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.

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.

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.