Comparison of the outcomes of patients who underwent deceased-donor or living-donor liver transplantation after successful downstaging therapy

The 2024 ILTS-ILCA consensus recommendations for liver transplantation for HCC and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) provides the best long-term survival outcomes for patients with liver cancer. As a result, the field of transplant oncology has grown greatly over the past few decades, and many centers have expanded their criteria to allow increased access to LT for liver malignancies. Center-level guidelines and practices in transplant oncology significantly vary across the world, leading to debate regarding the best course of treatment for this patient population. An international consensus conference was convened by the International Liver Transplantation Society and the International Liver Cancer Association on February 1-2, 2024, in Valencia, Spain to establish a more universal consensus regarding LT for oncologic indications. The conference followed the Delphi process, followed by an external expert review. Consensus statements were accepted regarding patient assessment and waitlisting criteria, pretransplant treatment (including immunotherapy) and downstaging, living donor LT, post-LT patient management, and patient- and caregiver-related outcomes. The multidisciplinary participants in the consensus conference provided up-to-date recommendations regarding the selection and management of patients with liver cancer being considered for LT. Although participants deferred to center protocols in many cases, there was great interest in safely expanding access to LT for patients with larger tumor burden and biologically amenable lesions.

Update on the Complications and Management of Liver Cirrhosis

Liver cirrhosis represents the advanced pathological stage of chronic liver disease, characterized by the progressive destruction and regeneration of the hepatic parenchyma over years, culminating in fibrosis and disruption of the vascular architecture. As a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality, it continues to affect millions worldwide, imposing a substantial burden on healthcare systems. Alcoholic/nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and chronic viral hepatitis infection, hepatitis C (HCV) in particular, remain leading causes of cirrhosis. Despite significant advances in understanding the pathogenesis of cirrhosis, its management is still complex due to the multifaceted complications, including ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, variceal bleeding, and hepatocellular carcinoma, all of which severely compromise the patient outcomes and quality of life. This review aims at filling a critical gap by providing a comprehensive summary of the latest evidence on the complications and management of liver cirrhosis. Evidence-based therapies targeting both the etiologies and complications of cirrhosis are essential for improving outcomes. While liver transplantation is considered a definitive cure, advancements in pharmacological therapies offer promising avenues for halting and potentially reversing disease progression. This review summarizes the latest management strategies for cirrhosis and its associated complications, emphasizing the importance of early intervention and novel therapeutic options for improving outcomes and quality of life in affected individuals.

Comparison of Vascular Complications Between Living-donor and Deceased-donor Liver Transplantation - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vascular complications commonly cause graft loss and morbidity after liver transplantation (LT). Comparative data on the risk of vascular complications are limited. Hence, the present meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the difference in vascular complications between living-donor LT (LDLT) and deceased-donor LT (DDLT).

METHODS

A literature search of three databases was conducted for studies comparing the incidence of vascular complications with LDLT and DDLT. The event rates and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were included in the final analysis. There was no difference in the incidence of overall vascular complications (9.3%, 95% CI: 6.6-12.0 vs. 8.5%, 95% CI: 5.6-11.4) between LDLT and DDLT with OR 0.94 (95% CI: 0.73-1.21) (15 studies).There was a higher incidence of vascular complications with LDLT in older studies (published before 2013) but not in new studies. When comparing the individual complications, LDLT was associated with a higher incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) (3.8%, 95% CI: 2.4-5.2 vs. 1.6%, 95% CI: 1.1-2.2)with OR 2.20 (95% CI: 1.53-3.17) (14 studies)and a significantly lower incidence of intra-abdominal bleeding(4.8%, 95% CI: 3.3-6.2 vs. 7.9%, 95% CI: 5.0-10.7) with OR 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47-0.87) (11 studies). However, there was no difference in the incidence (2.1%, 95% CI: 0.5-3.8 vs. 1.0%, 95% CI: 0.1-1.9) of portal vein thrombosis between LDLT and DDLT with OR 1.85 (95% CI: 0.82-4.18) (6 studies).

CONCLUSION

Despite a comparable risk of vascular complications between LDLT and DDLT, LDLT was associated with a higher risk of HAT and a lower risk of intraprocedural bleeding. Further studies are required to analyze the effect of donor-recipient characteristics and surgical techniques on the risk of vascular complications.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) offers the best chance of cure for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as it addresses simultaneously the underlying disease and the tumour. The Milan criteria has been the standard for over 3 decades in selecting patients with HCC who will benefit from LT. While, early studies showed higher recurrence rates for HCC following living donor LT (LDLT), recent series, especially in the past decade have shown LDLT to have equal oncological outcomes as compared to deceased donor LT (DDLT) for HCC, even in patients beyond Milan criteria. Further, the intention to treat analysis data suggests that LDLT may actually provide a survival advantage. In the west, factors such as improved outcomes on par with DDLT, ability to time the LT etc., have led to a steadily increased number of LDLTs being performed for this indication. On the other hand, in the east, given its geo-socio-cultural idiosyncrasies, LDLT has always been the predominant form of LT for HCC, consequently resulting in an increased number of LDLTs being performed for this indication across the world. While LDLT in HCC has its distinctive advantages compared to DDLT, the double equipoise of balancing the donor risk with the recipient outcomes has to be considered while selecting patients for LDLT. There have been several advances including the application of downstaging therapies and the use of biological markers, which have further helped improve outcomes of LDLT for this indication. This review aims to provide an update on the current advances in the field of transplant oncology related to the practice of LDLT in HCC.

Comparison of Biliary Complications Between Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To understand if the risk of biliary complications is higher with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT), the present meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the differences between these two types of liver transplantations. Three databases were searched from inception to September 2023 for comparative studies reporting biliary complications with LDLT and DDLT. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes. Twenty-eight studies were included in the final analysis. LDLT was associated with a significantly higher incidence of biliary complications than DDLT (OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.56-2.47). However, on subgroup analysis, only studies published in or before 2014 reported a higher incidence of biliary complications with LDLT, but not with studies published after 2014. An analysis of individual adverse events showed that LDLT was associated with a higher incidence of both bile leak (OR 3.38, 95% CI: 2.52-4.53) and biliary stricture (OR 1.75, 95% CI: 1.20-2.55). LDLT was associated with a higher incidence of overall biliary complications, including bile leak and biliary stricture. With advances in surgical techniques, there has been a reduction in the risk of biliary complications.

Post-liver transplant biliary complications

Biliary complications (BCs) are the most frequent complications following liver transplantation (LT). They are a major source of morbidity after LT. The incidence of BCs after LT is reported to range from 5% to 45%. The main post-LT biliary complications are strictures, biliary fistulas and bilomas, cholelithiasis, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, hemobilia, and mucocele. Risk factors for biliary complications are diverse. In this article we seek to review the main types of biliary complications and modern approaches to their diagnosis and treatment.

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.

BETTER LIVING DONOR LIVER TRANSPLANTATION PATIENT SURVIVAL COMPARED TO DECEASED DONOR — A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT Background Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is the first choice, but living donor transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to be considered in special situations, such as lack of donated organs and emergencies. So far, there is no consensus on which transplantation method provides better survival and fewer complications, which is still an open point for discussion. Methods This meta-analysis compared the 1, 3, and 5-year patient and graft survival rates of LDLT and DDLT. We included studies published from April-2009 to June-2021 and adopted the generic model of the inverse of variance for the random effect of hazard ratios. The adequacy of the studies was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale — NOS (WELLS). Results For patient survival analysis, we included a total of 32,258 subjects. We found a statistically significant better survival for the LDLT group at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively: 1.35 HR (95%CI 1.10—1.66, P=0.005), 1.26 HR (95%CI 1.09—1.46, P=0.002) and 1.27 HR (95%CI 1.09—1.48, P=0.002). Our meta-analysis evaluated a total of 21,276 grafts. In the overall analysis, the 1-year survival was improved in favor of the LDLT group (1.36 HR, 95%CI 1.16—1.60, P<0.0001), while the 3-year survival (1.13 HR, 95%CI 0.96—1.33, P<0.13), and 5 (0.99 HR, 95%CI 0.74—1.33, P<0.96), did not differ significantly. Conclusion This metanalysis detected a statistically significant greater 1-, 3- and 5-years patient survival favoring LDLT compared to DDLT as well as a statistically significant difference better 1-year graft survival favoring the LDLT group.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation

Prior single center or registry studies have shown that living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases waitlist mortality and offers superior patient survival over deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for adult LDLT and DDLT via systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine patient survival and graft survival, MELD, waiting time, technical complications, and postoperative infections. Out of 8600 abstracts, 19 international studies comparing adult LDLT and DDLT published between 1/2005 and 12/2017 were included. U.S. outcomes were analyzed using registry data. Overall, 4571 LDLT and 66,826 DDLT patients were examined. LDLT was associated with lower mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplant (5-year HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81-0.93], p < .0001), similar graft survival, lower MELD at transplant (p < .04), shorter waiting time (p < .0001), and lower risk of rejection (p = .02), with a higher risk of biliary complications (OR 2.14, p < .0001). No differences were observed in rates of hepatic artery thrombosis. In meta-regression analysis, MELD difference was significantly associated with posttransplant survival (R2 0.56, p = .02). In conclusion, LDLT is associated with improved patient survival, less waiting time, and lower MELD at LT, despite posing a higher risk of biliary complications that did not affect survival posttransplant.

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.

Long-term outcomes of living donor liver transplantation after locoregional treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma: an experience from a single institute

PURPOSE

The precise role of downstaging or bridge therapy for cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond or within the Milan criteria (MC) before living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains undefined.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 40 cirrhotic patients with HCC who underwent LDLT from 2000 to 2018. Dynamic computed tomography images at the initial presentation and immediately before LDLT as well as the final histopathological findings were reviewed to determine whether they met or exceeded MC.

RESULTS

Overall, 29 patients underwent various pre-transplant HCC treatments, including ablation and embolization (bridge therapy, n = 20; downstaging, n = 9). Of the 9 patients who were initially beyond the MC, 4 (44.4%) were successfully downstaged to within the MC. Five patients beyond the MC immediately before LDLT demonstrated a significantly worse 5-year overall survival rate than patients within the MC (16.7% vs. 82.2%, P = 0.004), regardless of the radiological HCC stage at presentation or the final pathological tumor status. All 3 recurrent patients had HCC beyond the MC immediately before transplant and died of their disease at 13, 24, and 50 months after transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful downstaging for HCC cases beyond the MC provides similar outcomes to those within the MC at presentation, regardless of the histopathological findings.

Response to transarterial chemoembolization may serve as selection criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma liver transplantation

Aims

This study sought to extend the inclusion criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) liver transplantation (LT), particularly addressing the safety and effectiveness of pre-LT transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

Materials and Methods

Our study included 115 patients with HCC who underwent LT after TACE. The response measured after each TACE session was based on the mRECIST criteria: complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) or progressive disease (PD). We defined CR and PR patients as responders (64 cases) and SD and PD patients as non-responders (51 cases).

Results

The majority of responders could be identified after the first or second TACE sessions (57 cases, 89.1%). Overall survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 95.3%, 89.1% and 75.0%, respectively, in the responder group, and these rates were much higher than those in the non-responder group (86.3%, 66.7% and 54.9%, P=0.016). In addition, the tumor-free survival rate in the responder group was also higher than in the non-responder group (P=0.009). In the responder group, a statistically improved long-term outcome was observed in patients whose HCC did not satisfy the Milan criteria (P<0.05). Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses showed that achieving CR or PR was the best predictor of survival and tumor-free survival following TACE.

Conclusion

The response to TACE, particularly following the first two sessions, primarily and robustly predicted overall and tumor-free survival in HCC patients, particularly those whose HCC did not satisfy the Milan criteria.

Upregulation of NM23-E2 accelerates the liver regeneration after 40% decreased-size liver transplantation in rats

BACKGROUND

Potential of liver regeneration after living-donor liver transplantation is closely associated with the recipient's prognosis, whereas exogenous gene might regulate the liver regeneration progress. NM23 is a multifunctional gene, which inhibits tumor metastasis and regulates cell proliferation, differentiation, development, and apoptosis; however, there is little research about NM23 in promoting liver cell proliferation.

METHODS

To investigate the effect of NM23-E2 on the liver cell proliferation, the NM23-E2 overexpression vector or negative control vector was transfected into BRL-3A cells and donor liver, respectively. NM23-E2, Cyclin D1, and PCNA expression levels in BRL-3A cells and liver tissues were detected by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction and Western blot analysis. Cell Counting Kit-8 was used to detect cell proliferation and flow cytometry for investigating cell cycle. The liver regeneration rate was determined by calculating (regenerated-liver weight of recipient - liver weight of donor/liver weight of donor) × 100%.

RESULTS

NM23-E2 overexpression increased the NM23-E2, Cyclin D1, and PCNA levels significantly in BRL-3A cells and liver tissues (P < 0.05). The number of S phase cells was more than that of negative control group, and cell proliferation rate was higher than that of the control group in BRL-3A cells markedly (P < 0.05). Moreover, the liver regeneration rate in the NM23-E2 overexpression group was also higher than that in negative control group on postoperative day 1, day 3, day 5, and day 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Overexpression of NM23-E2 can increase Cyclin D1 and PCNA expression, shorten cell cycle, and thereby promoting the proliferation of liver cells and accelerating the regeneration of liver after 40% decreased-size rat liver transplantation.

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.

Clinical outcomes and risk factors of hepatocellular carcinoma treated by liver transplantation: A multi-centre comparison of living donor and deceased donor transplantation

BACKGROUND

The different outcomes of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are currently being debated. We aimed to retrospectively compare the outcomes following LDLT and DDLT and to analyse the factors influencing this.

METHODS

We compared the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of HCC patients after LDLT (n=389) and DDLT (n=6471) from 81 centres over a 10-year period. OS and DFS rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. And univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed on the entire cohort to identify predictors.

RESULTS

Of 6860 patients, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 86.79%, 70.16%, and 66.31% after LDLT, respectively, and 74.2%, 54.21%, and 46.97% after DDLT, respectively (P<0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS rates were 78.46%, 63.68%, and 61.63% after LDLT, respectively, and 65.65%, 48.61%, and 41.87% after DDLT, respectively (P<0.001). The multivariate Cox regression model determined that the DFS and OS of HCC patients post-liver transplantation (LT) were strongly associated with tumour morphology and biology, but not graft type.

CONCLUSIONS

With regards to OS and DFS, there were no disadvantages to LDLT as compared with DDLT; tumour morphology and biology may affect the prognosis of LT.

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.

"Metroticket" predictor for assessing liver transplantation to treat hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center analysis in mainland China

AIM

To validate the "Metroticket" predictor using a large cohort of liver transplantation (LT) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China.

METHODS

In total, 230 cases of LT for HCC treatment at our center, from July 2000 to August 2008, were included in the present study. The predicted 1-, 3- and 5-year post-LT survival rates were calculated using the Metroticket model (http://89.96.76.14/metroticket/calculator/). The predicted and observed long-term survival rates were then compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

The predicted survival rates for all 230 cases, as calculated by the Metroticket model, were 64.7% and 56.2% at 3 and 5 years, respectively, and the observed survival rates for these patients were 71.3% and 57.8%, respectively. For the 23 cases with macrovascular invasion, the predicted 5-year survival rate was 43.5%, whereas the observed 5-year survival rate was only 8.7%. For the 42 cases with microvascular invasion but an absence of macrovascular invasion, the predicted 5-year survival rate was 44.9%, and the observed 5-year survival rate was 50%. For the remaining 165 patients without any vascular invasion, the predicted 5-year survival rate was 65.8%, and the observed 5-year survival rate was 66.7%.

CONCLUSION

The Metroticket model can be used to accurately predict survival in HCC-related LT cases with an absence of macrovascular invasion.

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.