An early regional experience with expansion of Milan Criteria for liver transplant recipients

The Combination of AFP and “Up-To-Seven” Criteria May Be a Better Strategy for Liver Transplantation in Chinese Cirrhotic HCC Patients

Background

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is a life-saving option for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the expanded OLT criteria remain controversial.

Objective

The study aimed to explore whether expanded OLT criteria can be applied to Chinese cirrhotic patients with HCC.

Methods

This retrospective study analyzed risk factors for HCC recurrence and death and compared patients’ tumor characteristics and outcomes in groups of Milan, “Up-to-seven,” and Hangzhou criteria, and groups between met and unmet the combinative criteria of “Up-to-seven” and AFP of < 1000 ng/mL.

Results

Among 153 patients who underwent OLT for HCC from January 2015 to February 2019 in 4 years of follow-up, 20 (13.1%) patients had HCC recurrence, and 11 (7.2%) had HCC-related death. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) of > 1000 ng/mL (hazard ratio [HR]: 10.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.45–41.13, P = 0.001) was an independent risk factor for HCC recurrence and HCC-related death (HR: 6.63, 95%CI: 1.31–33.52, P = 0.022). Patients who did not meet Milan criteria but satisfied the “Up-to-seven” criteria had no differences in overall survival (OS) (P = 0.69) and disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.35) than patients who met the Milan criteria. The combination of “Up-to-seven” criteria and AFP of < 1000 ng/mL differed significantly (HR: 18.9; 95% CI: 4.0–89.2; P < 0.001). Patients with HCC who met the “Up-to-seven” criteria and AFP of < 1000 ng/mL (n = 121) had excellent survival with 4-year OS of 91.6% (P < 0.001) and DFS of 90.8% (P < 0.001), which is significantly better compared to the other group (n = 32) (OS of 67.5% and DFS of 46.5%) and patients who met the Milan criteria (n = 108, OS of 89.8%, DFS of 89.6%), allowing 28.9% (13/45) of patients who did not meet the Milan criteria to benefit from OLT.

Conclusion

Chinese cirrhotic patients with HCC who met the combinative criteria of “Up-to-seven” and AFP of < 1000 ng/mL had better survival than those who met the Milan criteria, and these combinative criteria benefited more patients and may become a better option for OLT.

Liver Transplantation in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma beyond the Milan Criteria: A Comprehensive Review

The Milan criteria (MC) were developed more than 20 years ago and are still considered the benchmark for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the strict application of MC might exclude some patients who may receive a clinical benefit of LT. Several expanded criteria have been proposed. Some of these consider pretransplant morphological and biological variables of the tumor, others consider post-LT variables such as the histology of the tumor, and others combine pre- and post-LT variables. More recently, the HCC response to locoregional treatments before transplantation emerged as a surrogate marker of the biological aggressiveness of the tumor to be used as a better selection criterion for LT in patients beyond the MC at presentation. This essential review aims to present the current data on the pretransplant selection criteria for LT in patients with HCC exceeding the MC at presentation based on morphological and histological characteristics of the tumor and to critically discuss those that have been validated in clinical practice. Moreover, the role of HCC biological markers and the tumor response to downstaging procedures as new tools for selecting patients with a tumor burden outside of the MC for LT is evaluated.

LI-RADS and transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may be eligible for liver transplantation. Liver transplant candidates with HCC compete for the same deceased donor organs as those without HCC. These scarce organs must be allocated fairly and justly to those who will benefit most. Unlike most other cancers, HCC is often diagnosed noninvasively by imaging without biopsy confirmation. Therefore, radiologists play an important role in diagnosing definite HCC (i.e., LR-5 category) that counts toward staging and determination of liver transplant eligibility. This review explains the conversion of LI-RADS observation categories to organ procurement and transplantation network classes, illustrates the radiologic T-staging systems, reviews selection criteria for liver transplant eligibility, and discusses prioritization of liver transplant candidates with HCC. In addition, this review summarizes imaging requirements, including contrast agents accepted, minimum specifications for dynamic CT or MRI of the liver, and modalities accepted for assessment of extrahepatic spread or metastatic disease in liver transplant candidates with HCC.

Significance of preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in prediction of tumor recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a Japanese multicenter study

BACKGROUND

In the present study, we conducted a multicenter nationwide survey to investigate the effects of preoperative fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) on the prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

From 16 Japanese LT centers, data were collected on 182 recipients with HCC who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) between February 2005 and November 2013. PET-positive status was defined as increased uptake of FDG in the tumor compared to the surrounding non-tumor liver tissue. The median follow-up after LDLT was 54.5 months (range 1-125 months).

RESULTS

Postoperative HCC recurrence occurred in 23 patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that exceeding the Milan criteria (MC), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level ≥115 ng/ml, and PET-positive status were significant and independent risk factors for recurrence. In the over-MC group, a subgroup of patients with AFP level <115 ng/ml and PET-negative status (n = 22) had a significantly lower 5-year recurrence rate than the other patients (n = 27, 19% vs. 53%, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that preoperative FDG-PET status offers additional information on HCC recurrence risk after LT. Over-MC patients with PET-negative status and lower AFP level may achieve successful outcome comparable to that of within-MC patients.

Proposal of new expanded selection criteria using total tumor size and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose - positron emission tomography/computed tomography for living donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: The National Cancer Center Korea criteria

AIM: To expand the living donor liver transplantation (LT) pool of eligible patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using new morphological and biological criteria.

METHODS: Patients with HCC who underwent living donor LT (LDLT) from March 2005 to May 2013 at the National Cancer Center Korea (NCCK) were enrolled. We performed the ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) before LDLT. Overall and disease-free survival analysis was done in patients to evaluate the usefulness of new NCCK criteria using PET/CT and total tumor size (10 cm).

RESULTS: We enrolled a total of 280 patients who pathologically confirmed to have HCC and performed the PET/CT before transplantation. Among them, 164 (58.6%) patients fulfilled the NCCK criteria and 132 patients (47.1%) met the Milan criteria. Five-year overall and disease-free survival rates for patients who fulfilled the NCCK criteria showed 85.2% and 84.0%, respectively, and were significantly higher than those beyond the NCCK criteria (60.2% and 44.4%, respectively; P < 0.001). The correlation analysis between preoperative imaging tests and pathologic reports using Cohen’s Kappa demonstrated the better results in the NCCK criteria than those in the Milan criteria (0.850 vs 0.583). The comparison of disease-free analysis among the NCCK, Milan, and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria using the receiver operating characteristics curves revealed the similar area under the curve value criteria (NCCK vs Milan, P = 0.484; NCCK vs UCSF, P = 0.189 at 5-years).

CONCLUSION: The NCCK criteria using hybrid concept of both morphological and biological parameters showed an excellent agreement between preoperative imaging and pathological results, and favorable survival outcomes. These new criteria might select the optimal patients with HCC waiting LDLT and expand the selection pool.

Current Treatment Approaches to HCC with a Special Consideration to Transplantation

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. The mainstay of treatment of HCC has been both resectional and transplantation surgery. It is well known that, in selected, optimized patients, hepatectomy for HCC may be an option, even in patients with underlying cirrhosis. Resectable patients with early HCC and underlying liver disease are however increasingly being considered for transplantation because of potential for better disease-free survival and resolution of underlying liver disease, although this approach is limited by the availability of donor livers, especially in resectable patients. Outcomes following liver transplantation improved dramatically for patients with HCC following the implementation of the Milan criteria in the late 1990s. Ever since, the rather restrictive nature of the Milan criteria has been challenged with good outcomes. There has also been an increase in the donor pool with marginal donors including organs retrieved following cardiac death being used. Even so, patients still continue to die while waiting for a liver transplant. In order to reduce this attrition, bridging techniques and methods for downstaging disease have evolved. Additionally new techniques for organ preservation have increased the prospect of this potentially curative procedure being available for a greater number of patients.

An early look at the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network explant pathology form data

In April 2012, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) implemented an online explant pathology form for recipients of liver transplantation who received additional wait-list priority for their diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The purpose of the form was to standardize the data being reported to the OPTN, which had been required since 2002 but were submitted to the OPTN in a variety of formats via facsimile. From April 2012 to December 2014, over 4500 explant forms were submitted, allowing for detailed analysis of the characteristics of the explanted livers. Data from the explant pathology forms were used to assess agreement with pretransplant imaging. Explant data were also used to assess the risk of recurrence. Of those with T2 priority, 55.7% were found to be stage T2 on explant. Extrahepatic spread (odds ratio [OR] = 6.8; P < 0.01), poor tumor differentiation (OR = 2.8; P < 0.01), microvascular invasion (OR = 2.6; P < 0.01), macrovascular invasion (OR = 3.2; P < 0.01), and whether the Milan stage based on the number and size of tumors on the explant form was T4 (OR = 2.4; P < 0.01) were the strongest predictors of recurrence. In conclusion, this analysis confirms earlier findings that showed an incomplete agreement between pretransplant imaging and posttransplant pathology in terms of HCC staging, though the number of patients with both no pretransplant treatment and no tumor in the explant was reduced from 20% to <1%. In addition, several factors were identified (eg, tumor burden, age, sex, region, ablative therapy, alpha-fetoprotein, Milan stage, vascular invasion, satellite lesions, etc.) that were predictive of HCC recurrence, allowing for more targeted surveillance of high-risk recipients. Continued evaluation of these data will help shape future guidelines or policy recommendations. Liver Transplantation 22 757-764 2016 AASLD.

Living donor liver transplantation in the USA

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) accounts for a small volume of the transplants in the USA. Due to the current liver allocation system based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), LDLT has a unique role in providing life-saving transplantation for patients with low MELD scores and significant complications from portal hypertension, as well as select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Donor safety is paramount and has been a topic of much discussion in the transplant community as well as the general media. The donor risk appears to be low overall, with a favorable long-term quality of life. The latest trend has been a gradual shift from right-lobe grafts to left-lobe grafts to reduce donor risk, provided that the left lobe can provide adequate liver volume for the recipient.

New advances in hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the leading cause of deaths in cirrhotic patients and the third cause of cancer related deaths. Most HCC are associated with well known underlying risk factors, in fact, HCC arise in cirrhotic patients in up to 90% of cases, mainly due to chronic viral hepatitis and alcohol abuse. The worldwide prevention strategies are conducted to avoid the infection of new subjects and to minimize the risk of liver disease progression in infected patients. HCC is a condition which lends itself to surveillance as at-risk individuals can readily be identified. The American and European guidelines recommended implementation of surveillance programs with ultrasound every six months in patient at-risk for developing HCC. The diagnosis of HCC can be based on non-invasive criteria (only in cirrhotic patient) or pathology. Accurately staging patients is essential to oncology practice. The ideal tumour staging system in HCC needs to account for both tumour characteristics and liver function. Treatment allocation is based on several factors: Liver function, size and number of tumours, macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. The recommendations in terms of selection for different treatment strategies must be based on evidence-based data. Resection, liver transplant and interventional radiology treatment are mainstays of HCC therapy and achieve the best outcomes in well-selected candidates. Chemoembolization is the most widely used treatment for unresectable HCC or progression after curative treatment. Finally, in patients with advanced HCC with preserved liver function, sorafenib is the only approved systemic drug that has demonstrated a survival benefit and is the standard of care in this group of patients.

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: beyond international guidelines

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is guided by the tumour stage. The Barcelona clinical liver cancer (BCLC) score endorsed by the European Society of the Liver EASL divides patients into five prognostic categories, each with a distinct treatment indication. Hepatic resection, orthotopic liver transplantation and percutaneous local ablation are strongly indicated in accurately selected patients with very early (BCLC 0) and early stage (BCLC A) tumours providing a survival rate of between 50 and 75% at year five. In patients with a large tumour burden such as those with intermediate stage BCLC B, repeated treatments with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) are advocated with clinical benefits (from 16 to 22 months). Survival may also improve in patients who are in poor condition or who do not respond to TACE and those with an advanced HCC (BCLC C), following oral therapy with the multikinase inhibitor, sorafenib. However, most recommendations are based on uncontrolled studies and expert opinions rather than well-designed controlled trials, and up to one-third of patients do not fit recommendations because of advanced age, the presence of significant comorbidities or a strategic location of the nodule. For these patients, treatment of HCC beyond guidelines is often advocated.

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: beyond international guidelines

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is decided according to evidence-based recommendations generated by international societies: according to these recommendations, the tumour stage, as determined by the Barcelona clinical liver cancer (BCLC) score, divides patients into five prognostic categories, each with a distinct treatment indication. Radical therapies such as hepatic resection, orthotopic liver transplantation and percutaneous local ablation are strongly indicated in patients with very early and early stage tumours (BCLC O and A), a choice which mainly depends on a combination of tumour volume, status of underlying liver disease, the presence of comorbidities and the patient's age. Although radical therapies provide a survival rate of between 50% and 75% at year five in well selected patients, tumour recurrence is frequent following resection and ablation compared to transplantation (70% vs. 10% respectively), which has the additional advantage of preventing morbidity and mortality from portal hypertension. Generally, while radical therapies are contraindicated in patients with a large tumour burden, such as those with intermediate stage BCLC B, survival in the subset of these patients with well compensated cirrhosis may improve from 16 to 20 months, on average, following repeated treatments with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Survival may also improve in patients who are in poor condition or who do not respond to TACE and in those with an advanced HCC (BCLC C) following oral therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib. However, because most recommendations are based on uncontrolled studies and expert opinions rather than well designed, high powered randomized controlled trials, treatment criteria need to be adapted to special groups because real life cohorts do not match the selection criteria suggested by the guidelines. Indeed, up to one-third of patients with early stage tumours who are unfit for radical therapy because of advanced age, the presence of significant comorbidities or a strategic location of the nodule, are forced to receive palliative care. BCLC A patients with moderate portal hypertension and certain BCLC B patients could still be eligible for hepatic resection if a chance for 50% survival at 5 years is still perceived as being cost-effective by both the patient and caregivers.

Standardizing MELD Exceptions: Current Challenges and Future Directions

Since MELD-based allocation was implemented in 2002, a system of exception points has been in place in order to award increased waitlist priority to those patients whose severity of illness or risk of complications are not captured by the MELD score. These exceptions, categorized as standardized and non-standardized, have been used with increasing frequency over time. Several challenges to the exception point system have emerged, including lack of standardization in the criteria used to approve such exceptions, geographic variability in the use and approval of such exceptions, and limited evidence base to support certain exceptions. Herein, we summarize the current implementation of exception points, the challenges facing the transplant community, and suggestions for improving and standardizing the current exception point system.

Biological markers of hepatocellular carcinoma for use as selection criteria in liver transplantation

The Milan criteria (MC) have been widely accepted as an effective way of selecting patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for curative liver transplantation (LT). However, since a substantial subset of HCC patients exists that is beyond the MC but with the potential for good outcomes after LT, several institutions have recently proposed new extended criteria. To explore optimal criteria that can reasonably predict the risk of recurrence, it is considered that new markers of biological behavior are needed in addition to morphological tumor size and number. Several promising candidates for such biological markers have been reported, including serum tumor markers such as alpha-fetoprotein and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin, inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, response to pre-transplant treatments for bridging therapy or down-staging, and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. However, the role of these biological markers in patient selection criteria for LT has yet to be clarified. This review article aims to summarize the results of recent reported studies and to display perspectives for the establishment of optimal criteria that incorporate such biological markers.

Review article: liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma - a critical appraisal of the current worldwide listing criteria

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) plays an important role in the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although early results following LT for HCC were poor, since the introduction of the Milan criteria in 1996 morphological criteria have since been well established. Thereafter, various expansions of the Milan criteria were introduced worldwide. Listing criteria for LT for HCC in the United Kingdom (UK) initially conformed to the Milan criteria but were re-defined in 2009 by expansion of the Milan criteria.

AIMS

To look at the evidence in literature on listing criteria and management of HCC worldwide in comparison with the UK. Secondly, we aim to review worldwide vs. UK literature on prioritisation models, loco-regional therapy protocols and role of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in LT for HCC.

METHODS

An electronic literature search with Medline was carried out to identify articles related to LT for HCC.

RESULTS

Although various expansions of the Milan criteria have been described, they remain the gold standard against which other criteria are measured. The UK criteria are an expansion of the Milan criteria that go beyond Milan and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria. The current UK listing criteria for LT for HCC when compared to the worldwide criteria have a worse survival benefit (projected 5-year survival between 35-50%) when plotted on the metroticket calculator.

CONCLUSIONS

In keeping with most transplant centres worldwide, the UK have adopted expansions to Milan to allow more patients to benefit from LT. However, currently, as it stands the UK criteria when plotted in the modification of the Metroticket model project worse survival that would seem unjustified.

Liver transplant for hepatocellular cancer: very small tumors, very large tumors, and waiting time

The role of liver transplant for treatment of early hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is no longer contested. However, its benefit relative to other therapies for patients with very early (<2 cm) HCC is still a matter of debate. Twenty years after the establishment of the Milan criteria, we are beginning to realize that the number and size of tumors may not be the best metric by which to prognosticate outcomes and allocate organs. A better assessment of tumor aggressiveness is clearly needed.

Waitlist priority for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond milan criteria: a potentially appropriate decision without a structured approach

Due to the risk of waitlist dropout from tumor progression, liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within Milan criteria (MC) receive standardized exception points. An expansion of this process to candidates with HCC beyond MC has been proposed, though it remains controversial. This study sought to better define the utilization of exception points in candidates with HCC beyond MC and the associated outcomes. We reviewed all nonstandardized HCC applications that underwent formal regional review board evaluation between January 1, 2005 and March 2, 2011; 2184 initial HCC exception point applications were submitted. Of these, 41.9% fulfilled MC, 26.6% fulfilled University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) criteria and 17.6% exceeded UCSF criteria. The majority of applications were accepted: 89.8% within UCSF and 71.2% beyond UCSF. There was a significantly (p < 0.001) higher risk of death on the waitlist or within 90 days of waitlist removal for candidates within UCSF (12.4%) or beyond UCSF (13.0%) criteria, compared to candidates with HCC within MC (6.0%). However, posttransplant outcomes were similar. While these results suggest increasing access to candidates with HCC beyond MC, comprehensive documentation of tumor characteristics and of successful downstaging is needed to ensure priority is restricted to those with the highest likelihood of favorable posttransplant outcome.

Pre-transplant utilization of sorafenib is not associated with increased complications after liver transplantation

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in incidence, resulting in approximately 35% of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) performed each year. Sorafenib (SOR) is a multi-kinase inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of unresectable HCC. Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of SOR in patients undergoing major surgery. We retrospectively reviewed 79 consecutive patients with HCC receiving OLT. Patient data were compared for those who received SOR pre-OLT with those who did not. SOR was continued until time of transplant. During this time period, 15 patients received SOR pre-OLT and 64 did not. The two groups were similar with regards to demographic and clinical data. SOR patients were more likely to have larger tumors, more tumor nodules, and be outside of Milan criteria. The rate of recurrence of HCC was not different between the groups (13% in SOR group, 11% in no-SOR group). Surgical complications were not increased in patients receiving SOR prior to OLT. Survival rate was also similar between the two groups (median follow-up 19.7 months). In this small cohort of patients, use of SOR prior to liver transplantation does not confer an increased risk of surgical complications, even when continued until the day of surgery.

Hepatocellular cancer and liver transplantation: a Western experience

Orthotopic liver transplantation is the preferred treatment option in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma developing in chronic liver disease. Unfortunately, based on classical transplantation criteria (Milan criteria), only a minority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are candidate to orthotopic liver transplantation. Major improvements in treatment strategy and surgical technique including the use of neoadjuvant locoregional therapies and progresses of post-transplant immunosuppressive treatment have contributed to safely expand transplantation criteria preserving acceptable surgical morbidity-mortality and good oncologic outcome. Further extension of transplantation criteria may have advantages including an increase in the number of transplant candidates and improvement of the prognosis of the disease and also disadvantages including an increase of surgical morbidity and deterioration of global oncologic outcome of orthotopic liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma. In the future, identification of imaging or molecular prognostic markers could help to better define transplantation criteria.

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation - an emerging clinical challenge

In western countries, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major reason for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) with estimated recurrence rates between 15% and 20%. This selective literature review addresses follow-up care after OLT in HCC and current treatment options. Recurrence prediction is based on pathological tumor stage, vascular invasion, serum alfafetoprotein levels, and histological differentiation, but further advances are expected by molecular profiling techniques. Lower levels of immunosuppressive agents are associated with a lower risk for HCC recurrence. Retrospective studies indicate that mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors as immunosuppression reduce the risk of HCC recurrence. However, prospective studies supporting this potential advantage of mTOR inhibitors are still lacking, and higher rejection rates were reported for sirolimus after OLT in HCC. Prognosis is poor in recurrent HCC, a longer interval between OLT and recurrence and feasibility of surgical resection are associated with improved survival. Systemic treatment with sorafenib is the current standard of care in patients with advanced-stage HCC not suitable for locoregional therapy. After OLT, combination of an mTOR inhibitor with sorafenib is feasible and frequently used in clinical practice. As safety and efficacy data are still limited, close clinical monitoring is mandatory.

Multidisciplinary management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Management algorithms continually are increasing in sophistication and involve application of single and multimodality treatments, including liver transplantation, hepatic resection, ablation, transarterial chemoembolization, radioembolization, and systemic chemotherapy. These treatments have been shown to increase survival times. As many as 75% of patients with limited-stage disease who are given curative therapies survive 5 years, whereas less than 20% of untreated patients survive 1 year. Treatment can be optimized based on the patient's tumor stage, hepatic reserve, and functional status. However, because of the heterogeneity in presentation among patients, a multidisciplinary approach is required to treat hepatocellular carcinoma, involving hepatologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and oncologists. We present each specialist's viewpoint on controversies and advances in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Impact of geographic disparity on liver allocation for hepatocellular cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Liver allocation for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is undergoing constant re-evaluation in the United States, but the impact of geographic differences in organ access has not been examined.

METHODS

From February 28th, 2002 until November 20th, 2009, 9730 adult patients with T2 HCC and 326 Beyond Milan HCC patients were studied using the UNOS database. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated and log-rank tests were used to test for differences in survival curves.

RESULTS

Length of waiting time and presence/absence of loco-regional therapy in T2 HCC patients did not significantly impact transplant recipient (p=0.65) and graft survival (p=0.74) (Fig. 1B). Regions with median waiting times >6 months performed more loco-regional therapy (Fig. 1D) and had significantly higher waiting list dropout rates (Regions 1: p=0.01; 5: p<0.001, and 9: p<0.001). T2 HCC post-transplant outcomes were not significantly different between UNOS regions (Fig. 2) or between T2 and Beyond Milan HCC patients (transplant recipient p=0.37, and graft p=0.72 survival) (Fig. 1C). The Beyond Milan cohort had significantly greater dropout/death (p=0.007) and a worse overall survival trend (p=0.11) (Fig. 1C).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the UNOS database shows inhomogeneous access to liver transplantation in the United States. Regions with longer waiting times had significantly higher T2 HCC dropout rates (Table 2), and used more loco-regional therapy (Fig. 1D). Conversely, T2 HCC patients had uniform liver transplant outcomes despite geographic differences (Fig. 2). Beyond Milan HCC patients showed significantly greater dropout/death (p=0.007) and a worse overall survival trend in an intent-to-treat analysis (p=0.11) (Fig. 1C).

Criteria for liver transplantation for HCC: what should the limits be?

Liver transplantation is a well-established treatment in a subset of patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The Milan criteria (single nodule up to 5 cm, up to three nodules none larger than 3 cm, with no evidence of extrahepatic spread or macrovascular invasion) have been traditionally accepted as standard of care. However, some groups have proposed that these criteria are too restrictive, and exclude some patients from transplantation who might benefit from this procedure. Transplanting patients with tumors beyond the established criteria falls into two categories, those whose tumors are beyond the Milan criteria at presentation without the use of treatment prior to transplantation (expanded criteria), and those in whom treatment allows the Milan Criteria to be fulfilled (down-staging). Currently, however, there is no international consensus regarding these approaches in clinical practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to clarify this debate through a critical analysis of available data. Finally, some comments on predictive factors apart from morphological characteristics are also addressed.

Genetic variations in plasma circulating DNA of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma patients predict recurrence after liver transplantation

Background

Recurrence prediction of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) present a great challenge because of a lack of biomarkers. Genetic variations play an important role in tumor development and metastasis.

Methods

Oligonucleotide microarrays were used to evaluate the genetic characteristics of tumor DNA in 30 HBV-related HCC patients who were underwent LT. Recurrence-related single-nucleotide polymorphism were selected, and their prognostic value was assessed and validated in two independent cohorts of HCC patients (N = 102 and N = 77), using pretransplant plasma circulating DNA. Prognostic significance was assessed by Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and log-rank tests. Multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate prognosis-related factors.

Results

rs894151 and rs12438080 were significantly associated with recurrence (P = .003 and P = .004, respectively). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that the co-index of the 2 SNPs was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence (P = .040). Similar results were obtained in the third cohort (N = 77). Furthermore, for HCC patients (all the 3 cohorts) exceeding Milan criteria, the co-index was a prognostic factor for recurrence and survival (P<.001 and P = .002, respectively).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated first that genetic variations of rs894151 and rs12438080 in pretransplant plasma circulating DNA are promising prognostic markers for tumor recurrence in HCC patients undergoing LT and identify a subgroup of patients who, despite having HCC exceeding Milan criteria, have a low risk of post-transplant recurrence.

Hepatocellular carcinoma and liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hepatocelluar carcinoma (HCC) continues to grow in scope and magnitude as a clinical entity. Liver transplantation has been shown to be a potentially curative treatment for a select group of patients with HCC. The role of liver transplantation as part of the multidisciplinary treatment of HCC continues to evolve.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of liver transplantation as treatment for HCC continues to grow as selection criteria are refined to optimize outcomes. The Milan criteria (T2) are considered the standard selection criteria but have been challenged in recent years as being too limiting. Treatment for HCC patients awaiting liver transplantation includes a number of ablative techniques that may arrest tumor growth. Similar treatments may potentially downsize large (>T2) HCC so that they fall into the exception criteria for liver transplantation (downstaging), which is an area of ongoing study. Prioritizing HCC patients on the liver transplantation waiting list remains a difficult balance with non-HCC patients. After several downward adjustments of priority for HCC patients, the current system of awarding set, defined priority scores with time-dependent increases for HCC patients who remain within Milan criteria (compared to a continuous priority scale for non-HCC patients), continues to give HCC patients excess priority in access to liver transplantation. Despite this, outcomes for HCC patients remain inferior to non-HCC patients after liver transplantation.

SUMMARY

Liver transplantation remains an acceptable treatment for select HCC patients. Optimizing patient selection and pretransplant treatment, and refining prioritization in relation to non-HCC patients for these scarce resource cadaveric livers continues to challenge the transplant community.

FOXM1 expression predicts the prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma patients after orthotopic liver transplantation combined with the Milan criteria

Molecular biomarker has been proposed to improve patient selection and post-transplant prognostication, but rare achievement has been made. In the present study, Forkhead box M1 (FOXM1) expression and its prognostic role have been investigated in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated by orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). We found that the notably higher level of FOXM1 in tumors was associated with malignant pathological features of HCC and unfavorable outcome after OLT. The status of FOXM1 expression combined with the Milan criteria could make the prognostication more accurate and may be of particular interest for expanding the criteria in selecting transplant candidates.