Expanding Indications of Liver Transplantation in Spain: Consensus Statement and Recommendations by the Spanish Society of Liver Transplantation

Survival analysis of the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma at a tertiary care center

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a primary malignant tumor of liver epithelial cells and is the most frequent primary liver cancer. The broadening of transplantation and resectability criteria has made therapeutic decisions more complex. Our aim was to describe the clinical and survival characteristics of patients with HCC treated through resection or liver transplantation at our hospital and identify the presence of factors that enable outcome prediction and facilitate therapeutic decision-making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with HCC that underwent surgery with curative intent at the Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, within the time frame of 2007 and 2017, were retrospectively identified. Survival, mortality, disease-free interval, and different outcome-related variables were analyzed.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients with a mean follow-up after surgery of 44 months were included. Overall mortality and recurrence were higher in the resection group. Mean survival was 51.4 months in the liver transplantation group and 37.5 months in the resection group, and the disease-free interval was 49.4 ± 37.2 and 27.4 ± 28.7 months, respectively (p = 0.002). The tumor burden score was statistically significant regarding risk for recurrence and specific mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be no patient subgroup in whom the results of surgical resection were superior or comparable to those of transplantation. Tumor burden determination could be a useful tool for patient subclassification and help guide therapeutic decision-making.

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.

Changes in the Liver Transplant Waiting List after Expanding to the 'Up-to-Seven' Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

We aimed to assess changes in the composition of the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT) after expanding from Milan to "up-to-seven" criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A consecutive cohort of 255 LT candidates was stratified in a pre-expansion era (2016-2018; n = 149) and a post-expansion era (2019-2021; n = 106). The most frequent indication for LT was HCC in both groups (47.7% vs. 43.4%; p = 0.5). The proportion of patients exceeding the Milan criteria in the explanted liver was nearly doubled after expansion (12.5% vs. 21.1%; p = 0.25). Expanding criteria had no effect in drop-out (12.3% vs. 20.4%; p = 0.23) or microvascular invasion rates (37.8% vs. 38.7%; p = 0.93). The length on the waiting list did not increase after the expansion (172 days [IQR 74-282] vs. 118 days [IQR 67-251]; p = 0.135) and was even shortened in the post-expansion HCC subcohort (181 days [IQR 125-232] vs. 116 days [IQR 74-224]; p = 0.04). Tumor recurrence rates were reduced in the post-expansion cohort (15.4% vs. 0%; p = 0.012). In conclusion, expanding from Milan to up-to-seven criteria for LT in patients with HCC had no meaningful impact on the waiting list length and composition, thus offering the opportunity for the adoption of more liberal policies in the future.

Should patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 receive higher priority for liver transplantation?

In this debate, the authors consider whether patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 (ACLF-3) should receive higher liver transplant priority, with reference to the following clinical case: a 62-year-old male with a history of decompensated alcohol-associated cirrhosis, with recurrent ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and metabolic comorbidities (type 2 diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension and a BMI of 31 kg/m²). A few days following evaluation for liver transplantation (LT), the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit and placed on mechanical ventilation for neurological failure, FiO₂ of 0.3 with a SpO₂ of 98%, and started on norepinephrine at 0.62 μg/kg/min. He had been abstinent since the diagnosis of cirrhosis a year prior. Laboratory results at admission were: leukocyte count 12.1 G/L, international normalised ratio 2.1, creatinine 2.4 mg/dl, sodium 133 mmol/L, total bilirubin 7 mg/dl, lactate 5.5 mmol/L, with a MELD-Na score of 31 and a CLIF-C ACLF score of 67. On the 7^th day after admission, the patient was placed on the LT waiting list. On the same day, he had massive variceal bleed with hypovolemic shock requiring terlipressin, transfusion of three red blood cell units, and endoscopic band ligation. On day 10, the patient was stabilised with a low dose of norepinephrine 0.03 μg/kg/min, with no new sepsis or bleeding. However, the patient was still intubated for grade 2 hepatic encephalopathy and on renal replacement therapy with a lactate level of 3.1 mmol/L. The patient is currently categorised as having ACLF-3, with five organ failures (liver, kidney, coagulation, circulation, and respiration). Based on the severity of his liver disease and multiorgan failure, the patient is at an exceedingly high risk of death without LT. Is it appropriate to perform LT in such a patient?

Outcome of liver transplantation in elderly patients: an Italian multicenter case-control study

Despite the controversial results of liver transplantation (LT) in elderly recipients, the proportion of patients continues to increase. This study investigated the outcome of LT in elderly patients (≥ 65 years) in an Italian, multicenter cohort. Between January 2014 and December 2019, 693 eligible patients were transplanted, and two groups were compared: recipients ≥ 65 years (n = 174, 25.1%) versus 50-59 years (n = 519, 74.9%). Confounders were balanced using a stabilized inverse probability therapy weighting (IPTW). Elderly patients showed more frequent early allograft dysfunction (23.9 versus 16.8%, p = 0.04). Control patients had longer posttransplant hospital stays (median: 14 versus 13 days; p = 0.02), while no difference was observed for posttransplant complications (p = 0.20). At multivariable analysis, recipient age ≥ 65 years was an independent risk factor for patient death (HR  1.76; p = 0.002) and graft loss (HR  1.63; p = 0.005). The 3-month, 1-year, and 5-year patient survival rates were 82.6, 79.8, and 66.4% versus 91.1, 88.5, and 82.0% in the elderly and control group, respectively (log-rank p = 0.001). The 3-month, 1-year, and 5-year graft survival rates were 81.5, 78.7, and 66.0% versus 90.2, 87.2, and 79.9% in the elderly and control group, respectively (log-rank p = 0.003). Elderly patients with CIT > 420 min showed 3-month, 1-year, and 5-year patient survival rates of 75.7%, 72.8%, and 58.5% versus 90.4%, 86.5%, and 79.4% for controls (log-rank p = 0.001). LT in elderly (≥ 65 years) recipients provides favorable results, but inferior to those achieved in younger patients (50-59), especially when CIT > 7 h. Containment of cold ischemia time seems pivotal for favorable outcomes in this class of patients.

Liver Transplantation in Alcohol-related Liver Disease and Alcohol-related Hepatitis

Alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) remains one of the leading causes of chronic liver disease and the prevalence of alcohol-related cirrhosis is still increasing worldwide. Thus, ARLD is one of the leading indications for liver transplantation (LT) worldwide especially after the arrival of direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection. Despite the risk of alcohol relapse, the outcomes of LT for ARLD are as good as for other indications such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with 1-, 5-, and 10- year survival rates of 85%, 74%, and 59%, respectively. Despite these good results, certain questions concerning LT for ARLD remain unanswered, in particular because of persistent organ shortages. As a result, too many transplantation centers continue to require 6 months of abstinence from alcohol for patients with ARLD before LT to reduce the risk of alcohol relapse even though compelling data show the poor prognostic value of this criterion. A recent pilot study even observed a lower alcohol relapse rate in patients receiving LT after less than 6 months of abstinence as long as addictological follow-up is reinforced. Thus, the question should not be whether LT should be offered to patients with ARLD but how to select patients who will benefit from this treatment.

Predicting the survival benefit of liver transplantation in HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure: an observational cohort study

Background

Liver transplantation (LT) is an effective therapy for acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) but is limited by organ shortages. We aimed to identify an appropriate score for predicting the survival benefit of LT in HBV-related ACLF patients.

Methods

Hospitalized patients with acute deterioration of HBV-related chronic liver disease (n = 4577) from the Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B (COSSH) open cohort were enrolled to evaluate the performance of five commonly used scores for predicting the prognosis and transplant survival benefit. The survival benefit rate was calculated to reflect the extended rate of the expected lifetime with vs. without LT.

Findings

In total, 368 HBV-ACLF patients received LT. They showed significantly higher 1-year survival than those on the waitlist in both the entire HBV-ACLF cohort (77.2%/52.3%, p < 0.001) and the propensity score matching cohort (77.2%/27.6%, p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) showed that the COSSH-ACLF II score performed best (AUROC 0.849) at identifying the 1-year risk of death on the waitlist and best (AUROC 0.864) at predicting 1-year outcome post-LT (COSSH-ACLFs/CLIF-C ACLFs/MELDs/MELD-Nas: AUROC 0.835/0.825/0.796/0.781; all p < 0.05). The C-indexes confirmed the high predictive value of COSSH-ACLF IIs. Survival benefit rate analyses showed that patients with COSSH-ACLF IIs 7-10 had a higher 1-year survival benefit rate from LT (39.2%-64.3%) than those with score <7 or >10. These results were prospectively validated.

Interpretation

COSSH-ACLF IIs identified the risk of death on the waitlist and accurately predicted post-LT mortality and survival benefit for HBV-ACLF. Patients with COSSH-ACLF IIs 7-10 derived a higher net survival benefit from LT.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81830073, No. 81771196) and the National Special Support Program for High-Level Personnel Recruitment (Ten-thousand Talents Program).

Comparison of current guidelines and consensus on the management of patients with cholangiocarcinoma: 2022 update

As a consequence of breakthroughs in the area of guidelines research, the therapy for cholangiocarcinoma has significantly improved the efficacy rate of diagnosis and survival outcomes. We compared the most recently updated clinical practice guidelines and consensus to provide recommendations based on the diagnostic and therapeutic equipment available in various countries. Following a systematic review, we discovered that these guidelines and consensus had both similarities and differences in terms of what organizations or groups drafted the guidelines and the approach, applicability, content and recent updates of the guidelines as well as in terms of diagnostic and treatment algorithms. The disparities could be attributable to a variety of etiological factors, high risk patients, health resources, medical technology, treatment options, and income levels. Additionally, while complete adoption of guidelines may benefit physicians, patients, and authorities, there remains a disconnect between expected goals and implementation.

Predictive factors of inhospital mortality for ICU patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure undergoing liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only effective treatment for acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), but it is limited by organ availability. This study aims to identify predictive factors of mortality for LT candidates based on parameters measured at the admission into the ICU.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients diagnosed with ACLF, admitted consecutively into ICU between 2015 and 2019, were retrospectively enrolled in the study. Data were assessed using univariate and multivariate regression analyses to identify risk factors for inhospital mortality and 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 67% of patients were diagnosed with ACLF grade 3, and 25 and 8% with grades 2 and 1. Thirty percent received LT with a 1-year mortality rate of 16%, whereas for nontransplanted patients it reached 90%. Clinical features were compared according to transplant eligibility. In the univariate analysis model, lung failure (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.48-6.09; P = 0.002), high lactate levels (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < 0.001) and CLIF-ACLF score (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09; P = 0.026) were independently correlated to increased inhospital mortality. LT reduced mortality risk (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.72; P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Lung failure, CLIF-ACLF score and blood lactate levels at admission were the only statistically significant independent predictors of inhospital mortality, more accurate in determining transplant success than ACLF grade.

Rising Trend in Waitlisting for Alcoholic Hepatitis With More Favorable Outcomes Than Other High Model for End-stage Liver Disease in the Current Era

BACKGROUND

In the appropriate candidate, liver transplantation (LT) is a viable treatment for alcoholic hepatitis (AH). We compared the waitlisting trends and outcomes of AH patients in the context of others with high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score.

METHODS

LT listings for AH between January 1, 2008, and June 12, 2020 were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Temporal trends in listings for AH were assessed. Covariate adjusted competing risks models evaluated waitlist mortality and LT rates between AH candidates and others with listing native MELD ≥30.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2019, waitlist additions for AH increased 6.5-fold. Waiting time for AH candidates was short (median 10 d). Delisting for clinical improvement was infrequent in AH, albeit higher than MELD ≥30 patients (3.3% versus 0.8%; P < 0.001). Among 99 centers with ≥1 AH listing, AH patients accounted for 0.2%-18.2% of all alcohol-related listings and 0.6%-25.0% of those with native listing MELD ≥30. Overall listing volume was larger at these 99 centers than the 40 with no AH listings (P < 0.001). AH candidates in 2014-2020 experienced improved waitlist survival (adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.86; P = 0.002) and higher transplant rates (adjusted subhazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.25; P = 0.006) versus other MELD ≥30 candidates.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a rising trend in waitlisting patients with AH and high MELD score. Liver disease causes influence waitlist outcomes and those of AH candidates are more favorable. Further research and allocation adjustments may be needed to ensure equitable organ allocation, based on liver disease cause, for those on the LT waitlist.

Liver Transplantation for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: What Are New Insights and What Should We Follow?

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a complex malignancy carrying poor prognosis. Liver transplantation (LT) was historically contraindicated for iCCA, due to poor outcomes after LT. However, an increasing number of studies have challenged this premise, because LT alone or combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy has achieved relatively satisfactory transplant outcomes in well selected iCCA cases. This current review based on existing clinical researches, evinced that LT might serve as a viable option in iCCA cases as follows: ① unresectable tumor restricted to 2 cm, along with context of chronic liver diseases; and ② unresectable tumor locally advanced within the liver (without extrahepatic metastasis or vascular invasion) but responses to tumor down-staging treatments (namely, systemic neoadjuvant therapy and/or locoregional therapy). On the contrary, it is recommended as contraindications in iCCA cases as follows: ① patients with tumor progression while waiting for a transplant (increase of diameter, macrovascular invasion, new nodules, escalation of carbohydrate antigen 19-9, or extrahepatic spread); ② patients with iCCA recurrence. Conclusively, tumor burden, tumor biology, and response to down-staging strategies should be taken into consideration before LT. Whereas, the concept of “locally advanced stage” remains to be defined in the future, especially the optimized combination of “maximum size of largest lesion”, “number of lesions”, with/without “tumor differentiation”, just like the Milan criteria which is widely used for hepatocellular carcinoma. Given the scarcity of donor organ, and also the debate about LT in iCCA, accurate consensus about LT for iCCA patients is still urgently warranted.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: How Should We Improve the Thresholds?

Simple Summary

The ideal treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is liver transplantation (LT), which both eliminates the HCC and cures the diseased liver. Once considered an experimental treatment with dismal survival rates, LT for HCC entered a new era with the establishment of the Milan criteria over 20 years ago. However, over the last two decades, the Milan criteria, which are based on tumor morphology, have come under intense scrutiny and are now largely regarded as too restrictive, and limit the access of transplantation for many patients who would otherwise achieve good clinical outcomes. The liver transplant community has been making every effort to reach a goal of establishing more reliable selection criteria. This article addresses how the criteria have been extended, as well as the concept of pre-transplant down-staging to maximize the eligibility.

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third highest cause of cancer-related mortality, and liver transplantation is the ideal treatment for this disease. The Milan criteria provided the opportunity for HCC patients to undergo LT with favorable outcomes and have been the international gold standard and benchmark. With the accumulation of data, however, the Milan criteria are not regarded as too restrictive. After the implementation of the Milan criteria, many extended criteria have been proposed, which increases the limitations regarding the morphological tumor burden, and incorporates the tumor’s biological behavior using surrogate markers. The paradigm for the patient selection for LT appears to be shifting from morphologic criteria to a combination of biologic, histologic, and morphologic criteria, and to the establishment of a model for predicting post-transplant recurrence and outcomes. This review article aims to characterize the various patient selection criteria for LT, with reference to several surrogate markers for the biological behavior of HCC (e.g., AFP, PIVKA-II, NLR, 18F-FDG PET/CT, liquid biopsy), and the response to locoregional therapy. Furthermore, the allocation rules in each country and the present evidence on the role of down-staging large tumors are addressed.

'Equity' and 'Justice' for patients with acute-on chronic liver failure: A call to action

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) occurs in hospitalised patients with cirrhosis and is characterised by multiorgan failures and high rates of short-term mortality. Without liver transplantation (LT), the 28-day mortality rate of patients with ACLF ranges from 18-25% in those with ACLF grade 1 to 68-89% in those with ACLF grade 3. It has become clear that patients with ACLF do not have equitable access to LT because of current allocation policies, which are based on prognostic scores that underestimate their risk of death and a lack of appreciation of the clear evidence of transplant benefit in carefully selected patients (who can have excellent post-LT outcomes). In this expert opinion, we provide evidence supporting the argument that patients with ACLF should be given priority for LT based on prognostic models that define the risk of death for these patients. We also pinpoint risk factors for poor post-LT outcomes, identify unanswered questions and describe the design of a global study, the CHANCE study, which will provide answers to the outstanding issues. We also propose the worldwide adoption of new organ allocation policies for patients with ACLF, as have been initiated in the UK and recommended in Spain.

Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in Cirrhosis

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a syndrome that develops in patients with acutely decompensated chronic liver disease. It is characterised by high 28-day mortality, the presence of one or more organ failures (OFs) and a variable but severe grade of systemic inflammation. Despite the peculiarity of each one, every definition proposed for ACLF recognizes it as a proper clinical entity. In this paper, we provide an overview of the diagnostic criteria proposed by the different scientific societies and the clinical characteristics of the syndrome. Established and experimental treatments are also described. Among the former, the most relevant are directed to support organ failures, treat precipitating factors and carry out early assessment for liver transplantation (LT). Further studies are needed to better clarify pathophysiology of the syndrome and discover new therapies.

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.

Colon Rectal Liver Metastases: The Role of the Liver Transplantation in the Era of the Transplant Oncology and Precision Medicine

The development of liver metastases in colon rectal cancer has a strong impact on the overall survival (OS) of the patient, with a 5-year survival rate of 5% with palliative treatment. Surgical resection combined with pharmacological treatment can achieve a 5-year OS rate of 31–58%. However, in only 20% of patients with colon rectal liver metastases (CRLMs), liver resection is feasible. In highly selected patients, recent trials and studies proved that liver transplantation (LT) for non-resectable CRLM is a surgical option with an excellent long-term OS. The paper aims to review the indications and outcome of LT for CRLMs, with a special focus on immunosuppressive therapy and the management of local and extrahepatic recurrence after LT.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma using grafts from uncontrolled circulatory death donation

Controversy exists regarding whether the rate of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) differs when using livers from donation after controlled circulatory death (DCD) versus livers from donation after brain death (DBD). The aim of this cohort study was to analyze rates of HCC recurrence, patient survival, and graft survival after OLT for HCC, comparing recipients of DBD livers (n = 103) with recipients of uncontrolled DCD livers (uDCD; n = 41). No significant differences in tumor size, tumor number, serum alpha-fetoprotein, proportion of patients within Milan criteria, or pre-OLT bridging therapies were identified between groups, although the waitlist period was significantly shorter in the uDCD group (p = 0.040). HCC recurrence was similar between groups. Patient survival was similar between groups, but graft survival was lower in the uDCD group. Multivariate analysis identified recipient age (p = 0.031), pre-OLT bridging therapy (p = 0.024), and HCC recurrence (p = 0.048) as independent risk factors for patient survival and pre-OLT transarterial chemoembolization (p = 0.045) as the single risk factor for HCC recurrence. In conclusion, similar patient survival and lower graft survival were observed in the uDCD group. However, the use of uDCD livers appears to be justified due to a shorter waitlist time, and lower waitlist dropout and HCC recurrence rates.

Diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Update of the consensus document of the AEEH, AEC, SEOM, SERAM, SERVEI, and SETH

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver neoplasm and one of the most common causes of death in patients with cirrhosis of the liver. In parallel, with recognition of the clinical relevance of this cancer, major new developments have recently appeared in its diagnosis, prognostic assessment and in particular, in its treatment. Therefore, the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver (AEEH) has driven the need to update the clinical practice guidelines, once again inviting all the societies involved in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease to participate in the drafting and approval of the document: Spanish Society for Liver Transplantation (SETH), Spanish Society of Diagnostic Radiology (SERAM), Spanish Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (SERVEI), Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC) and Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM). The clinical practice guidelines published in 2016 and accepted as National Health System Clinical Practice Guidelines were taken as the reference documents, incorporating the most important recent advances. The scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation is based on the GRADE system.

Liver Transplantation Selection and Allocation Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A European Perspective

For patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), liver transplantation offers the best chance of cure. Over the past two decades, selection criteria to determine eligibility for liver transplantation have been constantly refined but a fair allocation strategy of liver grafts to HCC patients remains challenging. In Europe, over a dozen transplantation networks apply different liver transplantation criteria for HCC patients. In this review, we explore and compare candidate selection and liver graft allocation strategies for patients with HCC with a European perspective and discuss the ethical and technical challenges involved. In addition, we suggest possible paths for future improvement such as transitioning from fixed selection and allocation criteria to a more flexible model of benefit, which includes criteria concerning the graft, response to treatment, the biology of the tumor, and other relevant recipient factors.

A novel waitlist dropout score for hepatocellular carcinoma - identifying a threshold that predicts worse post-transplant survival

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It has been suggested that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at high risk of wait-list dropout would have done poorly after liver transplantation (LT) because of tumour aggressiveness. To test this hypothesis, we analysed risk of wait-list dropout among patients with HCC in long-wait regions (LWRs) to create a dropout risk score, and applied this score in short (SWRs) and mid-wait regions (MWRs) to evaluate post-LT outcomes. We sought to identify a threshold in dropout risk that predicts worse post-LT outcome.

METHODS

Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, including all patients with T2 HCC receiving priority listing from 2010 to 2014, a dropout risk score was created from a developmental cohort of 2,092 patients in LWRs, and tested in a validation cohort of 1,735 patients in SWRs and 2,894 patients in MWRs.

RESULTS

On multivariable analysis, 1 tumour (3.1-5 cm) or 2-3 tumours, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) >20 ng/ml, and increasing Child-Pugh and model for end-stage liver disease-sodium scores significantly predicted wait-list dropout. A dropout risk score using these 4 variables (C-statistic 0.74) was able to stratify 1-year cumulative incidence of dropout from 7.1% with a score ≤7 to 39.5% with a score >23. Patients with a dropout risk score >30 had 5-year post-LT survival of 60.1% vs. 71.8% for those with a score ≤30 (p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in post-LT survival below this threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided evidence that patients with HCC with the highest dropout risk have aggressive tumour biology that would also result in poor post-LT outcomes when transplanted quickly. Below this threshold risk score of ≤30, priority status for organ allocation could be stratified based on the predicted risks of wait-list dropout without significant differences in post-LT survival.

LAY SUMMARY

Prioritising patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplant based on risk of wait-list dropout has been considered but may lead to inferior post-transplant survival. In this study of nearly 7,000 patients, we created a threshold dropout risk score based on tumour and liver-related factors beyond which patients with hepatocellular carcinoma will likely have poor post-liver transplant outcomes (60% at 5 years). For patients below this risk score threshold, priority status could be stratified based on the predicted risk of wait-list dropout without compromising post-transplant survival.

Is Liver Retransplantation Justified in the Current Era?

INTRODUCTION

Liver retransplantation (LRT) is a controversial indication. Our aim was to evaluate the rate of LRT at our institution, and to analyze its indications and short- and long-term results.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of a prospectively collected database, including 1645 LT from 1984 to 2018. Results have been analyzed depending on type of LRT (early vs late), study period and indications.

RESULTS

We performed 150 LRT in 140 patients. The LRT rate was 9%. Of these, 45 LRT were early (30%), and the other 70% were late LRT. The main indications were: ischemic cholangitis (27%), arterial thrombosis (19%), primary non-function (15%), and HCV recurrence (15%). Mean surgery duration (395 vs. 270 min; P = .001), cold ischemia time (435 vs. 390 min; P = .005) and transfused units required (8 vs. 5 RBC; P = .034) were higher in cases of late LRT. Postoperative mortality (10 vs. 20%; P = .01) was better in cases of late LRT. One- and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 71% and 58%, respectively, which were significantly better during the last decade (80% and 64%). Five-year actuarial survival for ischemic cholangitis is better than other indications, such as recurrence of HCV (78 vs. 51%; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver retransplantation is complex and associated with high morbidity and mortality. However, indications and long-term results have improved during recent years. Therefore, LRT is justified.