Time to reconsider liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma?

Liver transplantation for primary and secondary liver tumors: Patient-level meta-analyses compared to UNOS conventional indications

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Liver transplant (LT) for transplant oncology (TO) indications is being slowly adopted worldwide and has been recommended to be incorporated cautiously due to concerns about mid-long-term survival and its impact on the waiting list.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We conducted 4 systematic reviews of all series on TO indications (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma [phCC]) and liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and colorectal cancer (CRLM) and compared them using patient-level meta-analyses to data obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database considering conventional daily-practice indications. Secondary analyses were done for specific selection criteria (Mayo-like protocols for phCC, SECA-2 for CRLM, and Milan criteria for NET). A total of 112,014 LT were analyzed from 2005 to 2020 from the UNOS databases and compared with 345, 721, 494, and 103 patients obtained from meta-analyses on intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and phCC, and liver metastases from NET and CRLM, respectively. Five-year overall survival was 53.3%, 56.4%, 68.6%, and 53.8%, respectively. In Mantel-Cox one-to-one comparisons, survival of TO indications was superior to combined LT, second, and third LT and not statistically significantly different from LT in recipients >70 years and high BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver transplantation for TO indications has adequate 5-year survival rates, mostly when performed under the selection criteria available in the literature (Mayo-like protocols for phCC, SECA-2 for CRLM, and Milan for NET). Despite concerns about its impact on the waiting list, some other LT indications are being performed with lower survival rates. These oncological patients should be given the opportunity to have a definitive curative therapy within validated criteria.

Role of sex in liver tumor occurrence and clinical outcomes: A comprehensive review

Clinical research on sex-based differences in the manifestations, pathophysiology, and prevalence of several diseases, including those affecting the liver, has expanded considerably in recent years. Increasing evidence suggests that liver diseases develop, progress, and respond to treatment differently depending on the sex. These observations support the concept that the liver is a sexually dimorphic organ in which estrogen and androgen receptors are present, which results in disparities between men and women in liver gene expression patterns, immune responses, and the progression of liver damage, including the propensity to develop liver malignancies. Sex hormones play protective or deleterious roles depending on the patient's sex, the severity of the underlying disease, and the nature of precipitating factors. Moreover, obesity, alcohol consumption, and active smoking, as well as social determinants of liver diseases leading to sex-related inequalities, may interact strongly with hormone-related mechanisms of liver damage. Drug-induced liver injury, viral hepatitis, and metabolic liver diseases are influenced by the status of sex hormones. Available data on the roles of sex hormones and gender differences in liver tumor occurrence and clinical outcomes are conflicting. Here, we critically review the main gender-based differences in the molecular mechanisms associated with liver carcinogenesis and the prevalence, prognosis, and treatment of primary and metastatic liver tumors.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

New Indications for Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is an important therapeutic option for the treatment of several liver diseases. Modern LT is characterized by remarkable improvements in post-transplant patient survival, graft survival, and quality of life. Thanks to these great improvements, indications for LT are expanding. Nowadays, clinical conditions historically considered exclusion criteria for LT, have been considered new indications for LT, showing survival advantages for patients. In this review, we provide an updated overview of the principal newer indications for LT, with particular attention to alcoholic hepatitis, acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), cholangiocarcinoma and colorectal cancer metastases.

Center Experience Affects Liver Transplant Outcomes in Patients with Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Based on favorable outcomes reported by experienced centers, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (Ph-CCA) has become an accepted indication for liver transplantation (LT). What is less clear is if the reported outcomes have been reproduced nationwide in the US.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate post-transplant outcomes in patients with Ph-CCA and to determine prognostic factors.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LT with Model for End-stage Liver Disease exception scores for Ph-CCA between 2010 and 2017 were evaluated. Transplant centers were classified into well- and less-experienced groups: Group 1 [well-experienced (≥ 6 LTs), 7 centers]; Group 2 [less-experienced (< 6 LTs), 23 centers]. Post-transplant mortality due to all-cause and recurrence of Ph-CCA were set as endpoints.

RESULTS

Post-transplant outcomes were significantly better in Group 1 than in Group 2, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival rates of 91.8%, 56.9%, and 45.8%, versus 65.6%, 48.8%, and 26.0%, respectively. Group 2 showed a significantly higher risk of 1-, 3-, and 5-year all-cause mortality and 1-year mortality associated with Ph-CCA recurrence. Center experience was an independent risk factor for post-transplant mortality. In intention-to-treat analysis, a positive prognostic effect of LT was significant and LT decreased the mortality risk by 86% in the well-experienced group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, p < 0.001], whereas this effect was not observed in the less-experienced group (HR 1.35, p = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of recurrence of malignancy and mortality was significantly higher in the less-experienced center group. Center effects on post-transplant outcomes in patients with Ph-CCA should be recognized, and the introduction of center approval for LT for Ph-CCA may be justified to achieve comparable outcomes between centers.