Outcomes of Highly Selected Live Donors With a Future Liver Remnant Less Than or Equal to 30%: A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The main concern with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the risk to the donor. Given the potential risk of liver insufficiency, most centers will only accept candidates with future liver remnants (FLR) >30%. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of donors who underwent LDLT with FLR ≤30% and >30%. METHODS: Adults who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. Remnant liver volumes were estimated using hepatic volumetry. To adjust for between-group differences, donors with FLR ≤30% and >30% were matched 1:2 based on baseline characteristics. Postoperative complications including liver dysfunction were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 604 live donors were identified, 28 (4.6%) of whom had a FLR ≤30%. Twenty-eight cases were successfully matched with 56 controls; the matched cohorts were mostly similar in terms of donor and graft characteristics. The calculated median FLR was 29.8 (range, 28.0-30.0) and 35.2 (range, 30.1-68.1) in each respective group. Median follow-up was 36.5 mo (interquartile range, 11.8-66.1). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. No difference was observed in overall complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 32.1% versus FLR >30%: 28.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-3.27) or major complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 14.3% versus FLR >30%: 14.3%; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.33-4.10). Posthepatectomy liver failure was rare, and no difference was observed (FLR ≤30%: 3.6% versus FLR >30%: 3.6%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.11-11.1). CONCLUSION: A calculated FLR between 28% and 30% on its own should not represent a formal contraindication for live donation.

Renal Dysfunction After Liver Transplantation: Effect of Donor Type.

Recipients of donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts are reportedly at higher risk of developing renal dysfunction after liver transplantation (LT). We compared the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) after LT in recipients of DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) or living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) livers. Adult recipients of DBD, LDLT, and DCD between 2012 and 2016 at Toronto General Hospital were included. AKI was defined as a post-LT increase of serum creatinine (sCr) ≥26.5 µmol/L within 48 hours or a ≥50% increase from baseline, and CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/minute for >3 months. A total of 681 patients (DCD, n = 57; DBD, n = 446; and LDLT, n = 178) with similar baseline comorbidities were included. Perioperative AKI (within the first 7 postoperative days) was observed more frequently in the DCD group (61%; DBD, 40%; and LDLT, 44%; P = 0.01) and was associated with significantly higher peak AST levels (P < 0.001). Additionally, patients in the DCD group had a significantly higher peak sCr (P < 0.001) and a trend toward higher rates of AKI stage 3 (DCD, 33%; DBD, 21%; LDLT, 21%; P = 0.11). The proportions of recovery from AKI (DCD, 77%; DBD, 72%; LDLT, 78%; P = 0.45) and patients developing CKD (DCD, 33%; DBD, 32%; LDLT, 32%; P = 0.99) were similar. Nevertheless, patients who received DCD or DBD LT and required perioperative renal replacement therapy showed significantly lower patient survival in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 7.90; 95% confidence interval, 4.51-13.83; P < 0.001). In conclusion, recipients of DCD liver grafts experience higher rates of short-term post-LT renal dysfunction compared with DBD or LDLT. Additional risk factors for the development of severe kidney injury, such as high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, massive transfusions, or donor age ≥60 years should be avoided.

The Impact of Preexisting and Post-transplant Diabetes Mellitus on Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is said to adversely affect transplant outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of pre-existing and new-onset DM on liver transplantation (LT) recipients. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of LT recipients (1990-2015) was undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 2209 patients, 13% (n = 298) had Pre-DM, 16% (n = 362) developed post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM), 5% (n = 118) developed transient hyperglycemia (t-HG) post-LT, and 65% (n = 1431) never developed DM (no DM). Baseline clinical characteristics of patients with PTDM were similar to that of patients with Pre-DM. Incidence of PTDM peaked during the first year (87%) and plateaued thereafter. On multivariate analysis (Bonferroni-corrected), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and the use of tacrolimus and sirolimus were independently associated with PTDM development. Both Pre-DM and PTDM patients had satisfactory and comparable glycemic control throughout the follow-up period. Those who developed t-HG seem to have a unique characteristic compared with others. Overall, 9%, 5%, and 8% of patients developed end-stage renal disease (ESRD), major cardiovascular event (mCVE), and de novo cancer, respectively. Both Pre-DM and PTDM did not adversely affect patient survival, retransplantation, or de novo cancer. The risks of ESRD and mCVE were significantly higher in patients with Pre-DM followed by PTDM and no DM. CONCLUSIONS: In this largest nonregistry study, patients with Pre-DM and PTDM share similar baseline clinical characteristics. Pre-DM increases the risk of ESRD and mCVE; however, patient survival was comparable to those with PTDM and without diabetes. Understanding the impact of PTDM would need prolonged follow-up.

Live donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma offers increased survival vs. deceased donation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are conflicting reports on the outcomes after live donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the survival of patients with HCC, with a potential live donor (pLDLT) at listing vs. no potential donor (pDDLT), on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: All patients with HCC listed for liver transplantation between 2000-2015 were included. The pLDLT group was comprised of recipients with a potential live donor identified at listing. Patients without a live donor were included in the pDDLT group. Survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression was applied to identify potential predictors of mortality. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were included in the pLDLT group and 632 patients in the pDDLT group. In the pLDLT group, 57 patients (26%) were beyond the UCSF criteria whereas 119 patients (19%) in the pDDLT group were beyond (p = 0.02). Time on the waiting list was shorter for the pLDLT than the pDDLT group (4.8 [2.9-8.5] months vs. 6.2 [3.0-12.0] months, respectively, p = 0.02). The dropout rate was 32/219 (14.6%) in the pLDLT and 174/632 (27.5%) in the pDDLT group, p <0.001. The 1-, 3- and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were 86%, 72% and 68% in the pLDLT vs. 82%, 63% and 57% in the pDDLT group, p = 0.02. Having a potential live donor was a protective factor for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.53-0.86). Waiting times of 9-12 months (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.31) and ≥12 months (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.23-2.32) were predictors of death. CONCLUSION: Having a potential live donor at listing was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of death in patients with HCC in this intention-to-treat analysis. This benefit is related to a lower dropout rate and a shorter waiting period. LAY SUMMARY: Liver transplantation (LT) offers the best chance of survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and can be performed using grafts from deceased donors or live donors. In this work, we aimed to assess the differences in survival after live donor LT when compared to deceased donor LT. We studied 219 patients listed for live donor LT and 632 patients listed for deceased donor LT. Patients who had a potential live donor at the time of listing had a higher survival rate. Therefore, being listed for a live donor LT was a protective factor against death.

Outcomes of radiofrequency ablation as first-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma less than 3 cm in potentially transplantable patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an effective treatment for single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤3 cm. Disease recurrence is common, and in some patients will occur outside transplant criteria. We aimed to assess the incidence and risk factors for recurrence beyond Milan criteria in potentially transplantable patients treated with RFA as first-line therapy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of potentially transplantable patients with new diagnoses of unifocal HCC ≤3 cm that underwent RFA as first-line therapy between 2000-2015. We defined potentially transplantable patients as those aged <70 years without any comorbidities that would preclude transplant surgery. Incidence of recurrence beyond Milan criteria was compared across 2 groups according to HCC diameter at the time of ablation: (HCC ≤2 cm vs. HCC >2 cm). Competing risks Cox regression was used to identify predictors of recurrence beyond Milan criteria. RESULTS: We included 301 patients (167 HCC ≤2 cm and 134 HCC >2 cm). Recurrence beyond Milan criteria occurred in 36 (21.6%) and 47 (35.1%) patients in the HCC ≤2 cm and the HCC >2 cm groups, respectively (p = 0.01). The 1-, 3- and 5-year actuarial survival rates after RFA were 98.2%, 86.2% and 79.0% in the HCC ≤2 cm group vs. 93.3%, 77.6% and 70.9% in the HCC >2 cm group (p = 0.01). Tumor size >2 cm (hazard ratio 1.94; 95%CI 1.25-3.02) and alpha-fetoprotein levels at the time of ablation (100-1,000 ng/ml: hazard ratio 2.05; 95%CI 1.10-3.83) were found to be predictors of post-RFA recurrence outside Milan criteria. CONCLUSION: RFA for single HCC ≤3 cm provides excellent short- to medium-term survival. However, we identified patients at higher risk of recurrence beyond Milan criteria. For these patients, liver transplantation should be considered immediately after the first HCC recurrence following RFA. LAY SUMMARY: Radiofrequency ablation and liver transplantation are treatment options for early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). After ablation some patients will experience recurrence or metastatic spread of the initial tumor or may develop new tumors within the liver. Despite close follow-up, these recurrences can progress rapidly and exceed transplant criteria, preventing the patient from receiving a transplant. We identified that patients with HCC >2 cm and higher serum alpha-fetoprotein are at greater risk of recurrence beyond the transplant criteria. These data suggest that liver transplantation should be considered immediately after the first HCC recurrence for these patients.

Liver Transplantation is Equally Effective as a Salvage Therapy for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence Following Radiofrequency Ablation or Liver Resection with Curative Intent.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are curative-intent therapies for early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). If HCC recurs, salvage liver transplant (SLT) may constitute a treatment option. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients transplanted for recurrent HCC after curative-intent therapies with those transplanted as initial therapy. METHODS: We conducted a matched-control (1:1) cohort study comparing patients with HCC treated with primary liver transplant (PLT) with SLT after HCC recurrence. Matching was performed according to the size and number of viable tumors at explant pathology following liver transplant. RESULTS: Between November 1999 and December 2014, 687 patients with HCC were listed for transplant at our institution. A total of 559 patients were transplanted; 509 patients were treated with PLT and 50 patients were treated with SLT for HCC recurrence after primary treatment with LR (n = 25) or RFA (n = 25). The median length of follow-up from transplant was 64 months (0.5-195), and the median time from curative-intent treatment of HCC with RFA or LR to recurrence was 9.5 months (1-36) and 14.5 months (3-143), respectively (p = 0.04). The matched cohort was composed of 48 SLT patients (23 LR and 25 RFA) and 48 PLT patients. The 5-year risk of recurrence after LT was 22% in the PLT group versus 32% in the SLT group (p = 0.53), while the 5-year actuarial patient survival after PLT was 69% versus 70% in the SLT group (p = 1). CONCLUSION: Liver transplant is an effective treatment for patients with HCC recurrence following RFA or LR. Outcomes are similar in both groups.

Liver Transplantation for NASH-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Versus Non-NASH Etiologies of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplant (LT) for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not well characterized in the literature. The aim of the study was to examine characteristics and outcomes of patients who had LT for NASH-HCC (NASH) versus HCC from other liver diseases (non-NASH). METHODS: Using a 2-center retrospective design, all patients from 2004 to 2014 that received LT for HCC were analyzed. Subgroup analysis stratified patients according to Milan criteria. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-nine patients were transplanted for HCC. Sixty (6.5%) of 929 had HCC in the context of NASH. There were no significant differences between groups for pretransplant or explant tumor characteristics. The actuarial 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival was 98%, 96%, and 80% in NASH versus 95%, 84%, and 78% in non-NASH (P = 0.1). No differences in tumor recurrence were observed in patients within and beyond Milan in the NASH group. Multivariate Cox regression demonstrated NASH status to be a protective factor for recurrence among patients with tumors beyond Milan (hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.86; P = 0.029). CONCLUSION: After LT, outcomes are similar between NASH and non-NASH etiologies for HCC. The hypothesis that patients with more advanced HCC tumors in the context of NASH may have more favorable outcomes after LT has been generated, but requires further study.

Defining Benchmarks in Liver Transplantation: A Multicenter Outcome Analysis Determining Best Achievable Results.

: This multicentric study of 17 high-volume centers presents 12 benchmark values for liver transplantation. Those values, mostly targeting markers of morbidity, were gathered from 2024 "low risk" cases, and may serve as reference to assess outcome of single or any groups of patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose benchmark outcome values in liver transplantation, serving as reference for assessing individual patients or any other patient groups. BACKGROUND: Best achievable results in liver transplantation, that is, benchmarks, are unknown. Consequently, outcome comparisons within or across centers over time remain speculative. METHODS: Out of 7492 liver transplantation performed in 17 international centers from 3 continents, we identified 2024 low risk adult cases with a laboratory model for end-stage liver disease score ≤20 points, a balance of risk score ≤9, and receiving a primary graft by donation after brain death. We chose clinically relevant endpoints covering intra- and postoperative course, with a focus on complications graded by severity including the complication comprehensive index (CCI). Respective benchmarks were derived from the median value in each center, and the 75 percentile was considered the benchmark cutoff. RESULTS: Benchmark cases represented 8% to 49% of cases per center. One-year patient-survival was 91.6% with 3.5% retransplantations. Eighty-two percent of patients developed at least 1 complication during 1-year follow-up. Biliary complications occurred in one-fifth of the patients up to 6 months after surgery. Benchmark cutoffs were ≤4 days for ICU stay, ≤18 days for hospital stay, ≤59% for patients with severe complications (≥ Grade III) and ≤42.1 for 1-year CCI. Comparisons with the next higher risk group (model for end stage liver disease 21-30) disclosed an increase in morbidity but within benchmark cutoffs for most, but not all indicators, while in patients receiving a second graft from 1 center (n = 50) outcome values were all outside of benchmark values. CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent 1-year survival, morbidity in benchmark cases remains high with half of patients developing severe complications during 1-year follow-up. Benchmark cutoffs targeting morbidity parameters offer a valid tool to assess higher risk groups.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy vs. TACE or RFA as a bridge to transplant in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. An intention-to-treat analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is limited information on the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a bridge to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma and no study comparing its efficacy to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). We aimed to ascertain the safety and efficacy of SBRT on an intention-to-treat basis compared with TACE and RFA as a bridge to liver transplantation in a large cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Outcomes between groups were compared from the time of listing and from the time of transplant. Between July 2004 and December 2014, 379 patients were treated with either SBRT (n=36, SBRT group), TACE (n=99, TACE group) or RFA (n=244, RFA group). RESULTS: The drop-out rate was similar between groups (16.7% SBRT group vs. 20.2% TACE group and 16.8% RFA group, p=0.7); 30 patients were transplanted in the SBRT group, 79 in the TACE group and 203 in the RFA group. Postoperative complications were similar between groups. Patients in the RFA group had more tumor necrosis in the explant. The 1-, 3- and 5-year actuarial patient survival from the time of listing was 83%, 61% and 61% in the SBRT group vs. 86%, 61% and 56% in the TACE group, and 86%, 72% and 61% in the RFA group, p=0.4. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival from the time of transplant was 83%, 75% and 75% in the SBRT group vs. 96%, 75% and 69% in the TACE group, and 95%, 81% and 73% in the RFA group, p=0.7. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, SBRT can be safely utilized as a bridge to LT in patients with HCC, as an alternative to conventional bridging therapies. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with liver cancer included in the waiting list for liver transplantation are at risk of tumor progression and death. Stereotactic body radiotherapy may be a good alternative to conventional therapies to reduce this risk.

Liver Transplantation is a Preferable Alternative to Palliative Therapy for Selected Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond the traditional criteria (advanced HCC) are typically offered palliation, which is associated with a 3-year survival rate lower than 30%. This study aimed to describe the outcomes for a subset of patients with advanced HCC who satisfied the Extended Toronto Criteria (ETC) and were listed for liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: All patients listed in the Toronto liver transplantation program with HCC beyond both the Milan and University of California, San Francisco criteria were included in this study. Data were extracted from the prospectively collected electronic database. All radiologic images were reviewed by two independent radiologists. The primary end point was patient survival. RESULTS: Between January 1999 and August 2014, 96 patients with advanced HCC were listed for LT, and 62 (65%) of these patients received bridging therapy while on the waiting list. Bridging therapy led to a significant reduction in tumor progression (p = 0.02) and tumor burden (p < 0.001). The majority of those listed underwent LT (n = 69, 72%). Both tumor progression on waiting list (hazard ratio [HR] 4.973; range1.599-15.464; p = 0.006) and peak alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) at 400 ng/ml or higher (HR, 4.604; range 1.660-12.768; p = 0.003) were independently associated with waiting list dropout. Post-LT HCC recurrence occurred in 35% of the patients (n = 24). Among those with HCC recurrence, survival was significantly better for those who received curative treatment (p = 0.004). The overall actuarial survival rates from the listing were 76% at 1 year, 56% at 3 years, and 47% at 5 years, and the corresponding rates from LT were 93, 71, and 66%. CONCLUSION: Liver transplantation provides significantly better survival rates than palliation for patients with selected advanced HCC.

Continuous Normothermic Ex Vivo Kidney Perfusion Improves Graft Function in Donation After Circulatory Death Pig Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is current clinical practice to increase the donor pool. Deleterious effects on renal graft function are described for hypothermic preservation. Therefore, current research focuses on investigating alternative preservation techniques, such as normothermic perfusion. METHODS: We compared continuous pressure-controlled normothermic ex vivo kidney perfusion (NEVKP) with static cold storage (SCS) in a porcine model of DCD autotransplantation. After 30 minutes of warm ischemia, right kidneys were removed from 30-kg Yorkshire pigs and preserved with 8-hour NEVKP or in 4°C histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution (SCS), followed by kidney autotransplantation. RESULTS: Throughout NEVKP, electrolytes and pH values were maintained. Intrarenal resistance decreased over the course of perfusion (0 hour, 1.6 ± 0.51 mm per minute vs 7 hours, 0.34 ± 0.05 mm Hg/mL per minute, P = 0.005). Perfusate lactate concentration also decreased (0 hour, 10.5 ± 0.8 vs 7 hours, 1.4 ± 0.3 mmol/L, P < 0.001). Cellular injury markers lactate dehydrogenase and aspartate aminotransferase were persistently low (lactate dehydrogenase < 100 U/L, below analyzer range; aspartate aminotransferase 0 hour, 15.6 ± 9.3 U/L vs 7 hours, 24.8 ± 14.6 U/L, P = 0.298). After autotransplantation, renal grafts preserved with NEVKP demonstrated lower serum creatinine on days 1 to 7 (P < 0.05) and lower peak values (NEVKP, 5.5 ± 1.7 mg/dL vs SCS, 11.1 ± 2.1 mg/dL, P = 0.002). The creatinine clearance on day 4 was increased in NEVKP-preserved kidneys (NEVKP, 39 ± 6.4 vs SCS, 18 ± 10.6 mL/min; P = 0.012). Serum neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin at day 3 was lower in the NEVKP group (1267 ± 372 vs 2697 ± 1145 ng/mL, P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous pressure-controlled NEVKP improves renal function in DCD kidney transplantation. Normothermic ex vivo kidney perfusion might help to decrease posttransplant delayed graft function rates and to increase the donor pool.

Validation of a Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant (RETREAT) Score for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence After Liver Transplant.

IMPORTANCE: Several factors are associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT), but no reliable risk score has been established to determine the individual risk for HCC recurrence. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate a Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant (RETREAT) score for patients with HCC meeting Milan criteria by imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Predictors of recurrence were tested in a development cohort of 721 patients who underwent LT between 2002 and 2012 at 3 academic transplant centers (University of California-San Francisco; Mayo Clinic, Rochester; and Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville) to create the RETREAT score. This was subsequently validated in a cohort of 341 patients also meeting Milan criteria by imaging who underwent LT at the University of Toronto transplant center using the C concordance statistic and net reclassification index. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Characteristics associated with post-LT HCC recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 1061 patients participated in the study; 77.8% (825) were men, and the median (IQR) age was 58.2 (53.3-63.9) years in the development cohort and 56.4 (51.7-61.0) years in the validation cohort (P < .001). In the development cohort of 721 patients (542 men), median α-fetoprotein (AFP) level at the time of LT was 8.3 ng/mL; 9.4% had microvascular invasion (n = 68), and 22.1% were beyond Milan criteria on explant (n = 159) owing to understaging by pretransplantation imaging. Cumulative probabilities of HCC recurrence at 1 and 5 years were 5.7% and 12.8%, respectively. On multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, 3 variables were independently associated with HCC recurrence: microvascular invasion, AFP at time of LT, and the sum of the largest viable tumor diameter and number of viable tumors on explant. The RETREAT score was created using these 3 variables, with scores ranging from 0 to 5 or higher that were highly predictive of HCC recurrence (C statistic, 0.77). RETREAT was able to stratify 5-year post-LT recurrence risk ranging from less than 3% with a score of 0 to greater than 75% with a score of 5 or higher. The validation cohort (n = 340; 283 men) had significantly higher microvascular invasion (23.8% [n = 81], P < .001), explant beyond Milan criteria (37.3% [n = 159], P < .001), and HCC recurrence at 5 years (17.9% [n = 159], P = .03). RETREAT showed good model discrimination (C statistic, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86) and superior recurrence risk classification compared with explant Milan criteria (net reclassification index, 0.40; P = .001) in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We have developed and validated a simple and novel prognostic score that may improve post-LT HCC surveillance strategies and help identify patients who may benefit from future adjuvant therapies.

Anti-inflammatory signaling during ex vivo liver perfusion improves the preservation of pig liver grafts before transplantation.

Normothermic ex vivo liver perfusion (NEVLP) improves graft preservation by avoiding cold ischemia injury. We investigated whether the protective effects of NEVLP can be further improved by applying strategies targeted on reducing the activation of proinflammatory cytokines during perfusion. Livers retrieved under heart-beating conditions were perfused for 4 hours. Following the preservation period, a pig liver transplantation was performed. In group 1 (n = 5), anti-inflammatory strategies (alprostadil, n-acetylcysteine, carbon monoxide, sevoflurane, and subnormothermic temperature [33°C]) were applied. This was compared with a perfused control group (group 2) where livers (n = 5) were perfused at 37°C without anti-inflammatory agents, similar to the setup used in current European clinical trials, and to a control group preserved with static cold storage (group 3). During 3-day follow-up, markers of reperfusion injury, bile duct injury, and liver function were examined. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels during perfusion were significantly lower in the study versus control group at 1 hour (52 ± 6 versus 162 ± 86 U/L; P = 0.01), 2 hours (43 ± 5 versus 191 ± 111 U/L; P = 0.008), and 3 hours (24 ± 16 versus 218 ± 121 U/L; P = 0.009). During perfusion, group 1 versus group 2 had reduced interleukin (IL) 6, tumor necrosis factor α, and galactosidase levels and increased IL10 levels. After transplantation, group 1 had lower AST peak levels compared with group 2 and group 3 (1400 ± 653 versus 2097 ± 1071 versus 1747 ± 842 U/L; P = 0.47) without reaching significance. Bilirubin levels were significantly lower in group 1 versus group 2 at day 1 (3.6 ± 1.5 versus 6.60 ± 1.5 µmol/L; P = 0.02) and 3 (2 ± 1.1 versus 9.7 ± 7.6 µmol/L; P = 0.01). A trend toward decreased hyaluronic acid, as a marker of improved endothelial cell function, was observed at 1, 3, and 5 hours after reperfusion in group 1 versus group 2. Only 1 early death occurred in each group (80% survival). In conclusion, addition of anti-inflammatory strategies further improves warm perfused preservation. Liver Transplantation 22 1573-1583 2016 AASLD.

Defining Benchmarks for Major Liver Surgery: A multicenter Analysis of 5202 Living Liver Donors.

OBJECTIVE: To measure and define the best achievable outcome after major hepatectomy. BACKGROUND: No reference values are available on outcomes after major hepatectomies. Analysis in living liver donors, with safety as the highest priority, offers the opportunity to define outcome benchmarks as the best possible results. METHODS: Outcome analyses of 5202 hemi-hepatectomies from living donors (LDs) from 12 high-volume centers worldwide were performed for a 10-year period. Endpoints, calculated at discharge, 3 and 6 months postoperatively, included postoperative morbidity measured by the Clavien-Dindo classification, the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), and liver failure according to different definitions. Benchmark values were defined as the 75th percentile of median morbidity values to represent the best achievable results at 3 month postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients were young (34 ± [9] years), predominantly male (65%) and healthy. Surgery lasted 7 ± [2] hours; 2% needed blood transfusions. Mean hospital stay was 11.7± [5] days. 12% of patients developed at least 1 complication, of which 3.8% were major events (≥grade III, including 1 death), mostly related to biliary/bleeding events, and were twice higher after right hepatectomy. The incidence of postoperative liver failure was low. Within 3-month follow-up, benchmark values for overall complication were ≤31 %, for minor/major complications ≤23% and ≤9%, respectively, and a CCI ≤33 in LDs with complications. Centers having performed ≥100 hepatectomies had significantly lower rates for overall (10.2% vs 35.9%, P < 0.001) and major (3% vs 12.1%, P < 0.001) complications and overall CCI (2.1 vs 8.5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The thorough outcome analysis of healthy LDs may serve as a reference for evaluating surgical performance in patients undergoing major liver resection across centers and different patient populations. Further benchmark studies are needed to develop risk-adjusted comparisons of surgical outcomes.

The extended Toronto criteria for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A prospective validation study.

The selection of liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) relies mostly on tumor size and number. Instead of relying on these factors, we used poor tumor differentiation and cancer-related symptoms to exclude patients likely to have advanced HCC with aggressive biology. We initially reported similar 5-year survival for patients whose tumors exceeded (M+ group) and were within (M group) the Milan criteria. Herein, we validate our original data with a new prospective cohort and report the long-term follow-up (10-years) using an intention-to-treat analysis. The previously published study (cohort 1) included 362 listed (294 transplanted) patients from January 1996 to August 2008. The validation cohort (cohort 2) includes 243 listed (105 M+ group, 76 beyond University of California San Francisco criteria; 210 transplanted) patients from September 2008 to December 2012. Median follow-up from listing was 59.7 (26.8-103) months. For the validation cohort 2, the actuarial survival from transplant for the M+ group was similar to that of the M group at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years: 94%, 76%, and 69% versus 95%, 82%, and 78% (P = 0.3). For the combined cohorts 1 and 2, there were no significant differences in the 10-year actuarial survival from transplant between groups. On an intention-to-treat basis, the dropout rate was higher in the M+ group and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates from listing were decreased in the M+ group. An alpha-fetoprotein level >500 ng/mL predicted poorer outcomes for both the M and M+ groups. CONCLUSION: Tumor differentiation and cancer-related symptoms of HCC can be used to select patients with advanced HCC who are appropriate candidates for liver transplantation; alpha-fetoprotein level limitations should be incorporated in the listing criteria for patients within or beyond the Milan criteria. (Hepatology 2016;64:2077-2088).

Right lobe living-donor hepatectomy-the Toronto approach, tips and tricks.

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established treatment for end-stage liver disease. Nevertheless, it has not been extensively accepted in North America or Europe as it has been in Asia. At the University of Toronto we initiated our LDLT program in 2000 and since then our program has grown each year, representing today the largest LDLT program in North America. Our right-lobe LDLT experience from 2000-2014 includes 474 right lobes. Only 30% of our grafts have included the middle hepatic vein. We present excellent outcomes in terms of graft and patient survival which is not different to that achieved with deceased donor liver transplantation. In the present study we will discuss the evolution, challenges and current practices of our LDLT program. We will discuss what is and has been the program philosophy. We will also discuss how we evaluate our donors and the extensive workup we do before a donor is accepted for live donation. Furthermore we will discuss some tips and tricks of how we perform the right hepatectomy for live donation.

Live Donor Liver Transplantation With Older (≥50 Years) Versus Younger (<50 Years) Donors: Does Age Matter?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with grafts from older versus younger donors. INTRODUCTION: Using older donor grafts for adult LDLT may help expand the donor pool. However, the risks of LDLT with older donors remain controversial, and many centers are reluctant to use live donors aged 45 years or older for adult LDLT. METHODS: Outcomes of patients receiving a LDLT graft from donors aged 50 years or older (n = 91) were compared with those receiving a live donor graft from donors younger than 50 years (n = 378). RESULTS: Incidences of biliary (LDLT <50: 24% vs LDLT ≥50: 23%; P = 0.89) and major complications (LDLT <50: 24% vs LDLT ≥50: 24%; P = 1) were similar between both groups of recipients. No difference was observed in 30-day recipient mortality (LDLT <50: 3% vs LDLT ≥50: 0%; P = 0.13). The 1- (90% vs 90%), 5- (82% vs 73%), and 10- (71% vs 58%) year graft survival was statistically similar between both groups (P = 0.075). Likewise, patient survival after 1- (92% vs 96%), 5- (83% vs 79%), and 10- (76% vs 69%) years was also similar (P = 0.686). Overall, donors rate of major complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥3b) within 30 days was low (n = 2.3%) and not different in older versus younger donors (P = 1). Donor median hospital stay in both groups was identical [LDLT <50: 6 (4-17) vs LDLT ≥50: 6 (4-14) days; P = 0.65]. No donor death occurred and all donors had full recovery and returned to baseline activity. CONCLUSIONS: Right lobe LDLT with donors aged 50 years or older results in acceptable recipient outcome without increased donor morbidity or mortality. Potential live donors should not be declined on the basis of age alone.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America.

OBJECTIVES: To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival. BACKGROUND: The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks. METHODS: Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models. RESULTS: Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT. CONCLUSIONS: LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria are superior to European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria at 1 month follow-up for predicting long-term survival in patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization before liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether response to transarterial chemoembolization can predict survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are candidates for orthotopic liver transplantation (LT) and if either European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria are more accurate for this purpose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent LT after transarterial chemoembolization between January 2005 and June 2011 was performed. Follow-up imaging with multiphasic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging was performed 1 month after transarterial chemoembolization and every 3 months thereafter until LT. Treatment response was evaluated at each imaging time point using RECIST criteria and EASL criteria. The relationship between survival and objective response (OR), time to response (TTR), time to progression (TTP), and time interval between transarterial chemoembolization and LT was assessed. RESULTS: A median of one transarterial chemoembolization procedure was performed before LT in 58 patients (52 men, 6 women; mean age, 57 y). OR was shown by 28 (48%) patients and 51 (88%) patients at 1 month by EASL criteria and RECIST criteria, respectively. OR at 1-month follow-up using RECIST criteria was associated with increased survival compared with patients with no response (NR) (P = .03). Using RECIST criteria, 5-year survival in the OR group was 66.7% versus 0% in the NR group (P = .015). There was no significant difference in survival in patients who showed OR at 1 month using EASL criteria. There was poor agreement between RECIST and EASL response assessments (κ = 0.23). There was no significant association between survival and TTR, TTP, or time interval between transarterial chemoembolization and LT. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with objective response to transarterial chemoembolization at 1 month using RECIST criteria showed improved survival over nonresponders. RECIST criteria demonstrated better accuracy compared with EASL criteria for predicting survival in patients after LT who had transarterial chemoembolization as a "bridge."