereas the mean number of procedures was similar in the 2 groups (mean, 1.3 procedures; range 1-5 procedures; P = NS). STACE is more efficient at inducing complete tumor necrosis in the liver. This study observed trends toward improvement in the disease-free survival of patients with uninodular HCC < or =5 cm. Future studies focusing on such patients are warranted.

Patients without hepatocellular carcinoma progression after transarterial chemoembolization benefit from liver transplantation

AIM: To assess the outcome of patients, who under-went transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and subsequently liver transplantation (OLT) irrespective of tumor size when no tumor progression was observed.

METHODS: Records, imaging studies and pathology of 84 patients with HCC were reviewed. Ten patients were not treated at all, 67 patients had TACE and 35 of them were listed for OLT. Tumor progression was monitored by ultrasound and AFP level every 6 wk. Fifteen patients showed signs of tumor progression without transplantation. The remaining 20 patients underwent OLT. Further records of 7 patients with HCC seen in histological examination after OLT were included.

RESULTS: The patients after TACE without tumor progression underwent transplantation and had a median survival of 92.3 mo. Patients, who did not qualify for liver transplantation or had signs of tumor progression had a median survival of 8.4 mo. The patients without treatment had a median survival of 3.8 mo. Independent of International Union Against Cancer (UICC) stages, the patients without tumor progression and subsequent OLT had longer median survival. No significant difference was seen in the OLT treated patients if they did not fulfill the Milan criteria.

CONCLUSION: Selection of patients for OLT based on tumor progression results in good survival. The evaluation of HCC patients should not only be based on tumor size and number of foci but also on tumor progression and growth behavior under therapy.

Transarterial chemoembolization as a bridge to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an evidence-based analysis

The aim of this review was to assess the impact of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as a neoadjuvant therapy prior to orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). An electronic search on the Medline database (1990-2005) was used to identify relevant articles. The studies were reviewed and ranked according to their quality of evidence using the grading system proposed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. As a bridge to OLT, pretransplant TACE does not improve long-term survival (grade C). There is currently no convincing evidence that TACE allows to expand the current selection criteria for OLT, nor that TACE decreases dropout rates on the waiting list (grade C). However, TACE does not increase the risk for postoperative complications (grade C). There is insufficient evidence that TACE offers any benefit when used prior to OLT, neither for early nor for advanced HCC. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to define the role of TACE in OLT patients.

Transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: The Milan criteria and beyond

1. Liver transplantation offers excellent results for selected candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). 2. Selection strategies have evolved but are mainly based on size and number of tumors, which are surrogates for vascular invasion. Newer techniques show promise for identifying patients at high risk for recurrence and selecting those with low risk, even though they may exceed currently established tumor size criteria. 3. Evaluation of the effectiveness of liver transplantation for HCC requires an intent-to-treat approach that must include an accounting of the dropout rate of patients while waiting. 4. Locoregional pretransplantation adjuvant treatments may have some role for downstaging and/or reducing the dropout rate before transplantation, but their posttransplantation effect on outcome remains undetermined. 5. Liver allocation for HCC candidates in the context of increasing HCC prevalence requires better and evidence-based prioritization policies.

Treatment outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma using chemoembolization in combination with other therapies

BACKGROUND

Although transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) improves survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it is not known if TACE combined with other treatments is beneficial.

AIM

To evaluate the evidence for improved outcomes in HCC with a multimodal treatment approach involving TACE.

METHOD

PubMed search for all cohort and randomized trials (n=84) evaluating TACE combined with other therapies; meta-analysis performed where appropriate.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis involving 4 RCTs showed a significant decrease in mortality favouring combination treatment (TACE plus percutaneous ablation) compared to monotherapy in patients with either small (<3cm) or large HCC nodules (>3cm) (OR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.288-0.990; p=0.046). TACE combined with local radiotherapy improved survival in patients with tumour thrombosis of the portal vein in 7 non-randomized studies. Two RCTs and 13 non-randomized studies showed that TACE prior to hepatic resection does not improve survival nor tumour recurrence. Conversely, 2 RCTs and 5 comparative studies showed that transarterial injection of chemotherapeutic drugs mixed with lipiodol (TOCE) following hepatectomy confers survival benefit and less tumour recurrence. TACE before liver transplantation is safe and reduces drop-out rate from the waiting list, but there is no current evidence of improvement in subsequent survival or recurrence rate.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined approach involving TACE and percutaneous ablation improves survival. Adjuvant TOCE improves outcome after hepatectomy. TACE is useful to control tumours burden while on the waiting list for OLT. Multimodal treatment seems to be the best way to optimize TACE outcomes in HCC.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing at an alarming rate in the United States, such that HCC has become an important indication for liver transplantation. The role of liver transplantation in patients with HCC has evolved over the past 2 decades, and transplantation has become one of the few curative treatment modalities for patients with HCC, especially in selected patients with favorable tumors. The advent of living donor liver transplantation for adult recipients provides another therapeutic venue, in particular for patients with HCC who are disadvantaged by current allocation algorithms for grafts from deceased donors. Living donor transplantation may limit the waiting time and, as a result, may decrease the progression of disease so that intuitively the recurrence rate should be lower than for recipients who wait for an organ from a deceased donor. There are limited data on the efficacy of living donor liver transplantation in the setting of HCC. Based on a limited cohort of patients undergoing transplantation for HCC at Northwestern University Medical Center, a higher recurrence rate, stage for stage, was found in recipients whose transplants were accelerated ("fast-tracked") by performing a living donor transplant, especially in the era in which patients with HCC were disadvantaged by the allocation algorithm. Clearly, the role of living donor liver transplantation in management of patients with HCC requires prospective direct analysis of both recurrence and dropout rates in comparable patient cohorts with HCC undergoing either deceased or living donor liver transplantation.