Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within and Outside Traditional Selection Criteria: A Multicentric North American Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of patients post-living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) within and outside standard transplantation selection criteria and the added value of the incorporation of the New York-California (NYCA) score. BACKGROUND: LDLT offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplantation waitlist, reduce waitlist mortality, and expand selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Primary adult LDLT recipients between October 1999 and August 2019 were identified from a multicenter cohort of 12 North American centers. Posttransplantation and recurrence-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty LDLTs were identified. Patients within Milan criteria (MC) at transplantation had a 1, 5, and 10-year posttransplantation survival of 90.9%, 78.5%, and 64.1% versus outside MC 90.4%, 68.6%, and 57.7% ( P = 0.20), respectively. For patients within the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, respective posttransplantation survival was 90.6%, 77.8%, and 65.0%, versus outside UCSF 92.1%, 63.8%, and 45.8% ( P = 0.08). Fifty-three (83%) patients classified as outside MC at transplantation would have been classified as either low or acceptable risk with the NYCA score. These patients had a 5-year overall survival of 72.2%. Similarly, 28(80%) patients classified as outside UCSF at transplantation would have been classified as a low or acceptable risk with a 5-year overall survival of 65.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival is excellent for patients with HCC undergoing LDLT within and outside selection criteria, exceeding the minimum recommended 5-year rate of 60% proposed by consensus guidelines. The NYCA categorization offers insight into identifying a substantial proportion of patients with HCC outside the MC and the UCSF criteria who still achieve similar post-LDLT outcomes as patients within the criteria.

Is Repeat Resection for Recurrent Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Warranted? Outcomes of an International Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) after liver resection (LR) remains high, and optimal therapy for recurrent ICC is challenging. Herein, we assess the outcomes of patients undergoing repeat resection for recurrent ICC in a large, international multicenter cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Outcomes of adults from six large hepatobiliary centers in North America, Europe, and Asia with recurrent ICC following primary LR between 2001 and 2015 were analyzed. Cox models determined predictors of post-recurrence survival. RESULTS: Of patients undergoing LR for ICC, 499 developed recurrence. The median time to recurrence was 10 months, and 47% were intrahepatic. Overall 3-year post-recurrence survival rate was 28.6%. In total, 121 patients (25%) underwent repeat resection, including 74 (61%) repeat LRs. Surgically treated patients were more likely to have solitary intrahepatic recurrences and significantly prolonged survival compared with those receiving locoregional or systemic therapy alone with a 3-year post-recurrence survival rate of 47%. Independent predictors of post-recurrence death included time to recurrence < 1 year [HR 1.66 (1.32-2.10), p < 0.001], site of recurrence [HR 1.74 (1.28-2.38), p < 0.001], macrovascular invasion [HR 1.43 (1.05-1.95), p = 0.024], and size of recurrence > 3 cm [HR 1.68 (1.24-2.29), p = 0.001]. Repeat resection was independently associated with decreased post-recurrence death [HR 0.58 0.43-0.78), p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat resection for recurrent ICC in select patients can result in extended survival. Thus, challenging the paradigm of offering these patients locoregional or chemo/palliative therapy alone as the mainstay of treatment.

Minimally invasive tools are necessary for the modern practice of liver surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is performed for other gastrointestinal applications. At our centre, all liver resections are systematically performed using a minimally invasive approach. This study aimed to describe our experience in minimising open surgery and emphasised the importance of minimally invasive surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 260 patients who underwent liver surgery and compared the surgical outcomes between the open and MILR groups. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients (68%) underwent MILR. The proportion of patients who underwent prior abdominal surgery and resection was higher in the open surgery group. However, the proportion of patients with liver cirrhosis was similar between the two groups. The MILR group was superior in terms of operative time, blood loss, Pringle manoeuvre rate and mean hospital stay. In addition, major complication and bile leak rates were lower in the MILR group. No significant differences in the tumour size, number of lesions or underlying liver pathology were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Acceptable outcomes can be achieved even when the minimally invasive approach is considered the primary option for all patients who require liver resection. Minimally invasive tools are necessary for the modern practice of liver surgery; therefore, laparoscopic or robotic surgery should be included in the armamentarium of liver surgeons.

Black patients and women have reduced access to liver transplantation for alcohol-associated liver disease.

Although sex and racial disparities for liver transplantation (LT) are known, it is unclear if disparities exist for patients with alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD). We aimed to compare sex and racial/ethnic differences in mortality, LT listing, and LT rates in patients with and without ALD. We analyzed patients who were listed for LT and/or died of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) between 2014 and 2018 using the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging OnLine Data for Epidemiologic Research databases, respectively. Patients with ALD were compared with non-ALD patients. Our primary outcome was the ratio of listings for LT to deaths from ESLD-listing-to-death ratio (LDR)-a previously derived metric to assess access to the waiting list. Differences between sex and race/ethnicity were analyzed with chi-square tests and multivariable linear regression. There were 65,588 deaths and 16,133 listings for ALD compared with 75,020 deaths and 40,194 listings for non-ALD. LDR was lower for ALD (0.25 vs. 0.54; p < 0.001). Black patients had the lowest LDR in both ALD and non-ALD (0.13 and 0.39 for Black patients vs. 0.26 and 0.54 for White patients; p < 0.001). Women with ALD had a lower LDR (0.21 vs. 0.26; p < 0.001), whereas women without ALD had higher LDR than men (0.69 vs. 0.47; p < 0.001). There were significant negative interactions between women and ALD in LDR and the transplant-to-death ratio. Multivariable analysis and a sensitivity analysis, with more liberal definitions of ALD and non-ALD, confirmed these findings. Patients with ALD have lower access to LT. Among those with ALD, female and Black patients have the lowest access. New initiatives are needed to eliminate these inequities.

Outcomes in liver transplant recipients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-related HCC: results from the US multicenter HCC transplant consortium.

NAFLD will soon be the most common indication for liver transplantation (LT). In NAFLD, HCC may occur at earlier stages of fibrosis and present with more advanced tumor stage, raising concern for aggressive disease. Thus, adult LT recipients with HCC from 20 US centers transplanted between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed to determine whether NAFLD impacts recurrence-free post-LT survival. Five hundred and thirty-eight (10.8%) of 4981 total patients had NAFLD. Patients with NAFLD were significantly older (63 vs. 58, p<0.001), had higher body mass index (30.5 vs. 27.4, p<0.001), and were more likely to have diabetes (57.3% vs. 28.8%, p<0.001). Patients with NAFLD were less likely to receive pre-LT locoregional therapy (63.6% vs. 72.9%, p<0.001), had higher median lab MELD (15 vs. 13, p<0.001) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (3.8 vs. 2.9, p<0.001), and were more likely to have their maximum pre-LT alpha fetoprotein at time of LT (44.1% vs. 36.1%, p<0.001). NAFLD patients were more likely to have an incidental HCC on explant (19.4% vs. 10.4%, p<0.001); however, explant characteristics including tumor differentiation and vascular invasion were not different between groups. Comparing NAFLD and non-NAFLD patients, the 1, 3, and 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence (3.1%, 9.1%, 11.5% vs. 4.9%, 10.1%, 12.6%, p=0.36) and recurrence-free survival rates (87%, 76%, and 67% vs. 87%, 75%, and 67%, p=0.97) were not different. In competing risks analysis, NAFLD did not significantly impact recurrence in univariable (HR: 0.88, p=0.36) nor in adjusted analysis (HR: 0.91, p=0.49). With NAFLD among the most common causes of HCC and poised to become the leading indication for LT, a better understanding of disease-specific models to predict recurrence is needed. In this NAFLD cohort, incidental HCCs were common, raising concerns about early detection. However, despite less locoregional therapy and high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, explant tumor characteristics and post-transplant recurrence-free survival were not different compared to non-NAFLD patients.

Development and validation of a REcurrent Liver cAncer Prediction ScorE (RELAPSE) following liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium.

HCC recurrence following liver transplantation (LT) is highly morbid and occurs despite strict patient selection criteria. Individualized prediction of post-LT HCC recurrence risk remains an important need. Clinico-radiologic and pathologic data of 4981 patients with HCC undergoing LT from the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (UMHTC) were analyzed to develop a REcurrent Liver cAncer Prediction ScorE (RELAPSE). Multivariable Fine and Gray competing risk analysis and machine learning algorithms (Random Survival Forest and Classification and Regression Tree models) identified variables to model HCC recurrence. RELAPSE was externally validated in 1160 HCC LT recipients from the European Hepatocellular Cancer Liver Transplant study group. Of 4981 UMHTC patients with HCC undergoing LT, 71.9% were within Milan criteria, 16.1% were initially beyond Milan criteria with 9.4% downstaged before LT, and 12.0% had incidental HCC on explant pathology. Overall and recurrence-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89.7%, 78.6%, and 69.8% and 86.8%, 74.9%, and 66.7%, respectively, with a 5-year incidence of HCC recurrence of 12.5% (median 16 months) and non-HCC mortality of 20.8%. A multivariable model identified maximum alpha-fetoprotein (HR = 1.35 per-log SD, 95% CI,1.22-1.50, p < 0.001), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (HR = 1.16 per-log SD, 95% CI,1.04-1.28, p < 0.006), pathologic maximum tumor diameter (HR = 1.53 per-log SD, 95% CI, 1.35-1.73, p < 0.001), microvascular (HR = 2.37, 95%-CI, 1.87-2.99, p < 0.001) and macrovascular (HR = 3.38, 95% CI, 2.41-4.75, p < 0.001) invasion, and tumor differentiation (moderate HR = 1.75, 95% CI, 1.29-2.37, p < 0.001; poor HR = 2.62, 95% CI, 1.54-3.32, p < 0.001) as independent variables predicting post-LT HCC recurrence (C-statistic = 0.78). Machine learning algorithms incorporating additional covariates improved prediction of recurrence (Random Survival Forest C-statistic = 0.81). Despite significant differences in European Hepatocellular Cancer Liver Transplant recipient radiologic, treatment, and pathologic characteristics, external validation of RELAPSE demonstrated consistent 2- and 5-year recurrence risk discrimination (AUCs 0.77 and 0.75, respectively). We developed and externally validated a RELAPSE score that accurately discriminates post-LT HCC recurrence risk and may allow for individualized post-LT surveillance, immunosuppression modification, and selection of high-risk patients for adjuvant therapies.

Offer Acceptance Patterns for Liver Donors Aged 70 and Older.

Despite a documented survival benefit, older liver donor (OLD, age ≥70) graft offers are frequently declined, with utilization worsening over the last decade. To understand how offer acceptance varies by center, we studied 1113 eventually transplanted OLD grafts from 2009 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data and random-intercept multilevel logistic regression. To understand how center-level acceptance of OLD graft offers might be associated with waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, we studied all adult, actively listed, liver-only candidates and recipients during the study period using Poisson regression (transplant rate), competing risks regression (waitlist mortality), and Cox regression (posttransplant mortality). Among 117 centers, OLD offer acceptance ranged from 0 (23 centers) to 95 acceptances, with a median odds ratio of 2.88. Thus, a candidate may be three times as likely to receive an OLD graft simply by listing at a different center. Centers in the highest quartile (Q4) of OLD acceptance (accepted 39% of OLD offers) accepted more nationally shared organs (Q4 versus Q1: 14.1% versus 0.0%, P < 0.001) and had higher annual liver transplant volume (Q4 versus Q1: 80 versus 21, P < 0.001). After adjustment, nationally shared OLD offers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.20) and offers to centers with higher median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at transplant (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87) were less likely to be accepted. OLD offers to centers with higher annual transplant volume were more likely to be accepted (aOR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.14-1.30). Additionally, candidates listed at centers within the highest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance had higher deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.41-1.50), lower waitlist mortality (adjusted subhazard ratio: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72-0.76), and similar posttransplant survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86-1.01) when compared with those listed at centers in the lowest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance. The wide variation in OLD offer acceptance supports the need for optimizing the organ offer process and efficiently directing OLD offers to centers more likely to use them.

Low-dose aspirin confers protection against acute cellular allograft rejection after primary liver transplantation.

This study investigated the effect of low-dose aspirin in primary adult liver transplantation (LT) on acute cellular rejection (ACR) as well as arterial patency rates. The use of low-dose aspirin after LT is practiced by many transplant centers to minimize the risk of hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), although solid recommendations do not exist. However, aspirin also possesses potent anti-inflammatory properties and might mitigate inflammatory processes after LT, such as rejection. Therefore, we hypothesized that the use of aspirin after LT has a protective effect against ACR. This is an international, multicenter cohort study of primary adult deceased donor LT. The study included 17 high-volume LT centers and covered the 3-year period from 2013 to 2015 to allow a minimum 5-year follow-up. In this cohort of 2365 patients, prophylactic antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin was administered in 1436 recipients (61%). The 1-year rejection-free survival rate was 89% in the aspirin group versus 82% in the no-aspirin group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.94; p = 0.01). The 1-year primary arterial patency rates were 99% in the aspirin group and 96% in the no-aspirin group with an HR of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13-0.40; p < 0.001). Low-dose aspirin was associated with a lower risk of ACR and HAT after LT, especially in the first vulnerable year after transplantation. Therefore, low-dose aspirin use after primary LT should be evaluated to protect the liver graft from ACR and to maintain arterial patency.

Black Patients Have Unequal Access to Listing for Liver Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score may have eliminated racial disparities on the waitlist for liver transplantation (LT), but disparities prior to waitlist placement have not been adequately quantified. We aimed to analyze differences in patients who are listed for LT, undergo transplantation, and die from end-stage liver disease (ESLD), stratified by state and race/ethnicity. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We analyzed two databases retrospectively, the Center for Disease Control Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) databases, from 2014 to 2018. We included patients aged 25-64 years who had a primary cause of death of ESLD and were listed for transplant in the CDC WONDER or UNOS database. Our primary outcome was the ratio of listing for LT to death from ESLD-listing to death ratio (LDR). Our secondary outcome was the transplant to listing and transplant to death ratios. Chi-squared and multivariable linear regression evaluated for differences between races/ethnicities. There were 135,367 patients who died of ESLD, 54,734 patients who were listed for transplant, and 26,571 who underwent transplant. Patients were mostly male and White. The national LDR was 0.40, significantly lowest in Black patients (0.30), P < 0.001. The national transplant to listing ratio was 0.48, highest in Black patients (0.53), P < 0.01. The national transplant to death ratio was 0.20, lowest in Black patients (0.16), P < 0.001. States that had an above-mean LDR had a lower transplant to listing ratio but a higher transplant to death ratio. Multivariable analysis confirmed that Black race is significantly associated with a lower LDR and transplant to death ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients face a disparity in access to LT due to low listing rates for transplant relative to deaths from ESLD.

Sociodemographic characteristics of living liver donors: Few changes over 20 years.

INTRODUCTION: Although there are well-documented challenges in access to living donor liver transplant (LDLT) among recipients, it is unclear whether living liver donors (LLDs) face similar challenges. METHODS: We analyzed the UNOS Standard Transplant Analysis and Research database, including LLDs ≥ 18 years in the United States from 1/1998 to 12/2018. We compared sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, employment status, BMI, and relationship to recipient) of LLDs across three eras-pre-MELD (1998-2002), MELD (2003-2013), and post-direct acting antivirals (DAA) (2014-2018). We also described sociodemographic characteristics of living donor recipients and waitlisted patients. Chi-squared and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2018, 4756 LDLTs and 99 765 DDLTs were performed. Across the three eras, LLD age did not change significantly (P = .3), but donors were generally young (mean age 37 ± 11). While men comprised most LLDs in the pre-MELD era (55.2%), women surpassed them in the post-DAA era (52.9%), P < .001. In total, White donors comprised 81.5% of total LLDs, while Black and Asian donors were a small minority of total donors (3.7% and 2.5%, respectively). Most donors had at least a college education and were employed. Educational attainment and employment did not significantly change over the study period. CONCLUSION: During the last 20 years, LLDs have remained White, employed, highly educated, and young with increasing numbers of women LLDs. The relative lack of change in the characteristics of donors is likely attributable largely to socioeconomic factors, which should be assessed in future investigation.

Posttransplant Outcomes in Older Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Are Driven by Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Factors.

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is growing in the United States, especially among the elderly. Older patients are increasingly receiving transplants as a result of HCC, but the impact of advancing age on long-term posttransplant outcomes is not clear. To study this, we used data from the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium of 4980 patients. We divided the patients into 4 groups by age at transplantation: 18 to 64 years (n = 4001), 65 to 69 years (n = 683), 70 to 74 years (n = 252), and ≥75 years (n = 44). There were no differences in HCC tumor stage, type of bridging locoregional therapy, or explant residual tumor between the groups. Older age was confirmed to be an independent and significant predictor of overall survival even after adjusting for demographic, etiologic, and cancer-related factors on multivariable analysis. A dose-response effect of age on survival was observed, with every 5-year increase in age older than 50 years resulting in an absolute increase of 8.3% in the mortality rate. Competing risk analysis revealed that older patients experienced higher rates of non-HCC-related mortality (P = 0.004), and not HCC-related death (P = 0.24). To delineate the precise cause of death, we further analyzed a single-center cohort of patients who received a transplant as a result of HCC (n = 302). Patients older than 65 years had a higher incidence of de novo cancer (18.1% versus 7.6%; P = 0.006) after transplantation and higher overall cancer-related mortality (14.3% versus 6.6%; P = 0.03). Even carefully selected elderly patients with HCC have significantly worse posttransplant survival rates, which are mostly driven by non-HCC-related causes. Minimizing immunosuppression and closer surveillance for de novo cancers can potentially improve the outcomes in elderly patients who received a transplant as a result of HCC.

Liver Transplantation Outcomes in a U.S. Multicenter Cohort of 789 Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Presenting Beyond Milan Criteria.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently approved liver transplant (LT) prioritization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond Milan Criteria (MC) who are down-staged (DS) with locoregional therapy (LRT). We evaluated post-LT outcomes, predictors of down-staging, and the impact of LRT in patients with beyond-MC HCC from the U.S. Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (20 centers, 2002-2013). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Clinicopathologic characteristics, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and HCC recurrence (HCC-R) were compared between patients within MC (n = 3,570) and beyond MC (n = 789) who were down-staged (DS, n = 465), treated with LRT and not down-staged (LRT-NoDS, n = 242), or untreated (NoLRT-NoDS, n = 82). Five-year post-LT OS and RFS was higher in MC (71.3% and 68.2%) compared with DS (64.3% and 59.5%) and was lowest in NoDS (n = 324; 60.2% and 53.8%; overall P < 0.001). DS patients had superior RFS (60% vs. 54%, P = 0.043) and lower 5-year HCC-R (18% vs. 32%, P < 0.001) compared with NoDS, with further stratification by maximum radiologic tumor diameter (5-year HCC-R of 15.5% in DS/<5 cm and 39.1% in NoDS/>5 cm, P < 0.001). Multivariate predictors of down-staging included alpha-fetoprotein response to LRT, pathologic tumor number and size, and wait time >12 months. LRT-NoDS had greater HCC-R compared with NoLRT-NoDS (34.1% vs. 26.1%, P < 0.001), even after controlling for clinicopathologic variables (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.33, P < 0.001) and inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity matching (HR = 1.82, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In LT recipients with HCC presenting beyond MC, successful down-staging is predicted by wait time, alpha-fetoprotein response to LRT, and tumor burden and results in excellent post-LT outcomes, justifying expansion of LT criteria. In LRT-NoDS patients, higher HCC-R compared with NoLRT-NoDS cannot be explained by clinicopathologic differences, suggesting a potentially aggravating role of LRT in patients with poor tumor biology that warrants further investigation.

Lest we forget.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has caused shockwaves throughout the US healthcare system. Nowhere has coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) caused more infections than in New York, where there have been over 26 500 infections. Resources have been appropriately allocated toward combating this outbreak, but where does this leave patients with severe non-COVID-19 diseases? Herein we provide the views of a liver transplant surgeon and transplant hepatologist in New York.

An international multicenter study of protocols for liver transplantation during a pandemic: A case for quadripartite equipoise.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The outbreak of COVID-19 has vastly increased the operational burden on healthcare systems worldwide. For patients with end-stage liver failure, liver transplantation is the only option. However, the strain on intensive care facilities caused by the pandemic is a major concern. There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources. METHODS: We performed an international multicenter study of transplant centers to understand the evolution of policies for transplant prioritization in response to the pandemic in March 2020. To describe the ethical tension arising in this setting, we propose a novel ethical framework, the quadripartite equipoise (QE) score, that is applicable to liver transplantation in the context of limited national resources. RESULTS: Seventeen large- and medium-sized liver transplant centers from 12 countries across 4 continents participated. Ten centers opted to limit transplant activity in response to the pandemic, favoring a "sickest-first" approach. Conversely, some larger centers opted to continue routine transplant activity in order to balance waiting list mortality. To model these and other ethical tensions, we computed a QE score using 4 factors - recipient outcome, donor/graft safety, waiting list mortality and healthcare resources - for 7 countries. The fluctuation of the QE score over time accurately reflects the dynamic changes in the ethical tensions surrounding transplant activity in a pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise addresses the ethical tensions in the current pandemic. It serves as a universally applicable framework to guide regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems. LAY SUMMARY: There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe a four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise that models these ethical tensions and can guide the regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems.

Ex Vivo Resection and Autotransplantation for Conventionally Unresectable Tumors - An 11-year Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Ex vivo surgery may provide a chance at R0 resection for conventionally unresectable tumors. However, long-term outcomes have not been well documented. In this study, we analyze our 11-year outcomes to define its role. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed 46 consecutive patients who underwent ex vivo surgery at our institution 2008-2019. RESULTS: The types of tumors were: carcinoma (n = 20), sarcoma (n = 20) and benign to low grade tumor (n = 6). The type of ex vivo surgery was chosen based on tumor location and vascular involvement. The most commonly performed procedure was ex vivo hepatectomy (n = 18), followed by ex vivo resection and intestinal autotransplantation (n = 12), ex vivo Whipple procedure and liver autotransplantation (n = 8) and multivisceral ex vivo procedure (n = 7). Twenty-three patients (50%) are currently alive with median follow-up of 4.0-years (11 months-11.8 years). The overall survival was 70%/59%/52%, at 1-/3-/5-years, respectively. Patient survival for benign to low grade tumors, sarcoma, and carcinoma was 100%/100%/100%, 65%/60%/50%, and 65%/45%/40%, at 1-/3-/5-years, respectively. Ninety-one percent patients had R0 resection, and 57% had no recurrence to date with median follow-up of 3.1-years. Two patients (4.3%) died within 30 days due to sepsis and gastroduodenal artety (GDA) stump blowout. Two additional patients died between 30 and 90 days due to sepsis. Perioperative mortality in the last 23 consecutive cases was limited to 1 patient who died of sepsis between 30 and 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: For a selected group of patients with conventionally unresectable tumors, ex vivo surgery can offer effective surgical removal with a reasonably low perioperative mortality at experienced centers.

Pathologic Response to Pretransplant Locoregional Therapy is Predictive of Patient Outcome After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Analysis From the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the rate, predictors, and impact of complete pathologic response (cPR) to pretransplant locoregional therapy (LRT) in a large, multicenter cohort of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). BACKGROUND: LRT is used to mitigate waitlist dropout for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Degree of tumor necrosis found on explant has been associated with recurrence and overall survival, but has not been evaluated in a large, multicenter study. METHODS: Comparisons were made among patients receiving pre-LT LRT with (n = 802) and without (n = 2637) cPR from the United States Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (UMHTC), and multivariable predictors of cPR were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 3439 patients, 802 (23%) had cPR on explant. Compared with patients without cPR, cPR patients were younger; had lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, AFP levels, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios (NLR); were more likely to have tumors within Milan criteria and fewer LRT treatments; and had significantly lower 1-, 3-, and 5-year incidence of post-LT recurrence (1.3%, 3.5%, and 5.2% vs 6.2%, 13.5%, and 16.4%; P < 0.001) and superior overall survival (92%, 84%, and 75% vs 90%, 78%, and 68%; P < 0.001). Multivariable predictors of cPR included age, sex, liver disease diagnosis, MELD, AFP, NLR, radiographic Milan status, and number of LRT treatments (C-statistic 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: For LT recipients with HCC receiving pretransplant LRT, achieving cPR portends significantly lower posttransplant recurrence and superior survival. Factors predicting cPR are identified, which may help prioritize patients and guide LRT strategies to optimize posttransplant cancer outcomes.

No Gains in Long-term Survival After Liver Transplantation Over the Past Three Decades.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess improvements in long-term survival after liver transplant by analyzing outcomes in transplant recipients who survived beyond 1 year. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Gains in short-term survival following liver transplantation have been gratifying. One-year survival in 1986 was 66% improved to over 92% in 2015. However, little is known about why long-term has not seen similar success. METHODS: We analyzed 111,568 recipients from 1987 to 2016 using the Kaplan-Meier method for time-to-event analysis and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: There were no significant gains in unadjusted long-term outcomes among 1-year survivors over the past 30 years. Only the time periods of 1987 to 1990 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.35, confidence interval CI) 1.28-1.42] and 1991 to 1995 (HR 1.17, CI 1.13-1.21) had a minor increase in risk compared with the period 2011 to 2016. Cause of death analysis suggests malignancy after transplantation is a growing problem and preventing recurrent hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals (DDAs) may only have a limited impact. Furthermore, rejection leading to graft failure and death had a rare occurrence (1.7% of long-term deaths) especially when compared with the sequelae of long-term immunosuppression: malignancy (16.4%), nonrejection graft failure (9.8%), and infection (10.5%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In stark contrast to short-term survival, there have been no appreciable improvements in long-term survival following liver transplantation among 1-year survivors. Long-term sequelae of immunosuppression, including malignancy and infection, are the most common causes of death. This study highlights the need for better long-term immunosuppression management.

Liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastasis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to discuss existing data on liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastasis, emerging controversies, and future directions. RECENT FINDINGS: Contemporary experience with transplanting patients with liver metastasis from colon cancer is mainly derived from European centers, with a large proportion being from a single institution (SECA study), made possible in part by a relatively high donor pool. The initial results prove to be encouraging by demonstrating an overall survival advantage over unresectable patients with liver-limited disease managed with chemotherapy only. Recurrence patterns, however, suggest a need for better patient selection and treatment sequencing optimization. In North America, the main barriers in establishing similar protocols result from national liver graft shortage, which represents an issue of competing resources when indications have yet to be well defined. Evolving strategies in transplantation, such as the utilization of marginal liver grafts and living donor liver transplantation might constitute potential solutions. SUMMARY: Evidence suggests a potential survival benefit of liver transplantation for a subset of patients with unresectable liver-limited CRLM. Further prospective trials are needed to clarify the role and feasibility of this treatment strategy in oncotransplantation.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomies: Ready for Widespread Adoption?

OBJECTIVE: In order to minimize the impact of donation, fully laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (LDH) is being investigated at a few centers throughout the world. We report here our experience with 51 living donor pure laparoscopic hepatectomies. BACKGROUND: Adoption of minimal access techniques to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been slowed by concerns about donor safety and the quality of the grafts. METHODS: Of 344 donor hepatectomies (DHs) for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) since 1998, 51 pure LDH have been performed since 2009. We report here our experience with 51 living donor pure laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH), based on prospectively collected data. There were 31 left lateral sectionectomy and 20 full lobectomies LH. We matched full lobe LH to open DH prior to introduction of LH. RESULTS: LH increased from 21% of all DH in first 5 years of performing LH to 45% of DH in the most recent 3 years. Laparoscopic donors were more likely female, had lower body mass index, smaller total livers, and smaller allografts but longer operating room times. In the total LD experience, total 5 donors were converted to open surgery (10%), 2 donors required transfusion (4%), and there was 2 donor bile leaks (4%). Recipient patient and graft 1-year survival was 98% and 94%. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience indicates that LDH for LDLT can be safely used with appropriate attention to learning curve and progression from left lateral sectionectomy to right hepatectomy.

Is it Time to Abandon the Milan Criteria?: Results of a Bicoastal US Collaboration to Redefine Hepatocellular Carcinoma Liver Transplantation Selection Policies.

OBJECTIVES: European liver transplant (LT) centers have moved away from using the Milan Criteria (MC) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient selection, turning to models including tumor biological indices, namely alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). We present the first US model to incorporate an AFP response (AFP-R), with comparisons to MC and French-AFP models (F-AFP). METHODS: AFP-R was measured as differences between maximum and final pre-LT AFP in HCC patients undergoing LT at 3 US centers (2001 to 2013). Cox and competing risk-regression analyses identified predictors of recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Of 1450 patients, 235 (16.2%) were outside MC. Tumor size, number, and AFP-R were independent predictors of RFS and were assigned weighted points based on Cox-regression analysis. An AFP-R consistently < 200 ng/mL predicted the best outcome. A 3-tiered competing-risk RFS model, the New York/California (NYCA) score, was developed, accurately discriminating between groups (P < 0.001), and correlating with overall survival (P < 0.001). Two hundred one of 235 patients outside MC (85.5%) would be recategorized into NYCA low/acceptable-risk groups. The c-statistic for our NYCA score is 0.731 compared with 0.613 for MC and 0.658 for F-AFP (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Incorporation of AFP-R into HCC selection criteria allows for MC expansion. As United Network for Organ Sharing considers adding AFP to selection algorithms, the NYCA score provides an objective, user-friendly tool for centers to appropriately risk-stratify patients.