Liver transplantation for advanced liver-only colorectal metastases

Liver transplantation for colorectal cancer with liver metastases

Over the last decade, multiple clinical trials have demonstrated a survival benefit for liver transplantation in colorectal cancer with liver metastases. Additionally, advances in donor organ preservation have expanded organ availability affording the opportunity to expand indications for liver transplantation, such as colorectal cancer with unresectable liver metastases. Current data support comparable overall survival (OS) for liver transplantation for colorectal cancer with liver metastases compared with general liver transplantation recipients. Supported by this data, in the United States, allocation policy is changing to include deceased donor livers for patients with unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. Available studies to date demonstrate improved outcomes with primary tumor R0 resection, 6-12 months of pretransplantation chemotherapy, and careful radiologic restaging (including positron emission tomography/computed tomography) to confirm lack of extrahepatic disease. A response to pretransplantation chemotherapy is a key predictor of long-term outcomes and progression during chemotherapy appears to be a contraindication to proceeding to transplant. A carcinoembryonic antigen level ≤80 µg/L and largest liver tumor dimension <5.5 cm are both associated with improved progression-free and OS in the available literature. Liver transplantation for colorectal cancer with unresectable liver metastases is associated with longer progression-free and OS compared with chemotherapy alone. Patient selection based on imaging, laboratory, and clinical findings is critical to identify patients most likely to benefit. Liver transplantation should be considered at all centers with an active transplant program to improve outcomes for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Outcomes of liver transplant for colorectal liver metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) for nonresectable colorectal liver metastasis (NRCRLM) has become accepted for select patients meeting strict inclusion criteria. Advancements in patient selection and understanding of cancer biology may expand benefits to patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). In this meta-analysis, we sought to assess survival outcomes, recurrence patterns, and quality of life (QoL) after LT for CRLM.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted to obtain pooled overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates and to compare QoL from baseline. Continuous data were analyzed, and standardized mean differences were reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 16 studies (403 patients, 58.8% male sex) were included. The pooled 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS after LT for NRCRLM was 96% (95% CI: 92%-99%), 77% (95% CI: 62%-89%), and 53% (95% CI: 45%-61%), respectively. Moreover, the pooled 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS was 58% (95% CI: 43%-72%), 33% (95% CI: 9%-61%), and 13% (95% CI: 4%-27%), respectively. Overall, 201 patients (49.8%) experienced recurrence during the follow-up period with the lungs being the most common site (45.8%). There was no significant differences in physical and emotional functioning, fatigue, and pain components of QoL at 6 months after LT compared with baseline (all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

LT for NRCRLM demonstrated good OS outcomes with no differences in the QoL at 6 months after transplantation. Transplantation may represent a viable treatment option for NRCRLM.

Liver Transplantation for Nonresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases (CRLM)

Transplantation represents the most radical locoregional therapy through removal of the liver, associated vasculature and locoregional lymph nodes, and replacing it with an allograft. Recent evidence has demonstrated that transplantation for unresectable CRLM is feasible with acceptable post-transplant outcomes in a highly selected cohort of patients. Controversy exists regarding whether transplantation is an appropriate treatment for such patients, due to concerns regarding disease recurrence in the transplanted graft in an immunosuppressed recipient along with utilising a donor liver which are in short supply. Expanding the indications for liver transplantation may also limit access for other patients with end-stage liver disease having ethical implications due to the effect of increasing the waiting list. In this review, we summarise the current evidence for liver transplantation in patients with nonresectable CRLM and highlight unresolved controversies and future directions for this type of treatment.

Liver Transplant as a Treatment of Primary and Secondary Liver Neoplasms

Importance

Liver malignancies are an increasing global health concern with a high mortality. We review outcomes following liver transplant for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies.

Observations

Transplant may be a suitable treatment option for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies in well-selected patient populations.

Conclusions and Relevance

Many patients with primary or secondary liver tumors are not eligible for liver resection because of advanced underlying liver disease or high tumor burden, precluding complete tumor clearance. Although liver transplant has been a long-standing treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, recently transplant has been considered for patients with other malignant diagnoses. In particular, while well-established for hepatocellular carcinoma and select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, transplant has been increasingly used to treat patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, as well as metastatic disease from colorectal liver and neuroendocrine primary tumors. Because of the limited availability of grafts and the number of patients on the waiting list, optimal selection criteria must be further defined. The ethics of organ allocation to individuals who may benefit from prolonged survival after transplant yet have a high incidence of recurrence, as well as the role of living donation, need to be further discerned in the setting of transplant oncology.

Liver transplantation in patients with post-hepatectomy liver failure - A Northern European multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LTX) has been described as a rescue treatment option in severe, intractable post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), but is not considered to be indicated for this condition by many hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons. In this article we describe the clinical experience of five northern European tertiary centers in using LTX to treat selected patients with severe PHLF.

METHODS

All patients subjected to LTX due to PHLF at the participating centers were identified from prospective clinical databases. Preoperative variables, surgical outcome (both resection surgery and LTX) and follow-up data were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 10 patients treated with LTX due to severe PHLF from September 2008 to May 2020 were identified and included in the study. All patients but one were male and the median age was 70 years (range 49-72). In all patients the indication for liver resection was suspected malignancy, but in six patients post-resection pathology revealed benign or pre-malignant disease. There was no 90-day mortality after LTX. Patients were followed for a median of 49 months (13-153) and eight patients were alive without recurrence at last follow-up.

DISCUSSION

In selected patients with PHLF LTX can be a life-saving procedure with low short-term risk.

Cost-effectiveness of liver transplantation versus last-resort systemic therapy for colorectal liver metastases

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of liver transplantation in patients with colorectal liver metastases confined to the liver with progressive disease, compared with alternative treatment options: TAS-102, regorafenib, or best supportive care. Using a mathematical simulation model, people’s life expectancy and healthcare costs over 25 years were estimated. Transplanted patients lived for 4.28 years, more than 3 years longer than those who received alternative treatment options. Despite this, the high cost of liver transplantation meant that this treatment was cost-effective only at high willingness-to-pay thresholds.