Analysis of Survival Benefits of Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplant in High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Hepatorenal Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous recommendations suggested living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should not be considered for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) > 25 and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Patients who were listed with MELD > 25 from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT) basis retrospectively. Patients who had a potential live donor were analyzed as ITT-LDLT, whereas those who had none belonged to ITT-deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) group. ITT-overall survival (OS) was analyzed from the time of listing. Three hundred twenty-five patients were listed (ITT-LDLT n = 212, ITT-DDLT n = 113). The risk of delist/death was lower in the ITT-LDLT group (43.4% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.001), whereas the transplant rate was higher in the ITT-LDLT group (78.3% vs. 52.2%, P < 0.001). The 5-year ITT-OS was superior in the ITT-LDLT group (72.6% vs. 49.5%, P < 0.001) for patients with MELD > 25 and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (56% vs. 33.8%, P < 0.001). Waitlist mortality was the highest early after listing, and the distinct alteration of slope at survival curve showed that the benefits of ITT-LDLT occurred within the first month after listing. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year patient survival were comparable for patients with MELD > 25 (88% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.279) and patients with both MELD > 25 and HRS (77% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.701) after LDLT and DDLT, respectively. The LDLT group has a higher rate of renal recovery by 1 month (77.4% vs. 59.1%, P = 0.003) and 3 months (86.1% vs, 74.5%, P = 0.029), whereas the long-term estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was similar between the 2 groups. ITT-LDLT reduced the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.387-0.552) across all MELD strata. CONCLUSIONS: The ITT-LDLT reduced waitlist mortality and allowed an earlier access to transplant. LDLT in patients with high MELD/HRS was feasible, and they had similar perioperative outcomes and better renal recovery, whereas the long-term survival and eGFR were comparable with DDLT. LDLT should be considered for patients with high MELD/HRS, and the application of LDLT should not be restricted with a MELD cutoff.

Prospective Study of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Waitlist for Liver Transplant.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are no prospective data on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a bridge to liver transplantation for HCC. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SBRT as bridging therapy, with comparison with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Patients were prospectively enrolled for SBRT under a standardized protocol from July 2015 and compared with a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent TACE or HIFU from 2010. The primary endpoint was tumor control rate at 1 year after bridging therapy. Secondary endpoints included cumulative incidence of dropout, toxicity, and posttransplant survival. During the study period, 150 patients were evaluated (SBRT, n = 40; TACE, n = 59; HIFU, n = 51). The tumor control rate at 1 year was significantly higher after SBRT compared with TACE and HIFU (92.3%, 43.5%, and 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.02). With competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of dropout at 1 and 3 years after listing was lower after SBRT (15.1% and 23.3%) compared with TACE (28.9% and 45.8%; P = 0.034) and HIFU (33.3% and 45.1%; P = 0.032). Time-to-progression at 1 and 3 years was also superior after SBRT (10.8%, 18.5% in SBRT, 45%, 54.9% in TACE, and 47.6%, 62.8% in HIFU; P < 0.001). The periprocedural toxicity was similar, without any difference in perioperative complications and patient and recurrence-free survival rates after transplant. Pathological complete response was more frequent after SBRT compared with TACE and HIFU (48.1% vs. 25% vs. 17.9%, respectively; P = 0.037). In multivariable analysis, tumor size <3 cm, listing alpha-fetoprotein <200 ng/mL, Child A, and SBRT significantly reduced the risk of dropout. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT was safe, with a significantly higher tumor control rate, reduced the risk of waitlist dropout, and should be used as an alternative to conventional bridging therapies.

Liver transplantation using hepatitis B core positive grafts with antiviral monotherapy prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The impact of hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive liver grafts on survival and the risk of de novo hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection after liver transplantation (LT) remain controversial. Therefore, we aimed to analyze this risk and the associated outcomes in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective study that included all adults who underwent LT at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, between 2000 and 2015. Data were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. Antiviral monotherapy prophylaxis was given for patients receiving grafts from anti-HBc positive donors. RESULTS: A total of 964 LTs were performed during the study period, with 416 (43.2%) anti-HBc positive and 548 (56.8%) anti-HBc negative donors. The median follow-up time was 7.8 years. Perioperative outcomes (hospital mortality, complications, primary nonfunction and delayed graft function) were similar between the 2 groups. The 1-, 5- and 10-year graft survival rates were comparable in anti-HBc positive (93.3%, 85.3% and 76.8%) and anti-HBc negative groups (92.5%, 82.9% and 78.4%, p = 0.944). The 1-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates in anti-HBc positive group were 94.2%, 87% and 79% and were similar to the anti-HBc negative group (93.5%, 84% and 79.7%, p = 0.712). One-hundred and eight HBsAg negative recipients received anti-HBc positive grafts, of whom 64 received lamivudine and 44 entecavir monotherapy prophylaxis. The risk of de novo HBV was 3/108 (2.8%) and all occurred in the lamivudine era. There were 659 HBsAg-positive patients and 308 (46.7%) received anti-HBc positive grafts. The risk of HBV recurrence was similar between the 2 groups. Donor anti-HBc status did not impact on long-term patient and graft survival, or the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after LT. CONCLUSIONS: De novo HBV was exceedingly rare especially with entecavir prophylaxis. Anti-HBc positive grafts did not impact on perioperative and long-term outcomes after transplant. LAY SUMMARY: The risk of de novo hepatitis B infection after liver transplantation was rare when using hepatitis B core positive liver grafts with entecavir monotherapy prophylaxis. Hepatitis B core antibody status did not impact on perioperative and long-term outcomes after liver transplantation. This provides support for the clinical use of hepatitis B core positive liver grafts when required.

Long-term outcomes of entecavir monotherapy for chronic hepatitis B after liver transplantation: Results up to 8 years.

Long-term antiviral prophylaxis is required to prevent hepatitis B recurrence for patients with chronic hepatitis B after liver transplantation. We determined the long-term outcome of 265 consecutive chronic hepatitis B liver transplant recipients treated with entecavir monotherapy without hepatitis B immune globulin. Viral serology, viral load, and liver biochemistry were performed at regular intervals during follow-up. The median duration of follow-up was 59 months. The cumulative rates of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seroclearance were 90% and 95% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. At 1, 3, 5, and 8 years, 85%, 88%, 87.0%, and 92% were negative for HBsAg, respectively, and 95%, 99%, 100%, and 100% had undetectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA, respectively. Fourteen patients remained persistently positive for HBsAg, all of whom had undetectable HBV DNA. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness for those who remained HBsAg-positive compared to those who achieved HBsAg seroclearance (5.5 versus 5.2 kPa, respectively; P = 0.52). The overall 9-year survival was 85%. There were 37 deaths during the follow-up period, of which none were due to hepatitis B recurrence. CONCLUSION: Long-term entecavir monotherapy is highly effective at preventing HBV reactivation after liver transplantation for chronic hepatitis B, with a durable HBsAg seroclearance rate of 92%, an undetectable HBV DNA rate of 100% at 8 years, and excellent long-term survival of 85% at 9 years. (Hepatology 2017;66:1036-1044).

The role of radiofrequency ablation to liver transection surface in patients with close tumor margin of HCC during hepatectomy-a case matched study.

BACKGROUND: To review the outcome of using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with close resection margin during hepatectomy. METHODS: From Oct 2004 to Sept 2013, 862 patients received hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the Department of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong. Fourteen patients received additional RFA because of close resection margin (<1 cm) during the operation for HCC. The result of 28 patients with close liver resection margin was selected for comparison. The two groups of patients were matched in terms of tumor size, tumor number, stage of disease and magnitude of resection. RESULTS: In the RFA group (n=14), the median age of the patients was 58.5 (range, 25-78 years). The median tumor size was 2.25 cm (range, 1.2-12 cm). In the resection alone group (n=28), the median age for the patients was 61 (range, 36-79 years). The median tumor size was 2.7 cm (range, 1-11 cm). There was no difference in terms of liver function assessment between the two groups. There was no RFA related complication recorded during the study period. There was no hospital mortality in both groups. The 1- and 3-year disease free survival was 38.3% and 25.5% respectively in the RFA group vs. 57.4% and 39.3% respectively in the liver resection alone group (P=0.563). The 1- and 3-year overall survival was 81.5% and 69.8% respectively in the RFA group vs .88.4% and 59.9% respectively in the liver resection alone group (P=0.83). CONCLUSIONS: RFA to hepatectomy resection surface in patients with close margin is a safe treatment option but its effectiveness on prevention of local recurrence has yet to be confirmed.