Delivery of biannual ultrasound surveillance for individuals with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies show the uptake of biannual ultrasound (US) surveillance in patients with cirrhosis is suboptimal. Here, our goal was to understand in broader terms how surveillance is being delivered to cirrhosis patients with cured hepatitis C in the UK. METHODS: Hepatitis C cirrhosis patients achieving a sustained viral response (SVR) to antiviral therapies were identified from the national Hepatitis-C-Research-UK resource. Data on (i) liver/abdominal US examinations, (ii) HCC diagnoses, and (iii) HCC curative treatment were obtained through record-linkage to national health registries. The rate of US uptake was calculated by dividing the number of US episodes by follow-up time. RESULTS: A total of 1908 cirrhosis patients from 31 liver centres were followed for 3.8 (IQR: 3.4-4.9) years. Overall, 10 396 liver/abdominal USs were identified. The proportion with biannual US was 19% in the first 3 years after SVR and 9% for all follow-up years. Higher uptake of biannual US was associated with attending a liver transplant centre; older age and cirrhosis decompensation. Funnel plot analysis indicated significant inter-centre variability in biannual US uptake, with 6/29 centres outside control limits. Incident HCC occurred in 133 patients, of which 49/133 (37%) were treated with curative intent. The number of US episodes in the two years prior to HCC diagnosis was significantly associated with higher odds of curative-intent treatment (aOR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.12-2,09; p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel data on the cascade of care for HCC in the UK. Our findings suggest biannual US is poorly targeted, inefficient and is not being delivered equitably to all patients.

Incidence and outcomes of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease after 5365 solid-organ transplants over a 20-year period at two UK transplant centres.

Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) is a life-threatening complication of solid-organ transplantation (SOT). We present the incidence and outcomes of PTLD in a cohort of 5365 SOT recipients over a 20-year period at two UK transplant centres. With a median follow-up of 7.7 years, 142 of 5365 patients have developed PTLD. Cumulative incidence was 18% at five years after multivisceral transplant and 1%-3% at five years following the other SOT types. Twenty-year cumulative incidence was 2%-3% following liver and heart transplantation and 10% following kidney transplantation. Median overall survival (OS) following SOT was 16 years, which is significantly reduced compared with the age-adjusted UK population. There is relatively high early mortality following diagnosis of PTLD and only patients surviving two years regained a longer-term survival approaching the non-PTLD SOT cohort. Of 90 patients with monomorphic PTLD, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 66 were treated with first-line rituximab monotherapy and 24 received first-line rituximab plus chemotherapy. Up-front rituximab monotherapy does not appear to compromise OS, but the number of patients dying from non-lymphoma causes before and after treatment remains high with both treatment approaches. Multivariate analysis of all 90 monomorphic PTLD patients identified an International Prognostic Index (IPI) of 3+ as the strongest pretreatment variable associating with inferior one-year OS.

Non-invasive alloimmune risk stratification of long-term liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Management of long-term immunosuppression following liver transplantation (LT) remains empirical. Surveillance liver biopsies in combination with transcriptional profiling could overcome this challenge by identifying recipients with active alloimmune-mediated liver damage despite normal liver tests, but this approach lacks applicability. Our aim was to investigate the utility of non-invasive tools for the stratification of stable long-term survivors of LT, according to their immunological risk and need for immunosuppression. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional multicentre study of 190 adult LT recipients assessed to determine their eligibility to participate in an immunosuppression withdrawal trial. Patients had stable liver allograft function and had been transplanted for non-autoimmune non-replicative viral liver disease >3 years before inclusion. We performed histological, immunogenetic and serological studies and measured the intrahepatic transcript levels of an 11-gene classifier highly specific for T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR). RESULTS: In this cohort, 35.8% of patients harboured clinically silent fibro-inflammatory liver lesions (13.7% had mild damage and 22.1% had moderate-to-severe damage). The severity of liver allograft damage was positively associated with TCMR-related transcripts, class II donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), ALT, AST, and liver stiffness measurement (LSM), and negatively correlated with serum creatinine and tacrolimus trough levels. Liver biopsies were stratified according to their TCMR transcript levels using a cut-off derived from biopsies with clinically significant TCMR. Two multivariable prediction models, integrating ALT+LSM or ALT+class II DSAs, had a high discriminative capacity for classifying patients with or without alloimmune damage. The latter model performed well in an independent cohort of 156 liver biopsies obtained from paediatric liver recipients with similar inclusion/exclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: ALT, class II DSAs and LSM are valuable tools to non-invasively identify stable LT recipients without significant underlying alloimmunity who could benefit from minimisation of immunosuppression. LAY SUMMARY: A large proportion of liver transplant patients with normal liver tests have inflammatory liver lesions, which in 17% of cases are molecularly indistinguishable from those seen at the time of rejection. ALT, class II donor-specific antibodies and liver stiffness are useful in identifying patients with this form of subclinical rejection. We propose these markers as a useful tool to help clinicians determine if the immunosuppression administered is adequate.