The mRECIST Classification Provides Insight into Tumor Biology for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Awaiting Liver Transplantation.

With recent changes in United Network for Organ Sharing policy, patients in the United States with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are likely to spend more time on the liver transplantation (LT) waiting list. The increasing wait time will allow for an opportunity to assess tumor biology prior to LT. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) paradigm provides such a framework for this assessment, and yet little is understood of its utility as it would apply for patients listed for LT in the United States. Through a collaboration between the University of California, San Francisco, and the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, the experience of 772 patients listed for LT were retrospectively reviewed to study the impact of immediate mRECIST classification following locoregional therapy (LRT) on pre- and post-LT outcomes. Patients who had progression of disease (PD; n = 72), failed to respond to LRT (n = 89) at any time point, or did not achieve radiologic complete response (CR; n = 224) were all at significant risk for wait-list dropout (odds ratio [OR] = 12.11, 4.81, and 2.48; respectively). CR identified a cohort of patients who were at a reduced risk for wait-list dropout. However, 24.9% eventually required further intervention while waiting for transplant, and as many as 82.4% were found to have residual HCC on explant pathology. Failure to respond to LRT was associated with increased risk for recurrence (OR = 3.00) more so than PD (OR = 1.36), suggesting that despite PD, patients who eventually can respond to LRT may represent favorable candidates for LT. In conclusion, for patients awaiting LT, the mRECIST assessment provides critical guidance for patient management. Although PD portends a poor prognosis, our findings suggest that further aggressive LRT should be pursued because a response to LRT may yield acceptable results for patients awaiting LT as well as after LT.

Evolving Role of Liver Transplantation in Elderly Recipients.

The need for liver transplantation (LT) among older patients is increasing, but the role of LT in the elderly (≥70 years) is not well defined. We retrospectively reviewed all primary LTs from 1998 through 2016 at our center. Survival and associated risk factors were analyzed with Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methods for LT recipients in 3 age groups: <60, 60-69, and ≥70 years. Among 2281 LT recipients, the median age was 56 years (range, 15-80 years), and 162 were aged ≥70 years. The estimated 5- and 10-year patient survival probabilities for elderly LT recipients were lower (70.8% and 43.6%) than for recipients aged 60-69 years (77.2% and 64.6%) and <60 years (80.7% and 67.6%). Patient and graft survival rates associated with LT improved over time from the pre-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era to Share 15, pre-Share 35, and Share 35 for the cohort overall (P < 0.001), but rates remained relatively stable in septuagenarians throughout the study periods (all P > 0.45). There was no incremental negative effect of age at LT among elderly patients aged 70-75 years (log-rank P = 0.32). Among elderly LT recipients, greater requirement for packed red blood cells and longer warm ischemia times were significantly associated with decreased survival (P < 0.05). Survival of LT recipients, regardless of age, markedly surpassed that of patients who were denied LT, but it was persistently 20%-30% lower than the expected survival of the general US population (P < 0.001). With the aging of the population, select older patients with end-stage liver diseases can benefit from LT, which largely restores their expected life spans.

Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Although hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become a common indication for liver transplantation (LT), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) are historically contraindicated due to their aggressive behavior. On the basis of recent experiences, some groups have proposed a clinical trial investigating the role of LT for patients with early cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), defined as a single lesion ≤ 2 cm. The purpose of this study is to assess the clinicopathologic features and outcomes following LT for patients who were initially diagnosed with HCC and subsequently found to have either ICC or cHCC-CCA on explant. Patients with the diagnosis of primary liver cancer (PLC) after LT from a single center were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes for patients with early CCA were compared with patients with HCC within Milan criteria (MC). Out of 618 patients transplanted with PLC, 44 patients were found to have CCA on explant. On the basis of preoperative imaging, 12 patients met criteria for early CCA and were compared with 319 patients who had HCC within MC. The 1- and 5-year overall survival for early CCA versus HCC was 63.6% versus 90.0% and 63.6% versus 70.3% (log-rank, P = 0.25), respectively. Overall recurrence was 33.3% for early CCA versus 11% for HCC. On explant the patients with CCA were more likely understaged with higher tumor grade and vascular invasion. In conclusion, patients with CCA present a diagnostic challenge, which often leads to the finding of more aggressive lesions on explant after LT, higher recurrence rates, and worse post-LT survival. Careful consideration of this diagnostic conundrum needs to be made before a clinical trial is undertaken. Liver Transplantation 24 634-644 2018 AASLD.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Impact of Wait Time at a Single Center.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Liver transplantation (LT) provides durable survival for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there is continuing debate concerning the impact of wait time and acceptable tumor burden on outcomes after LT. We sought to review outcomes of LT for HCC at a single, large U.S. center, examining the influence of wait time on post-LT outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed LT for HCC at Mayo Clinic in Florida from 1/1/2003 until 6/30/2014. Follow up was updated through 8/1/ 2015. RESULTS: From 2003-2014, 978 patients were referred for management of HCC. 376 patients were transplanted for presumed HCC within Milan criteria, and the results of these 376 cases were analyzed. The median diagnosis to LT time was 183 days (8 - 4,337), and median transplant list wait time was 62 days (0 - 1815). There was no statistical difference in recurrence-free or overall survival for those with wait time of less than or greater than 180 days from diagnosis of HCC to LT. The most important predictor of long term survival after LT was HCC recurrence (HR: 18.61, p < 0.001). Recurrences of HCC as well as survival were predicted by factors related to tumor biology, including histopathological grade, vascular invasion, and pre-LT serum alpha-fetoprotein levels. Disease recurrence occurred in 13%. The overall 5-year patient survival was 65.8%, while the probability of 5-year recurrence-free survival was 62.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, single-center experience with long-term data, factors of tumor biology, but not a longer wait time, were associated with recurrence-free and overall survival.

Early allograft dysfunction after liver transplantation: an intermediate outcome measure for targeted improvements.

BACKGROUND: The term early allograft dysfunction (EAD) identifies liver transplant (LT) allografts with initial poor function and portends poor allograft and patient survival. Aims of this study are to use EAD as an intermediate outcome measure in a large single center cohort and identify donor, recipient and peri-operative risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 1950 consecutive primary LT, donor, recipient and peri-operative data were collected. EAD was defined by the presence of one or more of the following: total bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL (171 µmol/L) or, INR ≥ 1.6 on day 7, and ALT/AST > 2,000 IU/L within the first 7 days. RESULTS: The incidence of EAD was 26.5%. 1-, 3-, and 5-year allograft and patient survival for patients who developed EAD were significantly inferior to those who did not (P < 0.01 at all time points). Multivariate analysis demonstrated associations in the development of EAD with recipient pre-operative ventilator status, donation after cardiac death allografts, donor age, allograft size, degree of steatosis, operative time and intra-operative transfusion requirements (all P < 0.01). Patients with EAD had a significantly longer hospitalization at 20.9 ± 38.9 days (median: 9; range: 4-446) compared with 10.7 ± 13.5 days (median: 7; range: 3-231) in patients with no EAD (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest single center experience demonstrating incidence of EAD and identifying factors associated with development of EAD. EAD is a useful intermediate outcome measure for allograft and patient survival. Balancing recipient pretransplant conditions, donor risk factors and intra-operative conditions are necessary for avoiding EAD.

Role Development of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants in Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are increasingly utilized in health care. However, their roles in liver transplantation (LT) have not been investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we reviewed the employment and development of NPs and PAs and their impact on our deceased-donor LT (DDLT) program. RESULTS: We found a safe and efficient way to utilize NPs and PAs in a DDLT program. Since the beginning of our program, Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores have increased significantly, suggesting patients are sicker at the time of transplant, and wait times of patients have become longer. With the incorporation of NPs and PAs, we found that length of stay (LOS) was not affected. The overall median warm ischemic time did not increase. Outcomes of LT for both patient and graft survival actually improved and remain at or above the expected values. These results collectively support the usefulness and validity of NPs and PAs in a DDLT program. CONCLUSION: We have determined that surgical and medical NPs and PAs are essential for optimal patient outcomes. They facilitate a better learning experience for residents and fellows on their transplant rotations. Further investigations to assess the roles of these providers and their impact on the education of residents and fellows in transplantation are warranted. Further transplant hepatology education programs and/or fellowships are recommended to assist in the education and professional development of transplant NPs and PAs.

Outcomes of Radiation Segmentectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease versus Chronic Viral Hepatitis.

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of radiation segmentectomy for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) versus hepatitis C virus (HCV). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with NAFLD- or HCV-related HCC treated with radiation segmentectomy from 01/2017-06/2022 was performed. Eligibility criteria included solitary tumor ≤8 cm or up to 3 HCC ≤3 cm, ECOG 0-1, and absence of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Imaging best response was assessed per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Target tumor and overall progression, time-to-progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS) were calculated. All outcomes were censored for liver transplantation (LT). Complete pathologic response (CPN) was assessed in patients who underwent LT. Results: Of 142 patients included (NAFLD: 61; HCV: 81), most had cirrhosis (NAFLD: 87%; HCV: 86%) and small tumors (median size NAFLD: 2.3 cm; HCV: 2.5 cm). Patients with NAFLD had higher BMI (p<0.001) and worse ALBI scores (p=0.003). Patients with HCV were younger (p<0.001) and had higher AFP levels (p=0.034). Median radiation dose (NAFLD: 508 Gy; HCV: 452 Gy) and specific activity (NAFLD: 700 Bq; HCV: 698 Bq) were similar between cohorts. Objective response was 100% and 97% in the NAFLD and HCV cohorts, respectively. Target tumor progression occurred in 1 (2%) NAFLD and 8 (10%) HCV patients. Target tumor TTP was not met for either cohort. Overall progression occurred in 23 (38%) NAFLD and 39 (48%) HCV patients. Overall TTP was 17.4 months (95% CI 13.5-22.2) in NAFLD and 13.5 months (95% CI 0.4-26.6) in HCV patients (p=0.86). LT was performed in 27 (44%) NAFLD and 33 (41%) HCV patients, with a CPN rate of 63% and 54%, respectively. OS was not met in the NAFLD cohort and was 53.9 months (95% CI 32.1-75.7) in the HCV cohort (p=0.15). Conclusion: Although NAFLD and HCV are associated with different mechanisms of liver injury, patients with early-stage HCC treated with radiation segmentectomy achieve comparable outcomes.

DCD Liver Grafts Can Safely Be Used for Recipients With Grade I-II Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Multicenter Analysis.

With donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT), the goal of the recipient implantation procedure is to minimize surgical complexity to avoid a tenuous environment for an already marginal graft. The presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) at the time of LT adds surgical complexity, yet' to date, no studies have investigated the utilization of DCD liver grafts for patients with PVT. Methods: All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 2006 to 2020 were reviewed (N = 771). Patients with PVT at the time of transplant were graded using Yerdel classification. A 1:3 propensity match between patients with PVT and those without PVT was performed. Results: A total of 91 (11.8%) patients with PVT undergoing DCD LT were identified. Grade I PVT was present in 62.6% of patients, grade II PVT in 27.5%, grade III in 8.8%, and grade 4 in 1.1%. At the time of LT, thromboendovenectomy was performed in 89 cases (97.8%). There was no difference in the rates of early allograft dysfunction (43.2% versus 52.4%; P = 0.13) or primary nonfunction (1.1% versus 1.1%; P = 0.41) between the DCD PVT and DCD without PVT groups, respectively. The rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was not significantly different between the DCD PVT (11.0%) and DCD without PVT groups (10.6%; P = 0.92). Graft (P = 0.58) and patient survival (P = 0.08) were similar between the 2 groups. Graft survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-y was 89.9%, 84.5%, and 79.3% in the DCD PVT group. Conclusions: In appropriately selected recipients with grades I-II PVT, DCD liver grafts can be utilized safely with excellent outcomes.

Surveillance for HCC After Liver Transplantation: Increased Monitoring May Yield Aggressive Treatment Options and Improved Postrecurrence Survival.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no surveillance guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) exist. In this retrospective, multicenter study, we have investigated the role of surveillance imaging on postrecurrence outcomes. METHODS: Patients with recurrent HCC after LT from 2002 to 2016 were reviewed from 3 transplant centers (University of California San Francisco, Mayo Clinic Florida, and University of Toronto). For this study, we proposed the term cumulative exposure to surveillance (CETS) as a way to define the cumulative sum of all the protected intervals that each surveillance test provides. In our analysis, CETS has been treated as a continuous variable in months. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three patients from 3 centers had recurrent HCC post-LT. The median follow-up was 31.3 months, and median time to recurrence was 13.3 months. Increasing CETS was associated with improved postrecurrence survival (hazard ratio, 0.94; P < 0.01) as was treatment of recurrence with resection or ablation (hazard ratio, 0.31; P < 0.001). An receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve, 0.64) for CETS covariate showed that 252 days of coverage (or 3 surveillance scans) within the first 24 months provided the highest probability for aggressive postrecurrence treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this review of 223 patients with post-LT HCC recurrence, we found that increasing CETS does lead to improved postrecurrence survival as well as a higher probability for aggressive recurrence treatment. We found that 252 days of monitoring (ie, 3 surveillance scans) in the first 24 months was associated with the ability to offer potentially curative treatment.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Impact of Wait Time at a Single Center

ABSTRACT Introduction and aim. Liver transplantation (LT) provides durable survival for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there is continuing debate concerning the impact of wait time and acceptable tumor burden on outcomes after LT. We sought to review outcomes of LT for HCC at a single, large U.S. center, examining the influence of wait time on post-LT outcomes. Material and methods. We reviewed LT for HCC at Mayo Clinic in Florida from 1/1/2003 until 6/30/2014. Follow up was updated through 8/1/ 2015. Results. From 2003-2014,978 patients were referred for management of HCC. 376 patients were transplanted for presumed HCC within Milan criteria, and the results of these 376 cases were analyzed. The median diagnosis to LT time was 183 days (8 - 4,337), and median transplant list wait time was 62 days (0 -1815). There was no statistical difference in recurrence-free or overall survival for those with wait time of less than or greater than 180 days from diagnosis of HCC to LT. The most important predictor of long term survival after LT was HCC recurrence (HR: 18.61, p < 0.001). Recurrences of HCC as well as survival were predicted by factors related to tumor biology, including histopathological grade, vascular invasion, and pre-LT serum alpha-fetoprotein levels. Disease recurrence occurred in 13%. The overall 5-year patient survival was 65.8%, while the probability of 5-year recurrence-free survival was 62.2%. Conclusions. In this large, single-center experience with long-term data, factors of tumor biology, but not a longer wait time, were associated with recurrence-free and overall survival.