Utilization of Immunotherapy as a Neoadjuvant Therapy for Liver Transplant Recipients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is widely recognized as the predominant type of primary liver malignancy. Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has emerged as a highly effective treatment option for unresectable HCC. Immunotherapies as neoadjuvant options are now being actively investigated in the transplant oncology era to enhance outcomes in patients with HCC. Here, we report our experience with patients with HCC who had received Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICPI) prior to curative OLT. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort that included patients with HCC who received ICPI prior to OLT at a single institution from January 2019 to August 2023. Graft rejection was assessed and reported along with the type of ICPI, malignancy treated, and the timing of ICPI in association with OLT. Results: During this cohort period, six patients with HCC underwent OLT after neoadjuvant ICPI. All patients were male with a median age of 61 (interquartile range: 59-64) years at OLT. Etiology associated with HCC was viral (N = 4) or Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, NASH (N = 2). Tumor focality was multifocal (N = 4) and unifocal (N = 2). Lymphovascular invasion was identified in four patients. No perineural invasion was identified in any of the patients. All patients received ICPI including atezolizumab/bevacizumab (N = 4), nivolumab/ipilimumab (N = 1), and nivolumab as monotherapy (N = 1). All patients received either single or combined liver-directed/locoregional therapy, including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), Yttrium-90 (Y90), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The median washout period was 5 months. All patients responded to ICPI and achieved a safe and successful OLT. All patients received tacrolimus plus mycophenolate as immunosuppressant (IS) therapy post-OLT and one patient received prednisone as additional IS. No patient had clinical evidence of rejection. Conclusions: This cohort emphasizes the success of tumor downstaging by ICPI for OLT when employed as the neoadjuvant therapy strategy. In addition, this study illustrated the importance of timing for the administration of ICPI before OLT. Given the lack of conclusive evidence in this therapeutic area, we believe that our study lays the groundwork for prospective trials to further examine the impact of ICPI prior to OLT.

Effect of a Hispanic outreach program on referral and liver transplantation volume at a single center.

BACKGROUND: Although Hispanic patients have high rates of end-stage liver disease and liver cancer, for which liver transplantation (LT) offers the best long-term outcomes, they are less likely to receive LT. Studies of end-stage renal disease patients and kidney transplant candidates have shown that targeted, culturally relevant interventions can increase the likelihood of Hispanic patients receiving kidney transplant. However, similar interventions remain largely unstudied in potential LT candidates. METHODS: Referrals to a single center in Texas with a large Hispanic patient population were compared before (01/2018-12/2019) and after (7/2021-6/2023) the implementation of a targeted outreach program. Patient progress toward LT, reasons for ineligibility, and differences in insurance were examined between the two eras. RESULTS: A greater proportion of Hispanic patients were referred for LT after the implementation of the outreach program (23.2% vs 26.2%, p = 0.004). Comparing the pre-outreach era to the post-outreach era, more Hispanic patients achieved waitlisting status (61 vs 78, respectively) and received a LT (971 vs 82, respectively). However, the proportion of Hispanic patients undergoing LT dropped from 30.2% to 20.3%. In the post-outreach era, half of the Hispanic patients were unable to get LT for financial reasons (112, 50.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A targeted outreach program for Hispanic patients with end-stage liver disease effectively increased the total number of Hispanic LT referrals and recipients. However, many of the patients who were referred were ineligible for LT, most frequently for financial reasons. These results highlight the need for additional research into the most effective ways to ameliorate financial barriers to LT in this high-need community.

Single-center Outcomes After Liver Transplantation With SARS-CoV-2-Positive Donors: An Argument for Increased Utilization.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in SARS-CoV-2-test positive potential organ donors. The benefits of life-saving liver transplantation (LT) must be balanced against the potential risk of donor-derived viral transmission. Although emerging evidence suggests that the use of COVID-19-positive donor organs may be safe, granular series thoroughly evaluating safety are still needed. Results of 29 consecutive LTs from COVID-19-positive donors at a single center are presented here. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of LT recipients between April 2020 and December 2022 was conducted. Differences between recipients of COVID-19-positive (n = 29 total; 25 index, 4 redo) and COVID-19-negative (n = 472 total; 454 index, 18 redo) deceased donor liver grafts were compared. Results: COVID-19-positive donors were significantly younger (P = 0.04) and had lower kidney donor profile indices (P = 0.04) than COVID-19-negative donors. Recipients of COVID-19-positive donor grafts were older (P = 0.04) but otherwise similar to recipients of negative donors. Donor SARS-CoV-2 infection status was not associated with a overall survival of recipients (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-5.04; P = 0.89). There were 3 deaths among recipients of liver grafts from COVID-19-positive donors. No death seemed virally mediated because there was no qualitative association with peri-LT antispike antibody titers, post-LT prophylaxis, or SARS-CoV-2 variants. Conclusions: The utilization of liver grafts from COVID-19-positive donors was not associated with a decreased overall survival of recipients. There was no suggestion of viral transmission from donor to recipient. The results from this large single-center study suggest that COVID-19-positive donors may be used safely to expand the deceased donor pool.

Bloodstream infections after solid organ transplantation: clinical epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance (2016-21).

Background: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs) with MDR organisms (MDROs). Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of BSI in the year after several types of SOT, as well as the prevalence of MDRO infections in this population. Methods: We conducted a single-centre, retrospective study of kidney, liver, heart, and multi-organ transplantation patients. We examined BSIs ≤1 year from SOT and classified MDRO phenotypes for Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci, Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida spp. We compared BSI characteristics between SOT types and determined risk factors for 90 day mortality. Results: We included 2293 patients [1251 (54.6%) kidney, 663 (28.9%) liver, 219 (9.6%) heart and 160 (7.0%) multi-organ transplant]. Overall, 8.5% of patients developed a BSI. BSIs were most common after multi-organ (23.1%) and liver (11.3%) transplantation (P < 0.001). Among 196 patients with BSI, 323 unique isolates were recovered, 147 (45.5%) of which were MDROs. MDROs were most common after liver transplant (53.4%). The most frequent MDROs were VRE (69.8% of enterococci) and ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (29.2% and 27.2% of Enterobacterales, respectively). Mortality after BSI was 9.7%; VRE was independently associated with mortality (adjusted OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.7-21.3). Conclusions: BSI incidence after SOT was 8.5%, with a high proportion of MDROs (45.5%), especially after liver transplantation. These data, in conjunction with local antimicrobial resistance patterns and prescribing practices, may help guide empirical antimicrobial selection and stewardship practices after SOT.

Molecular profiling in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to both summarize the current knowledge of hepatocellular carcinoma molecular biology and to suggest a framework in which to prospectively translate this knowledge into patient care. This is timely as recent guidelines recommend increased use of these technologies to advance personalized liver cancer care. RECENT FINDINGS: The main themes covered here address germline and somatic genetic alterations recently discovered in hepatocellular carcinoma, largely owing to next generation sequencing technologies, and nascent efforts to translate these into contemporary practice. SUMMARY: Early efforts of translating molecular profiling to hepatocellular carcinoma care demonstrate a growing number of potentially actionable alterations. Still lacking are a consensus on what biomarkers and technologies to adopt, at what scale and cost, and how to integrate them most effectively into care.

Transplant Oncology: An Emerging Discipline of Cancer Treatment.

Transplant oncology is an emerging concept of cancer treatment with a promising prospective outcome. The applications of oncology, transplant medicine, and surgery are the core of transplant oncology to improve patients' survival and quality of life. The main concept of transplant oncology is to radically cure cancer by removing the diseased organ and replacing it with a healthy one, aiming to improve the survival outcomes and quality of life of cancer patients. Subsequently, it seeks to expand the treatment options and research for hepatobiliary malignancies, which have seen significantly improved survival outcomes after the implementation of liver transplantation (LT). In the case of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the transplant setting, where the liver is the most common site of metastasis of patients who are considered to have unresectable disease, initial studies have shown improved survival for LT treatment compared to palliative therapy interventions. The indications of LT for hepatobiliary malignancies have been slowly expanded over the years beyond Milan criteria in a stepwise manner. However, the outcome improvements and overall patient survival are limited to the specifics of the setting and systematic intervention options. This review aims to illustrate the representative concepts and history of transplant oncology as an emerging discipline for the management of hepatobiliary malignancies, in addition to other emerging concepts, such as the uses of immunotherapy in a peri-transplant setting as well as the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for surveillance post-transplantation.

Progress in Combined Liver-lung Transplantation at a Single Center.

Combined liver-lung transplantation is an uncommon, although vital, procedure for patients with simultaneous end-stage lung and liver disease. The utility of lung-liver transplant has been questioned because of initial poor survival outcomes, particularly when compared with liver-alone transplant recipients. Methods: A single-center, retrospective review of the medical records of 19 adult lung-liver transplant recipients was conducted, comparing early recipients (2009-2014) with a recent cohort (2015-2021). Patients were also compared with the center's single lung or liver transplant recipients. Results: Recent lung-liver recipients were older (P = 0.004), had a higher body mass index (P = 0.03), and were less likely to have ascites (P = 0.02), reflecting changes in the etiologies of lung and liver disease. Liver cold ischemia time was longer in the modern cohort (P = 0.004), and patients had a longer posttransplant length of hospitalization (P = 0.048). Overall survival was not statistically different between the 2 eras studied (P = 0.61), although 1-y survival was higher in the more recent group (90.9% versus 62.5%). Overall survival after lung-liver transplant was equivalent to lung-alone recipients and was significantly lower than liver-alone recipients (5-y survival: 52%, 51%, and 75%, respectively). Lung-liver recipient mortality was primarily driven by deaths within 6 mo of transplant due to infection and sepsis. Graft failure was not significantly different (liver: P = 0.06; lung: P = 0.74). Conclusions: The severity of illness in lung-liver recipients combined with the infrequency of the procedure supports its continued use. However, particular attention should be paid to patient selection, immunosuppression, and prophylaxis against infection to ensure proper utilization of scarce donor organs.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Solid Tumors in the Adjuvant Setting: Current Progress, Future Directions, and Role in Transplant Oncology.

The rationale for administering immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the adjuvant setting is to eradicate micro-metastases and, ultimately, prolong survival. Thus far, clinical trials have demonstrated that 1-year adjuvant courses of ICIs reduce the risk of recurrence in melanoma, urothelial cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers. Overall survival benefit has been shown in melanoma while survival data are still not mature in other malignancies. Emerging data also show the feasibility of utilizing ICIs in the peri-transplant setting for hepatobiliary malignancies. While ICIs are generally well-tolerated, the development of chronic immune-related adverse events, typically endocrinopathies or neurotoxicities, as well as delayed immune-related adverse events, warrants further scrutiny regarding the optimal duration of adjuvant therapy and requires a thorough risk-benefit determination. The advent of blood-based, dynamic biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can help detect minimal residual disease and identify the subset of patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant treatment. In addition, the characterization of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and ctDNA-adjusted blood tumor mutation burden (bTMB) has also shown promise in predicting response to immunotherapy. Until additional, prospective studies delineate the magnitude of overall survival benefit and validate the use of predictive biomarkers, a tailored, patient-centered approach to adjuvant ICIs that includes extensive patient counseling on potentially irreversible adverse effects should be routinely incorporated into clinical practice.

Modern Outcomes After Liver Retransplantation: A Single-center Experience.

BACKGROUND: The need for liver retransplantation (reLT) has increased proportionally with greater numbers of liver transplants (LTs) performed, use of marginal donors, degree of recipient preoperative liver dysfunction, and longer survival after LT. However, outcomes following reLT have been historically regarded as poor. METHODS: To evaluate reLT in modern recipients, we retrospectively examined our single-center experience. Analysis included 1268 patients undergoing single LT and 68 patients undergoing reLT from January 2008 to December 2021. RESULTS: Pre-LT mechanical ventilation, body mass index at LT, donor-recipient ABO incompatibility, early acute rejection, and length of hospitalization were associated with increased risk of needing reLT following index transplant. Overall and graft survival outcomes in the reLT cohort were equivalent to those after single LT. Mortality after reLT was associated with Kidney Donor Profile Index, national organ sharing at reLT, and LT donor death by anoxia and blood urea nitrogen levels. Survival after reLT was independent of the interval between initial LT and reLT, intraoperative packed red blood cell use, cold ischemia time, and preoperative mechanical ventilation, all previously linked to worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that reLT is currently a safer option for patients with liver graft failure, with comparable outcomes to primary LT.

Combined liver transplantation and sleeve gastrectomy: Report of a brief-interval staged approach.

Pretransplantation bariatric surgery in patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is fraught with risks. Bariatric surgery after liver transplantation (LT) may be complicated by surgical adhesions but could have advantages if performed at the time of transplantation. We investigated a method of brief-interval staging combining LT and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). LT recipients with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 kg/m 2 received an SG during the same hospitalization as the LT (LT/SG), at the same time as a planned brief-interval return to the operating room for biliary anastomosis. Differences in intraoperative attributes of the LT (Stage 1) versus SG (Stage 2) procedures were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with significance p < 0.05 and compared with patients with obesity having a two-stage LT without SG. A total of 14 cases {median MELD score 33 (interquartile range [IQR], 18-40)} were compared with 28 controls; 60% were critically ill prior to surgery with mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or continuous renal replacement therapy. Median interval between procedures was 16.1 (IQR, 12.5-22.7) hours for cases and 12.2 (IQR, 11.1-16.6) hours for controls, p  = 0.27. Median BMI at LT/SG was 47.0 (IQR, 41.7-51.3) kg/m 2 versus 38.1 (IQR, 35.7-39.8) kg/m 2 for controls, p < 0.001. At 1 year, median excess body weight loss was 74.0% (IQR, 46.2%-78.7%) in cases and 15.8% (IQR, -5.4% to 62.6%) in controls, p  = 0.13; total weight loss was 38.1% (IQR, 23.9-42.9) in cases versus 7.7% (IQR, -2.4% to 27.6%) for controls, p  = 0.03. Graft survival at 1 year was 92.9% for cases and 89.3% for controls with similar early postoperative outcomes. This proof-of-concept study revealed that a brief-interval SG during LT is feasible in patients with high MELD and resulted in sustained weight loss at 1 year with similar graft survival. Further studies are needed to determine an optimal strategy.

Factors affecting survival after liver retransplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Liver retransplantation (reLT) has historically had inferior survival relative to primary liver transplant (LT). To improve outcomes after reLT, researchers have identified factors predicting overall (OS) and/or graft survival (GS) after reLT. This systematic review and random effects meta-analysis sought to summarize this literature to elucidate the strongest independent predictors of post-reLT. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify manuscripts reporting factors affecting survival in multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses. Papers with overlapping cohorts were excluded. Results: All 25 included studies were retrospective, and 15 (60%) were single-center studies. Patients on pre-transplant ventilation (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.56-6.20; p = 0.001) and with high serum creatinine (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.87; p = 0.002) had the highest mortality risk after reLT. Recipient age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, donor age, and cold ischemia time >12 h also conferred a significant risk of post-reLT death (all p < 0.05). Factors affecting GS included donor age and retransplant interval (the time between LT and reLT; both p < 0.05). OS is significantly higher when the retransplant interval is ≤7 days relative to 8-30 days (p = 0.04). Conclusions: The meta-analysis was complicated by papers utilizing non-standardized cut-off values to group variables, which made between-study comparisons difficult. However, it did identify 7 variables that significantly impact survival after reLT, which could stimulate future research into improving post-reLT outcomes.

Liver transplantation and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: time to go forward again?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) has been mired in controversy. High rates of recurrence posttransplant combined with donor organ scarcity resulted in most transplant centers treating iCCA as a contraindication for liver transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have shown that carefully selected patients with unresectable iCCA can have good outcomes after liver transplantation. Better outcomes have been seen in patients with smaller tumors and favorable tumor biology. SUMMARY: Because many patients are diagnosed with iCCA at later stages, tumor biology and genetics are useful tools to identify patients who will have excellent overall and recurrence-free survival after liver transplantation. Further larger multicenter prospective studies are needed to identify patients who would benefit from liver transplantation with good outcomes. Additional advances will come through early diagnosis and utilizing a combination of chemotherapy and locoregional modalities as a bridge to transplant. There is also a need to recognize and develop additional neo- and adjuvant therapies for patients whose tumor biology currently precludes their inclusion on the liver transplantation waitlist.

Immunotherapy as a Neoadjuvant Therapy for a Patient with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Pretransplant Setting: A Case Report.

Systemic combination therapy of immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factors have provided the basis for improved outcomes in select patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. However, for patients with resectable disease, surgery alone or an orthotopic liver transplant remains the standard of care. Within the realms of transplant oncology, neoadjuvant systemic therapy is currently being evaluated as a potential strategy to improve outcomes in patients with HCC. Here, we report excellent response with significant downstaging in a safe manner after neoadjuvant treatment with atezolizumab and bevacizumab in a patient diagnosed with poorly differentiated HCC. As a result of the significant response observed with safe outcomes, the patient was listed for orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) evaluation and transplanted successfully.

Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Versus Non-Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Regimens as Neoadjuvant Treatment for Cholangiocarcinoma Patients Prior to Liver Transplantation: An Institution Experience.

Background: Cholangiocarcinoma management is constantly being updated in view of existing evidence in order to establish practice guidelines and consensus statements. However, the available treatment guidelines to optimize outcomes for cholangiocarcinoma patients who require liver transplantation are still controversial. This study contributing to the cholangiocarcinoma care field by investigating a new promising neoadjuvant therapy that might be help to grant the liver transplant option to the patients with cholangiocarcinoma. Here, we evaluate and compare the potential efficacy of chemotherapy combination of Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin versus non- Gemcitabine and Cisplatin regimens as a neo-adjuvant treatment for cholangiocarcinoma patients prior to liver transplantation. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with locally advanced, unresectable, hilar, or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with no evidence of extrahepatic disease or vascular involvement were treated with either the combination of neo-adjuvant Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin with no radiation or other standard options of neo-adjuvant treatment. All patients included received chemotherapy prior to being listed for liver transplantation at a single cancer center in collaboration with the same institution's transplant center according to an open-labeled, and centers-approved clinical management protocol. Patients were listed for liver transplantation if they had a minimum of six months of scans showing response or confirmation of disease stability. The primary endpoints were the overall survival and recurrence-free survival after liver transplantation. This report, which was censored on March 18, 2022. Results: Out of a total of 707 liver transplant recipients were screened, 37 patients were confirmed with a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma and only 18 patients (11 males and 7 females) with a median age of 61.83 [interquartile range: 58.27-68.74] met inclusion criteria. Of the 18 patients enrolled, 10 received Gemcitabine/Cisplatin, while 8 patients received either Gemcitabine monotherapy or Capecitabine or FOLFIRI. Months for recurrence after transplantation was 20.1 (IRQ: 20.1-20.1) in the Gemcitabine/Cisplatin group and 9.5 (8.9-12.47) months in the non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin group (p-value=0.18). Median months of follow-up in the Gemcitabine/Cisplatin group was 28.35 (27.1-32.23) months versus 40.12 (20.6-56.22) months in the non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin group (p-value=0.33). In non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin patients, overall survival was 75% (95% CI 31-93%) at both years 1 and 2; 63% (95% CI 23-86%) at years 3 to 5. In Gemcitabine/Cisplatin patients, overall survival was 100% (95% CI 100-100%) at both years 1 and 2; 75% (95% CI 13-96%) at years 3 to 5. Three non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin patients died at 328 days, 340 days, and 896 days, respectively. One Gemcitabine/Cisplatin patient died at 885 days. Conclusion: Our findings suggest improved overall survival outcomes with Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin as neo-adjuvant treatment with no concomitant radiation compared to non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin regimens in patients with cholangiocarcinoma prior to liver transplantation.

Gemcitabine and Cisplatin as Neo-Adjuvant for Cholangiocarcinoma Patients Prior to Liver Transplantation: Case-Series.

BACKGROUND: The management of cholangiocarcinoma is continually reviewed on a current evidence basis to develop practice guidelines and consensus statements. However, the standardized treatment guidelines are still unclear for cholangiocarcinoma patients who are listed for liver transplantation. We aimed to validate and evaluate the potential efficacy of chemotherapy combination of Gemcitabine and Cisplatin as a neo-adjuvant treatment for cholangiocarcinoma patients before liver transplantation. METHODS: In this prospective case series, patients with locally advanced, unresectable, hilar, or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with no evidence of extrahepatic disease or vascular involvement were treated with a combination of neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin with no radiation. All patients included received chemotherapy prior to being listed for liver transplantation at a single cancer center according to an open-labeled, and center-approved clinical management protocol. The primary endpoints were the overall survival and recurrence-free survival after liver transplantation. RESULTS: Between 1 March 2016, and 15 March 2022, 10 patients (8 males and 2 females) with a median age of 62.71(interquartile range: 60.02-71.87) had a confirmed diagnosis of intrahepatic or hilar cholangiocarcinoma and underwent liver transplantation. Median days of neoadjuvant therapy for a given combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin were 181 (IRQ: 120-250). Nine patients (90%) were reported with no recurrence or metastasis, and only 1 patient had confirmed metastasis (10%); days for metastasis after transplantation were 612 for this patient. All patients received a combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin as neo-adjuvant while awaiting liver transplantation. The median days of follow-up were 851 (813-967). Overall survival was 100% (95% CI 100-100%) at both years one and two; 75% (95% CI 13-96%) at years three to five. One patient died at eight hundred and eighty-five days. No adverse events were reported after liver transplantation including the patient who was confirmed with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding demonstrated that neo-adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin with no radiation prior to liver transplantation resulted in excellent outcomes for patients with cholangiocarcinoma.

Utilization of Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Peri-Transplant Setting: Transplant Oncology View.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths and accounts for over eighty percent of primary liver cancers worldwide. Surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation in small tumors are included in the treatment options for HCC patients with good liver function profiles. According to the Milan Criteria, only a small portion of HCC patients are eligible for liver transplantation due to advanced-stage disease and large tumor size preventing/delaying organ allocation. Recently, the use of anti-programmed cell death protein 1 and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-1 and PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancers have evolved rapidly and these therapies have been approved for the treatment of HCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have resulted in good clinical outcomes in pre-and post-transplant HCC patients, although, some reports showed that certain recipients may face rejection and graft loss. In this review, we aim to illustrate and summarize the utilization of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in pre-and post-liver transplants for HCC patients and discuss the assessment of immune checkpoint inhibitor regulators that might determine liver transplant outcomes.

Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) Plus Sorafenib Compared to TACE Alone in Transplant Recipients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common malignancy and the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Transarterial chemoembolization has shown survival benefits in patients with early to intermediate-stage HCC, becoming the standard of care and recommended treatment modality by most clinical practice guidelines. The most recent trials of the TACE plus sorafenib combined therapy in patients with unresectable HCC have yielded inconsistent outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of HCC patients treated with the TACE sorafenib combination as opposed to TACE monotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients with unresectable HCC who underwent liver transplantation and were treated by either TACE alone or TACE plus sorafenib between July 2008-December 2019. Demographic and clinical data as well as HCC recurrence post-liver transplant (LT) were reported as frequencies and proportions for categorical variables and as the median and interquartile range (IQR) or mean. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were performed for categorical variables and the Kruskal-Wallis test or unpaired test was performed for continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier curves present overall patient survival and HCC-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients received LT, with a median (IQR) age of 61.4 (57.0, 66.3) years; most were males (77%). Within the TACE-only group, 79 (77%) patients met the Milan criteria and 24 (23%) were beyond the Milan criteria, while the TACE plus sorafenib group had a higher proportion of patients beyond the Milan criteria: 16 (64%) vs. 9 (36%); p = 0.01. The five-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the treatment groups approached significance, with 100% DFS in the TACE plus sorafenib group vs. 67.2% in the TACE-alone group, p = 0.07. Five-year patient survival was 77.8% in the TACE plus sorafenib group compared to 61.5% in the TACE-alone group (p = 0.51). However, in patients who met the beyond Milan criteria, those who received TACE alone had a lower average amount of (percent) tumor necrosis on explant pathology (43.8% ± 32%) compared to patients who received TACE plus sorafenib (69.6% ± 32.8%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This study identified that using TACE plus sorafenib is generally well-tolerated and demonstrated improved overall survival compared to TACE only in transplant recipients with unresectable HCC. A multi-center and prospective randomized controlled trial is needed to substantiate these findings.

Early humoral immune response to two doses of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine in a diverse group of solid organ transplant candidates and recipients.

Response to two doses of a nucleoside-modified messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine was evaluated in a large solid-organ transplant program. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was administered to transplant candidates and recipients who met study inclusion criteria. Qualitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike Total Immunoglobulin (Ig) and IgG-specific assays, and a semi-quantitative test for anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein IgG were measured in 241 (17.2%) transplant candidates and 1163 (82.8%) transplant recipients; 55.2% of whom were non-Hispanic White and 44.8% identified as another race. Transplant recipients were a median (IQR) of 3.2 (1.1, 6.8) years from transplantation. Response differed by transplant status: 96.0% versus 43.2% by the anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total Ig (candidates vs. recipients, respectively), 93.5% versus 11.6% by the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, and 91.9% versus 30.1% by anti-spike titers after two doses of vaccine. Multivariable analysis revealed candidates had higher likelihood of response versus recipients (odds ratio [OR], 14.6; 95 %CI 2.19, 98.11; P = .02). A slightly lower response was demonstrated in older patients (OR .96; 95 %CI .94, .99; P = .002), patients taking antimetabolites (OR, .21; 95% CI .08, .51; P = .001). Vaccination prior to transplantation should be encouraged.