Expanded criteria for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

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.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Historical evolution of transplantation criteria

Liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma is still a hot topic, and the main factor that is associated with the success of treatment is to determine the patients who will benefit from LT. Milan criteria have been defined 25 years ago and still is being used for patient selection for LT. However, in living donor LT, the Milan criteria is being extended. Current criteria for patient selection do not only consider morphologic characteristics such as tumor size and number of tumor nodules but also biologic markers that show tumor aggressiveness is also being considered. In the present review article, we have summarized all the criteria and scoring systems regarding LT for hepatocellular carcinoma. All criteria have 5-year overall survival rates that were comparable to the Milan Criteria and ranged between 60%-85%. On the other hand, it was seen that the recurrence rates had increased as the Milan criteria were exceeded; the 5-year recurrence rates ranged between 4.9% to 39.9%. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma needs a multidisciplinary approach. Ideal selection criteria are yet to be discovered. The same is true for treatment modalities. The goal will be achieved by a harmonic interplay between basic science researchers and clinicians.

Prediction models of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: A comprehensive review

Liver transplantation (LT) is one of the most effective treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although LT eliminates HCC and greatly reduces recurrence, some patients experience recurrence after LT. Criteria and models for screening patients with a high probability of HCC recurrence after LT, starting with the Milan criteria, have been published. These models have changed over time, but a standard has not been established. We summarized HCC prediction models after LT by focusing on the application of radiologic, serologic, and pathologic factors and recent trends. This review will look at studies that are based on living donor LT and deceased donor LT, as well as studies that downstaging procedures have been performed preoperatively. This ultimately aims to help make decisions for evaluating the HCC state and selecting candidates for LT according to the circumstances of each transplantation center.

Liver transplantation in malignant disease

Liver transplantation for malignant disease has gained increasing attention as part of transplant oncology. Following the implementation of the Milan criteria, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was the first generally accepted indication for transplantation in patients with cancer. Subsequently, more liberal criteria for HCC have been developed, and research on this topic is still ongoing. The evident success of liver transplantation for HCC has led to the attempt to extend its indication to other malignancies. Regarding perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, more and more evidence supports the use of liver transplantation, especially after neoadjuvant therapy. In addition, some data also show a benefit for selected patients with very early stage intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma is a very rare but nonetheless established indication for liver transplantation in primary liver cancer. In contrast, patients with hepatic angiosarcoma are currently not considered to be optimal candidates. In secondary liver tumors, neuroendocrine cancer liver metastases are an accepted but comparability rare indication for liver transplantation. Recently, some evidence has been published supporting the use of liver transplantation even for colorectal liver metastases. This review summarizes the current evidence for liver transplantation for primary and secondary liver cancer.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Improving eligibility without compromising outcomes

Background

In the context of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), traditional transplant criteria appear restrictive. The objective of the current study was to determine risk factors for recurrence and improve transplant eligibility in patients with HCC.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent living donor liver transplant (LDLT) for HCC (n = 219). Largest tumor diameter, tumor number, AFP and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were assessed. Multivariate analysis was performed to develop risk scores. The new model was compared with seven previously published transplant criteria using receiver operator curves.

Results

Largest tumor size >3.7 cm [HR:2.6, P = 0.02], and AFP > 600 ng/ml [HR:4.7, P = 0.001] were independent predictors of recurrence. Patients with risk scores of 0, 1–3, 4–6 and 7–9 had recurrence rate of 5.9%, 12.5%, 25% and 58.4% respectively. When compared with Milan criteria, Metro ticket 2.0, AFP model and Samsung criteria; transplant eligibility increased by 31.5%, 22.9%, 8.7%, and 7% respectively. Recurrence rate with the current model was 16/199 (8%) (P < 0.0001) and was comparable with other transplant criteria (6.9–9.1%). On ROC analysis, only Milan criteria (AUC = 0.7, P = 0.001) and the current model (AUC = 0.66, P = 0.01) showed significance for recurrence. All patients with high risk scores within Milan criteria had recurred at 3 years (P = 0.03).

Conclusions

Low AFP can be used to select patients for LDLT outside traditional criteria for HCC, with comparable recurrence rates.

•

There is an unmet need to expand transplant pool for hepatocellular carcinoma.

•

We developed a model, based on tumor size cutoff of 3.7 cm, any tumor number, and AFP cutoff of 600 ng/ml; and compared it with other transplant criteria.

•

There was considerable expansion in transplant pool with comparable outcomes.

Hepatocellular cancer selection systems and liver transplantation: from the tower of babel to an ideal comprehensive score

The Milan criteria (MC) remain the cornerstone for the selection of patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) to be listed for liver transplantation (LT). Recently, several expanded criteria have been proposed to increase the transplantability of HCC patients without compromising their (oncologic) outcome. This paper aims to systematically review the different reported HCC-LT selection systems looking thereby at their ability to increase the number of transplantable patients and the overall survival and oncological outcome. A systematic review of the literature covering the period 1993 (date of the first reported HCC-LT selection system)–2021 identified 59 different inclusion criteria of HCC for LT. Among the 59 studies reporting HCC-LT selection systems, 15 (28.3%) were exclusively based on morphological aspects of the tumor; 29 (54.7%) included biologic, seven (13.2%) radiological, and two (3.8%) only included pathological tumor features. Overall, 31% more patients could be transplanted when adhering to the new HCC-LT selection systems. Despite the increased number of LT, 5-year patient and disease-free survival rates were similar between MC-IN and MC-OUT/new HCC-LT-IN criteria. A careful extension of the inclusion criteria should allow many more patients to access a potentially curative LT without compromising their outcome. The development of a widely accepted “comprehensive” HCC-LT Score able to offer a fair chance of justified transplantation to more patients should become a priority within the liver transplant community. Further studies are needed to develop internationally accepted, expanded selection criteria for liver transplantation of HCC patients.

Recent improvement in survival outcomes and reappraisal of prognostic factors in hepatoblastoma

Background

Prognostic factors in hepatoblastoma need to be reevaluated considering the advances in treatment modalities. The study aimed to evaluate current outcomes of hepatoblastoma and reappraise the association of prognostic factors, including pre‐treatment extent of tumor (PRETEXT) stage with annotation factors and Children's Hepatic tumors International Collaboration‐Hepatoblastoma Stratification (CHIC‐HS) system, with survival outcomes.

Methods

We evaluated 103 consecutive patients with hepatoblastoma retrospectively according to the treatment period based on the introduction of a liver transplantation program.

Results

The 5‐year overall survival (OS), event‐free survival (EFS), and transplant‐free survival rates were 80.2%, 74.2%, and 61.8%, respectively. EFS and OS were improved significantly from 58.6% to 81.6% (P = 0.024) and from 58.6% to 90.8% (P < 0.001), respectively, in the late period (N = 74) compared with the early period (N = 29). The PRETEXT stage was significant or marginally significant for EFS and OS in the early period but not in the late period. The P, F, R, and C factors were significant for OS and EFS in the early period. However, in the late period, only the P factor was significant for OS, and the F and M factors were significant for EFS. The CHIC‐HS system was significant or marginally significant for EFS in both the early and late periods; however, it was significant for OS only in the early period.

Conclusion

Survival rates were significantly improved in children with hepatoblastoma, especially in those with advanced PRETEXT stages with positive annotation factors and in a high‐risk CHIC‐HS group. Prognostic factors had different clinical implications with evolved treatment modalities.

Expanding Indications for Liver Transplant: Tumor and Patient Factors

During the past few decades, liver transplant has developed from a high-mortality procedure to an almost routine procedure with good survival outcomes. The development of living donor liver transplant has increased the availability of liver grafts, and the scope of indications for liver transplant has been expanding ever since. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of such an expansion of scope. Various criteria have been proposed to expand the eligibility of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding the Milan criteria for liver transplant. Furthermore, liver transplant is increasingly performed as a treatment modality for cholangiocarcinoma, neuroendocrine liver metastasis and colorectal liver metastasis. The number of elderly patients receiving liver transplant is on the rise. Combined organ transplantation has also been adopted to treat patients with multiple organ failure. Going forward, further development of preoperative noninvasive predictors in tumor, patient and even donor factors is needed to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes and hence optimize patient management.

Do We Need to Be Limited by Matching Milan Criteria for Survival in Living Donor Liver Transplantation?

PURPOSE

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths and the 7th most common cancer. It has two characteristic features: being advanced stage at diagnosis and association with liver cirrhosis. Liver transplantation (LT) offers the only curative option to treat both components of the disease. The Milan criteria have been extensively used for selecting patients with HCC for LT. However, using Milan criteria, we can only transplant 30% of the patients. The aim of the present review is to evaluate the role of LT in HCC beyond the Milan criteria.

METHODS

We evaluated the studies that have introduced extended criteria to select patients with HCC beyond the Milan criteria. We evaluated the outcomes in terms of disease-free survival rates and HCC recurrences.

RESULTS

There are patients with tumors that are beyond Milan criteria that could benefit from LT. Selection of these patients has paramount importance in the era of living donor liver transplantation. Current expanded criteria depend on either the bulk of the tumor or the additional surrogate markers of tumor biology such as alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and des-gamma carboxyprothrombin (DCP).

CONCLUSION

There is no ideal marker or an extended criterion for selecting patients with HCC beyond the Milan criteria and it needs further research to find an effective biomarker that has prognostic significance to select patients with advanced tumors.

When to call it off: defining transplant candidacy limits in liver donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an acceptable treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Traditional transplant criteria aim at best utilization of donor organs with low risk of post transplant recurrence. In LDLT, long term recurrence free survival (RFS) of 50% is considered acceptable. The objective of the current study was to determine preoperative factors associated with high recurrence rates in LDLT.

Methods

Between April 2012 and December 2019, 898 LDLTs were performed at our center. Out of these, 242 were confirmed to have HCC on explant histopathology. We looked at preoperative factors associated with ≤ 50%RFS at 4 years. For survival analysis, Kaplan Meier curves were used and Cox regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of recurrence.

Results

Median AFP was 14.4(0.7–11,326.7) ng/ml. Median tumor size was 2.8(range = 0.1–11) cm and tumor number was 2(range = 1–15). On multivariate analysis, AFP > 600 ng/ml [HR:6, CI: 1.9–18.4, P = 0.002] and microvascular invasion (MVI) [HR:5.8, CI: 2.5–13.4, P <  0.001] were independent predictors of 4 year RFS ≤ 50%. When AFP was > 600 ng/ml, MVI was seen in 88.9% tumors with poor grade and 75% of tumors outside University of California San Francisco criteria. Estimated 4 year RFS was 78% for the entire cohort. When AFP was < 600 ng/ml, 4 year RFS for well-moderate and poor grade tumors was 88 and 73%. With AFP > 600 ng/ml, RFS was 53% and 0 with well-moderate and poor grade tumors respectively (P <  0.001).

Conclusion

Patients with AFP < 600 ng/ml have acceptable outcomes after LDLT. In patients with AFP > 600 ng/ml, a preoperative biopsy to rule out poor differentiation should be considered for patient selection.

Developments in predictive biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma therapy

Introduction: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary tumor of the liver and the third largest cause of cancer-relateddeaths worldwide. Potentially curative treatments (surgical resection, radiofrequency or liver transplantation) are only available for few patients, while transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or systemic agents are the best treatments for intermediate and advanced stage disease. The identification of markers that allow us to choose the best treatment for the patient is urgent.Areas covered: In this review we summarize the potential biological markers to predict the efficacy of all treatment available in patients with HCC and discuss anew biomarker with ahigher potential of success in the next future.Expert opinion: HCC is aheterogeneous disease. Tumors are heterogeneous in terms of genetic alteration,with spatial heterogeneity in cellular density, necrosis and angiogenesis.This heterogeneity may affect prognosis and treatment. Tumor heterogeneity can be difficult to quantify with traditional imaging due to subjective assessment of images; the same for sampling biopsy, which evaluates only asmall part of the tumor. We think that combining multi-OMICSwith radiomics represents apromising strategy for evaluating tumor heterogenicity and for identifying biomarkers of response and prognosis.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Asian Perspective

Despite advancements in early diagnosis and medico-surgical treatment, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still a major cancer that causes substantial mortality in Asian countries. Liver transplantation (LT) has been accepted worldwide as the most effective treatment modality for patients with HCC; however, with the high incidence of HCC and low organ donation rate, Asia has developed distinctive features of indications and strategies for the application of LT. Unlike Western countries, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) accounts for most LT cases for HCC in Asian countries, and most major transplantation centers perform LDLT for HCC patients with extended criteria. This article reviewed the current practice and outcome of LDLT for HCC from an Asian perspective and summarized the strategies that the high-volume LT centers in Asia use to obtain satisfactory oncologic results.

Treatment strategies for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver cancer ranks fifth in incidence and fourth in overall cancer-related mortality, with approximately 854,000 new cases and 810,000 deaths per year worldwide. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for 90% of these cases, and, over time, both the incidence and mortality of this cancer have been rising in many regions. Several staging systems are used to assess the extent of primary tumor, presence of metastasis, and underlying liver disease, and thereby aid in the definition of treatment strategies and prognosis for these patients. The consequence of this heterogeneity in HCC staging is that no consensual definition of advanced disease exists, and there is still ongoing debate on the optimal treatment for these patients. Patients with advanced tumors can be candidates for multiple therapies, ranging from potentially curative options such as transplantation and resection-to locoregional and systemic treatments; these should be evaluated on an individual basis by a multidisciplinary team. This paper provides an overview of treatment options for advanced stage HCC, based on a review of the latest relevant literature and the personal experience of the authors.

Serum biomarkers and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only potentially curative treatment for selected patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are not candidates for resection. When the Milan criteria are strictly applied, 75% to 85%of 3- to 4-year actuarial survival rates are achieved, but up to 20% of the patients experience HCC recurrence after transplantation. The Milan criteria are based on the preoperative tumor macromorphology, tumor size and number on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging that neither correlate well with posttransplant histological study of the liver explant nor accurately predict HCC recurrence after LT, since they do not include objective measures of tumor biology. Preoperative biological markers, including alpha-fetoprotein, des-gamma-carboxiprothrombin or neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, can predict the risk for HCC recurrence after transplantation. These biomarkers have been proposed as surrogate markers of tumor differentiation and vascular invasion, with varied risk magnitudes depending on the defined cutoffs. Different studies have shown that the combination of one or several biomarkers integrated into prognostic models predict the risk of HCC recurrence after LT more accurately than Milan criteria alone. In this review, we focus on the potential utility of these serum biological markers to improve the performance of Milan criteria to identify patients at high risk of tumoral recurrence after LT.

Patient Selection by Tumor Markers in Liver Transplantation for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Although far advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is generally considered a contraindication for liver transplantation (LT), biologically favorable tumors among them could show acceptable results. However, it is still unclear which tumors can be treated with LT. Data were collected on adult patients who underwent LT for HCC beyond the Milan criteria in 8 Korean LT centers between January 2000 and June 2013. Far advanced HCC was defined as HCC with the largest tumor ≥ 10 cm, 10 or more tumor nodules, or accompanying macrovascular invasion. A total of 688 patients, including 169 with far advanced HCC, were enrolled in this study. The 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates were 60.4% and 55.1%, respectively, for all patients but only 28.7% and 24.8%, respectively, for patients with far advanced HCC (P < 0.001). Both preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II (PIVKA-II) were significant risk factors for HCC recurrence after LT. In particular, AFP + PIVKA-II combined was a better predictor than either marker alone. Of all far advanced HCC patients with available AFP and PIVKA-II levels, 45 (30.8%) had low AFP + PIVKA-II (≤300) and their 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival rate were 47.8% and 53.4%, respectively, which were acceptable and significantly superior to those of patients with AFP (ng/mL) + PIVKA-II (nAU/mL) > 300 (21.0% and 10.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). In conclusion, patients with favorable HCC had acceptable outcomes after LT even when their tumors were extremely advanced. AFP + PIVKA-II gave reliable information about the tumor biology of far advanced HCC. Liver Transplantation 00 000-000 2018 AASLD.

Expansion of the hepatocellular carcinoma Milan criteria in liver transplantation: Future directions

Milan criteria are currently the benchmark related to liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma. However, several groups have proposed different expanded criteria with acceptable results. In this article, we review the current status of LT beyond the Milan criteria in three different scenarios-expanded criteria with cadaveric LT, downstaging to Milan criteria before LT, and expansion in the context of adult living donor LT. The review focuses on three main questions: what would the impact of the expansion beyond Milan criteria be on the patients on the waiting list; whether the dichotomous criteria (yes/no) currently used are appropriate for LT or continuous survival estimations, such as the one of “Metroticket” and whether it should enter into the clinical practice; and, whether the use of living donor LT in the context of expansion beyond Milan criteria is justified.

Liver transplant for patients outside Milan criteria

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most indication to Liver Transplantation (LT). Milan criteria are worldwide accepted as the gold standard for LT indication for HCC. Nevertheless, expanded criteria are often used to transplant patient outside Milan. We described the most important proposed criteria outside Milan criteria. From the University of California San Francisco, to the Toronto criteria. From East to Western, and for living donor liver transplantation. In order to achieve similar results the downstaging strategy is more frequently used and for patients with locally advanced HCC. Carefully selected patients beyond the traditional criteria for transplantation may achieve excellent LT outcomes through a planned, multidisciplinary approach to treatment.

Determination of hepatocellular carcinoma grade by needle biopsy is unreliable for liver transplant candidate selection

The objective of this article is to evaluate the utility of preoperative needle biopsy (PNB) grading of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as a biomarker for liver transplantation (LT) candidate selection. Given the prognostic significance of HCC tumor grade, PNB grading has been proposed as a biomarker for LT candidate selection. Clinicopathologic characteristics of HCC LT recipients (1989-2014) with a PNB were analyzed, and the concordance of PNB grade to explant grade and vascular invasion was assessed to determine whether incorporation of PNB grade to accepted transplant criteria improved candidate selection. Of 965 patients undergoing LT for HCC, 234 (24%) underwent PNB at a median of 280 days prior to transplant. Grade by PNB had poor concordance to final explant pathology (κ = 0.22; P = 0.003), and low sensitivity (29%) and positive predictive value (35%) in identifying poorly differentiated tumors. Vascular invasion was predicted by explant pathologic grade (r_s= 0.24; P < 0.001) but not PNB grade (r_s = -0.05; P = 0.50). Increasing explant pathology grade (P = 0.02), but not PNB grade (P = 0.65), discriminated post-LT HCC recurrence risk. The incorporation of PNB grade to the established radiologic Milan criteria (MC) did not result in improved prognostication of post-LT recurrence (net reclassification index [NRI] = 0%), whereas grade by explant pathology resulted in significantly improved reclassification of risk (NRI = 19%). Preoperative determination of HCC grade by PNB has low concordance with explant pathologic grade and low sensitivity and positive predictive value in identifying poorly differentiated tumors. PNB grade did not accurately discriminate post-LT HCC recurrence and had no utility in improving prognostication compared with the MC alone. Incorporation of PNB to guide transplant candidate selection appears unjustified. Liver Transplantation 23 1123-1132 2017 AASLD.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: an (almost) exclusive Eastern procedure?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most prevalent cancer and it is linked with chronic liver disease. Liver transplantation (LT) is the best curative treatment modality, since it can cure simultaneously the underlying liver disease and HCC. Milan criteria (MC) are the benchmark for selecting patients with HCC for LT, achieving up to 91% 1-year survival post transplantation. However, when considering intention-to-treat (ITT) rates are substantially lower, mainly due dropout. Additionally, Milan criteria (MC) are too restrictive and more inclusive criteria have been reported with good outcomes. Mainly, in Eastern countries, deceased donors are scarce, therefore Asian centers have developed living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) to a state-of-art status. There are many eastern centers reporting huge numbers of LDLT with outstanding results. Regarding HCC patients, they have reported many criteria including more advanced tumors achieving reasonable outcomes. Western countries have well-established deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) programs. However, organ shortage and restrictive criteria for listing patients with HCC endorses LDLT as a good option to offer curative treatment to more HCC patients. However, there are some controversial reports claiming higher rates of HCC recurrence after LDLT than DDLT. An extensive review included 30 studies with cohorts of HCC patients who underwent LDLT in both East and West countries. We reported also the results of our Institution, in Brazil, where it was performed the first LDLT. This review also addresses the eligibility criteria for transplanting patients with HCC developed in Western and Eastern countries.

The International Liver Transplantation Society Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipient Guideline

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasingly embraced around the world as an important strategy to address the shortage of deceased donor livers. The aim of this guideline, approved by the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS), is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT. Recommendations were developed from an analysis of the National Library of Medicine living donor transplantation indexed literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Writing was guided by the ILTS Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines (www.ilts.org). Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations support specific approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care of living donor liver transplant recipients.

Compared to cadaveric liver transplantation, live donor LT (LDLT) is challenged by ethical, medical and surgical considerations, many of which are still unresolved. The aim of this guideline is to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding LDLT.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: outcomes and novel surgical approaches

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the best treatment option for patients with early-stage tumours and accounts for ∼20-40% of all liver transplantations performed at most centres worldwide. The Milan criteria are the most common criteria to select patients with HCC for transplantation but they can be seen as too restrictive. Several proposals have been made for a moderate expansion of the criteria, which result in good outcomes but with an increase in the risk of tumour recurrence. In this Review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the outcomes after liver transplantation for HCC, focusing on tumour recurrence in terms of surveillance, prevention and treatment. Additionally, novel surgical techniques have been developed to increase the available pool of organs for liver transplantation (such as living donor liver transplantation, donation after circulatory death and split livers), but the effect of these techniques on patients with HCC is still under debate. Thus, we will describe these techniques and expose the benefits and disadvantages of each surgical approach. Finally, we will comment on the limitations of the current priority policies for liver transplantation and the need to further refine them to better serve the population.

Indications for living donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver transplantation is the optimal radical therapy for patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The Milan criteria are widely applied for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in the western countries. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), however, prevails in Asian countries due to the extreme shortage of deceased donor organs. In contrast to DDLT, the feasibility of LDLT is not restricted by the national allocation system, and therefore the indications for LDLT in patients with HCC depend on institutional policies that consider both the operative risk to the donor and the survival benefit for the recipient. The results of a nationwide survey as well as the experiences of individual centers demonstrate similar outcomes for patients whose tumors fall within the Milan criteria and those whose tumors extend beyond the Milan criteria.

Liver transplantation for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

There has been ongoing debate that the Milan criteria may be too strict that a significant number of patients who could benefit from liver transplantation (LT) might have been excluded. Based on this idea, various studies have been conducted to further expand the Milan criteria and give more HCC patients a chance of cure. In deceased donor LT (DDLT) setting, expansion of the criteria is relatively tempered because the results of LT for HCC should be comparable to those of patients with non-malignant indications. On the other hand, in living donor LT (LDLT) situation, liver grafts are not public resources. The acceptable target outcomes for LDLT might be much lower than those for DDLT. Patients with biologically favorable tumors might have excellent survivals after LT despite morphological advanced HCCs. Therefore, the significance and utility of biological tumor parameters for selecting suitable LT candidates have been increased to predict HCC recurrence after LT. Although there is no consensus regarding the use of prognostic biomarkers in LT selection criteria for HCC, the combination of conventional morphological parameters and new promising biomarkers could help us refine and expand the LT criteria for HCC in the near future.

Expansion of the criteria for living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2016;21:231-237. [PMID: 26918880 DOI: 10.1097/mot.0000000000000294]

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several expanded criteria for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been suggested out of concern that the Milan criteria may be too strict, and thereby exclude patients who could benefit from this surgical procedure. However, most expanded criteria were designed for deceased donor liver transplantation. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) differs from that of deceased donor liver transplantation primarily because LDLT liver grafts are not public resources.

RECENT FINDINGS

In Asian countries, where HCC is endemic, LDLT is the main currently available treatment option for HCC. High-volume LDLT centers throughout Asia have adopted their own expanded selection criteria for LDLT for HCC with acceptable long-term results. Some centers utilize tumor markers as one of the criterion to help select suitable candidates. Indeed, such adjunctive biomarkers may have prognostic relevance for patients with HCC. The use of both biological and histomorphologic parameters may increase the number of transplantable patients.

SUMMARY

The overall chance of survival, and recipient/donor preferences as well as the risk of recurrence are considered in the LDLT setting. Therefore, the selection criteria for liver transplantation for HCC could benefit from expansion for LDLT.

Serologic and molecular biomarkers for recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of mortality. Knowledge on biomarkers may contribute to better surveillance based on the patients' risk of recurrence. Reviewing the literature, we aimed to identify serological and molecular biomarkers for recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the databases PubMed and Scopus to identify observational studies evaluating serological or molecular biomarkers for recurrence of HCC after LT using adjusted analysis to correct for confounding.

RESULTS

Of 502 records, 69 mainly retrospective studies were included with a total of 15,213 patients. Of these, 41 studies were suitable for meta-analyses, which showed that the serum markers pre-transplant α-fetoprotein (AFP) (hazard ratio (HR) 2.69 [2.08-3.47]), pre-transplant des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) (HR 5.99 [3.27-10.98]), and allelic imbalance in microsatellites in DNA of tumor tissue (HR 13.49 [3.17-57.30]) were related to recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

AFP, DCP and allelic imbalance in microsatellites may be used to predict recurrence. Together with other modalities, biomarkers may be used in future transplantation criteria to optimize selection of suitable patients.

A score model for predicting post-liver transplantation survival in HBV cirrhosis-related hepatocellular carcinoma recipients: a single center 5-year experience

BACKGROUND

The prognostic prediction of liver transplantation (LT) guides the donor organ allocation. However, there is currently no satisfactory model to predict the recipients' outcome, especially for the patients with HBV cirrhosis-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The present study was to develop a quantitative assessment model for predicting the post-LT survival in HBV-related HCC patients.

METHODS

Two hundred and thirty-eight LT recipients at the Liver Transplant Center, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine between 2008 and 2013 were included in this study. Their post-LT prognosis was recorded and multiple risk factors were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses in Cox regression.

RESULTS

The score model was as follows: 0.114X(Child-Pugh score)-0.002X(positive HBV DNA detection time)+0.647X(number of tumor nodules)+0.055X(max diameter of tumor nodules)+0.231XlnAFP+0.437X(tumor differentiation grade). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the area under the curve of the scoring model for predicting the post-LT survival was 0.887. The cut-off value was 1.27, which was associated with a sensitivity of 72.5% and a specificity of 90.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The quantitative score model for predicting post-LT survival proved to be sensitive and specific.

Liver transplantation for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: how far can we go?

Liver transplantation is one of the most effective treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma. Although the Milan criteria have been widely used to identify suitable candidates for liver transplant with a good prognosis, many transplant centers have developed and actually used more expanded criteria. Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is at the center of expansion of criteria because it is based on the personal relationship between a recipient and a donor. Asian LDLT centers have developed various expanded criteria for LDLT using tumor biologic markers as well as the size and number of the tumors. However, there is no consensus on the limit of the expansion of criteria. Here, we present our experience and opinion on LDLT for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.