A scoping review of non-medical barriers to living-donor liver transplant.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and categorize non-medical barriers encountered by recipient, donors, and healthcare providers in the context of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is vital for individuals with liver failure, yet high mortality rates on the transplant waitlist persist. LDLT was introduced to address deceased-donor organ shortages, however, its adoption varies widely across regions, prompting the need to explore barriers hindering its implementation. METHODS: The scoping review employed inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify studies focusing on non-medical barriers to LDLT in both adult and pediatric populations. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies were considered, covering the period from Jan-2005 to Feb-2023. The review's search strategy was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases. Studies meeting the criteria were assessed for their characteristics and findings, which were synthesized into recipient, donor, and provider level barriers. RESULTS: Among 2394 initially screened articles, 17 studies were eligible for inclusion. Recipient-level barriers encompassed systemic disparities in access, limited social support, immigration status and inadequate awareness of LDLT. Donor-level barriers involved surgery-related risks, recovery time concerns, financial burdens, and religious beliefs. Provider-level barriers highlighted institutional support inadequacies and specialized surgeon shortages. CONCLUSION: The scoping review underscores non-medical barriers to LDLT across recipient, donor, and provider levels. These barriers include socioeconomic disparities, information gaps, and inadequate institutional support. The findings underscore the need for comprehensive national efforts to raise awareness about LDLT and provide essential financial support.

Simultaneous split liver/kidney transplantation: A national and single center experience report.

BACKGROUND: End-stage liver disease (ESLD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are prevalent diseases for which the definitive treatment is transplantation. With limited organ supply, strategies to maximize organ availability has led to increasing rates of split liver transplantations for ESLD patients. Therefore, simultaneous split liver and kidney transplantations (SSLK) for patients with ESLD and ESRD could represent a treatment option for comorbid patients. However, current practice and outcomes after SSLK are unknown. METHODS: We aim to report national trends and our experience with patients undergoing SSLK. We performed a retrospective review of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file from January 2011-April 2022. Descriptive analysis of preoperative characteristics, postoperative outcomes and actuarial graft and patient survivals are reported. RESULTS: National review of the UNOS transplant registry from 2011-2021 of adult patients undergoing initial transplantation via SSLK demonstrates that this procedure remains uncommon, with only 76 such cases captured in that time. Nevertheless, survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years remains robust, at 94%, 92%, and 90% for patients overall, 90%, 88%, 88%, for the liver graft, and 93%, 91%, 88% for the kidney graft, respectively. Review of a single center experience with three such patients from 2019-2021 has shown a safe, enduring transplant option with no graft complications seen. CONCLUSIONS: SSLK is both safe and a feasible option to optimize organ supply while allowing recipients to receive quality liver and kidney grafts and should be considered more often by transplant centers going forward.

Are we on track to increase organ utilization? An analysis of machine perfusion preservation for liver transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve the quality of marginal grafts for transplantation are essential. Machine perfusion preservation appears as a promising solution. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was queried for deceased liver donor records between 2016 and 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the organ nonutilization rate. Long-term graft and patient survival among extended criteria donors (ECDs) were also analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, out of 54 578 liver grafts recovered for transplant, 5085 (9.3%) were nonutilized. Multivariable analysis identified normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) preservation as the only predictor associated with a reduction in graft nonutilization (OR = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.06-0.023, p < 0.001). Further analysis of ECD grafts that were transplanted revealed comparable 1-,2- and 3-years graft survival (89%/88%/82% vs. 90%/85%/81%, p = 0.60), and patient survival (92%/91%/84% vs. 92%/88%/84%, p = 0.65) between grafts that underwent MP vs. those who did not, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Liver nonutilization rates in the United States are at an all-time high. Available data, most likely including cases from clinical trials, showed that NMP reduced the odds of organ nonutilization by 12% among the entire deceased donor pool and by 16% among grafts from ECD. Collective efforts and further evidence reflecting day-to-day clinical practice are needed to fully reach the potential of MP for liver transplant.

Survival after LDLT in recipients ≥70 years old in the United States. An OPTN/UNOS liver transplant registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the elderly population is currently not well studied. There are single-center studies indicating that patient age should not be a barrier to LDLT, with similar outcomes compared to younger recipients. METHODS: Using UNOS/STAR data from 2010 to 2022 we retrospectively analyzed patients ≥70 years old receiving a living donor graft (LDLT ≥70y group) versus a deceased donor graft (DDLT ≥70y group). In addition, we compared recipients ≥70 years old undergoing LDLT versus patients 18-69 years old also undergoing LDLT. Donor and recipient baseline characteristics, as well as postoperative outcomes including graft and patient survival were analyzed and compared between groups. RESULTS: Recipients in the LDLT ≥70y group showed less disease burden and spent significantly less time on the waitlist when compared to recipients in the DDLT ≥70y group (102 [49-201] days versus 170 [36-336] days) respectively; p = .004. With the exception of a longer length of stay (LOS) in the LDLT ≥70y group (p ≤ .001), postoperative outcomes were comparable with recipients in the DDLT ≥70y group, including similar graft and patient survival rates at 1-, 3-, and 5-years. When compared to younger recipients of a graft from a living donor, patients in the LDLT ≥70y group had similar post-transplant functional status, re-transplant rates and similar causes contributing to graft failure. However, significantly lower graft and patient survival rates were observed. CONCLUSION: LDLT for recipients aged 70 or greater represents a faster access to transplantation in a safe and feasible manner when compared to similar- aged recipients undergoing DDLT.

Living donor liver transplant candidate and donor selection and engagement: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference.

INTRODUCTION: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur. METHODS: In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier. RESULTS: Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.

Early removal of drains and lines after liver transplantation to reduce the length of hospital stay and enhance recovery - A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The timing of removing abdominal drains, central venous catheters (CVC), and urinary catheters (UC) on post liver transplantation (LT) outcomes is not well elucidated. OBJECTIVES: To provide international expert panel recommendations and guidelines on time of drain and catheter removal as a part of an ERAS protocol to reduce the length of hospital stay and enhance recovery. METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. Papers considered were those reporting one or more outcomes of interest related to drainage and line removal in the setting of LT. POSPERO Protocol ID: CRD42021238349 RESULTS: On analyzing five relevant studies pertaining to drains in patients undergoing LT (four retrospectives and one prospective), the length of hospital and/or ICU stay was similar or shorter, and postoperative morbidity and mortality were lower in those without drains. No studies pertaining specifically to the time of removal of drains, CVC's, or UC's in LT were found. Studies in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery or hepatectomies recommend early removal of CVC and UC to reduce catheter-associated infections. CONCLUSIONS: Based more on expert recommendation, we propose that abdominal drains, if placed during LT, should be removed by postoperative day 5 after LT, based on quantity and fluid characteristics (Quality of Evidence; Low to Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Larger studies are needed to more reliably determine indications for early drain and line removal in an ERAS protocol setting.

Split liver transplantation with extended right grafts on adult recipients: A propensity score matching analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Split liver transplantation (SLT) emerged due to its potential to contribute to the organ pool and reduce organ shortage. However, SLT is technically challenging and has been associated with higher rates of postoperative complications leading to concerns about graft and patient survival. Moreover, there are few studies on matched-pair adult recipients of SLT and whole-liver transplant (WLT), with conflicting results. METHODS: This retrospective study analyze outcomes among adults who underwent SLT at our institution from 2010 to 2019. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed based on important donor and recipient variables. Baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between groups. Actuarial graft and patient survival were analyzed by KM curves. RESULTS: Out of 592 adults receiving a LT in our institution, 21 SLT adult recipients were identified and matched with 21 adults undergoing WLT. As expected donor age was significantly lower in SLT recipients (16 (15-22) vs. 32 (17-47), P = .012). Additional donor characteristics, including anthropometrics, and ischemic times were similar between groups. Baseline recipient characteristics and postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, vascular complications, biliary complications, and re-transplantation were comparable between SLT and WLT recipients. Graft (95/95/95 vs. 100/94/94, P = .98) and patient (100/100/100 vs. 100/94/94, P = .30) survival at 1-, 3-, 5-years, were similar between the SLT- and WLT group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Split liver transplantation has the potential to increase the availability of organs for adult recipients without compromising individual outcomes.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation vs. Split Liver Transplantation Using Left Lateral Segment Grafts in Pediatric Recipients: An Analysis of the UNOS Database.

Split and LDLT in pediatric patients have the potential to decrease wait times and waitlist mortality. Using UNOS-STAR data, we compared outcomes of pediatric patients undergoing LDLT and SLT using LLS grafts. The baseline characteristics and post-operative outcomes were compared between groups. Actuarial graft and patient survival were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Between 2010 and 2019, 911 pediatric LT were included in the analysis (LD graft group, n = 508, split graft group, n = 403). LD graft recipients spent more time on the waitlist vs. the split graft group (60 (22-138) days vs. 46 (16-108) days; p = 0.007). LD recipients had a lower rate of graft failure, found in 9.8% of patients compared with 14.6% in the split graft group (p = 0.02). HAT was the most common graft failure cause, with similar rates. Graft and patient survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-years was comparable between LDLT and SLT. In subgroup analyses, patients with biliary atresia, those ≤10 kg or ≤10 years old receiving an LD graft showed improved graft survival. In conclusion, LDLT is associated with a lower rate of graft failure in pediatric patients. The use of LLS regardless of the type of donor is a safe way to facilitate access to transplantation to pediatric patients with acceptable short and long-term outcomes.

Increased use of split liver grafts in adult recipients following implementation of a pediatric liver transplant program.

BACKGROUND: Split liver transplantation (SLT) is a strategy to address organ shortage, but is a technically more demanding procedure than whole graft liver transplantation (LT). We aimed to determine the outcomes following SLT in adult recipients as well as to highlight the impact that having a pediatric LT program has on SLT implementation. METHODS: All SLTs conducted at a single-center from 2010 to 2019 were identified. Patient data was obtained through retrospective review of the electronic medical record. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed primary outcomes of 1-,3-, and 5-year graft and patient survival. RESULTS: We identified 37 SLTs performed at our institution from 2010 to 2019. Twenty-four donated livers resulted in 21 extended right lobes and 16 left lateral segments for adults and pediatrics recipients, respectively. Eighty-one percent (30/37) of the SLTs were performed after introduction of the combined pediatric program in 2016. 13/24 donor livers were split with both grafts allocated and used at our institution and 92% occurred after introduction of the pediatric program. Graft survival rates at 1-, 3-, and 5-years were 94% in adult recipients and 100% for all time periods in pediatric recipients. Actuarial post-transplant patient survival was 100% at 1-, 3-, and 5-years in both. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a pediatric liver transplantation program resulted in more than a fourfold increase in the number of SLTs performed at our center. Increase in allocation and use of both grafts at our institution was also seen.

Donor Morbidity Is Equivalent Between Right and Left Hepatectomy for Living Liver Donation: A Meta-Analysis.

Maximizing liver graft volume benefits the living donor liver recipient. Whether maximizing graft volume negatively impacts living donor recovery and outcomes remains controversial. Patient randomization between right and left hepatectomy has not been possible due to anatomic constraints; however, a number of published, nonrandomized observational studies summarize donor outcomes between 2 anatomic living donor hepatectomies. This meta-analysis compares donor-specific outcomes after right versus left living donor hepatectomy. Systematic searches were performed via PubMed, Cochrane, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies between January 2005 and November 2019. The primary outcomes compared overall morbidity and incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo >III) between right and left hepatectomy in donors after liver donation. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to derive summary risk estimates of outcomes. A total of 33 studies (3 prospective and 30 retrospective cohort) were used to identify 7649 pooled patients (5993 right hepatectomy and 1027 left hepatectomy). Proportion of donors who developed postoperative complications did not significantly differ after right hepatectomy (0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.40) and left hepatectomy (0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; P = 0.19). The overall risk ratio (RR) did not differ between right and left hepatectomy (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.63; P = 0.36). The relative risk for a donor to develop severe complications showed no differences by hepatectomy side (Incidence rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = 0.86). There is no evidence that the overall morbidity differs between right and left lobe donors. Publication bias reflects institutional and surgeon variation. A prospective, standardized, multi-institutional study would help quantify the burden of donor complications after liver donation.

Domino transplantation for pediatric liver recipients: Obstacles, challenges, and successes.

BACKGROUND: Domino liver transplantation aims to address the need to increase the liver donor supply. In a domino liver transplant, the domino recipient receives the explanted liver from the recipient of a traditional liver transplant. The domino donor typically requires liver transplant to correct a metabolic disorder; the explanted liver thus has a single gene defect but otherwise normal structure and function. METHODS: In this review, we detail the history of domino liver transplantation, appropriate domino donor indications, the technical advances to the surgical approach, current outcomes, and future opportunities. RESULTS: Development of de novo disease in the domino recipient has relegated adult domino liver transplant to be considered a source of marginal donor livers. However, pediatric domino liver transplant has leveraged certain metabolic disorders, especially maple syrup urine disease, in which the liver enzyme deficiency can be compensated by the systemic presence of sufficient enzyme. Advances in the surgical aspects of assuring adequate length of vasculature have improved the safety of the procedure in both domino donors and recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric domino liver transplant utilizing domino donors with specific metabolic liver diseases should be considered a viable live donor option for children awaiting liver transplant.

Pediatric living donor liver transplantation with large-for-size left lateral segment grafts.

Usage of "large-for-size" left lateral segment (LLS) liver grafts in children with high graft to recipient weight ratio (GRWR) is controversial due to concerns about increased recipient complications. During the study period, 77 pediatric living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) with LLS grafts were performed. We compared recipients with GRWR ≥2.5% (GR-High = 50) vs GRWR <2.5% (GR-Low = 27). Median age was higher in the GR-Low group (40 vs 8 months, P> .0001). Graft (GR-High: 98%, 98%, 98% vs GR-Low: 96%, 93%, 93%) and patient (GR-High: 98%, 98%, 98% vs GR-Low: 100%, 96%, 96%) survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was similar between groups (P = NS). Overall complications were also similar (34% vs 30%; P = .8). Hepatic artery and portal vein thrombosis following transplantation was not different (P = NS). Delayed abdominal fascia closure was more common in GR-High patients (17 vs 1; P = .002). Subgroup analysis comparing recipients with GRWR ≥4% (GR-XL = 20) to GRWR <2.5% (GRWR-Low = 27) revealed that delayed abdominal fascia closure was more common in the GR-XL group, but postoperative complications and graft and patient survival were similar. We conclude that pediatric LDLT with large-for-size LLS grafts is associated with excellent clinical outcomes. There is an increased need for delayed abdominal closure with no compromise of long-term outcomes. The use of high GRWR expands the donor pool and improves timely access to the benefits of transplantation without extra risks.

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.

Donor outcomes in anonymous live liver donation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Death rates on liver transplant waiting lists range from 5%-25%. Herein, we report a unique experience with 50 anonymous individuals who volunteered to address this gap by offering to donate part of their liver to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship, so called anonymous live liver donation (A-LLD). METHODS: Candidates were screened to confirm excellent physical, mental, social, and financial health. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Qualitative interviews after donation examined motivation and experiences. Validated self-reported questionnaires assessed personality traits and psychological impact. RESULTS: A total of 50 A-LLD liver transplants were performed between 2005 and 2017. Most donors had a university education, a middle-class income, and a history of prior altruism. Half were women. Median age was 38.5 years (range 20-59). Thirty-three (70%) learned about this opportunity through public or social media. Saving a life, helping others, generativity, and reciprocity for past generosity were motivators. Social, financial, healthcare, and legal support in Canada were identified as facilitators. A-LLD identified most with the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The median hospital stay was 6 days. One donor experienced a Dindo-Clavien Grade 3 complication that completely resolved. One-year recipient survival was 91% in 22 adults and 97% in 28 children. No A-LLD reported regretting their decision. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first and only report of the characteristics, motivations and facilitators of A-LLD in a large cohort. With rigorous protocols, outcomes are excellent. A-LLD has significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability. LAY SUMMARY: We report a unique experience with 50 living donors who volunteered to donate to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship (anonymous living donors). This report is the first to discuss motivations, strategies and facilitators that may mitigate physical, social and ethical risk factors in this patient population. With rigorous protocols, anonymous liver donation and recipient outcomes are excellent; with appropriate clinical expertise and system facilitators in place, our experience suggests that other centers may consider the procedure for its significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability.

Living donor liver transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As experience grows, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become an effective treatment option to overcome the deceased donor organ shortage. RECENT FINDINGS: Donor safety is the highest priority in LDLT. Strict donor selection according to structured protocols and center experience are the main factors that determine donor safety. However, with increased experience, many centers have explored increasing organ availability within living donation by means of ABO incompatible LDLT, dual graft LDLT, and anonymous living donation. Also, this growing experience in LDLT has allowed the transplant community to cautiously explore the role of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma outside of Milan criteria and patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases. SUMMARY: LDLT has become established as a viable strategy to ameliorate the organ shortage experienced by centers around the world. Improved understanding of this technique has allowed the improved utilization of live donor graft resources, without compromising donor safety. Moreover, LDLT may offer some advantages over deceased donor liver transplantation and a unique opportunity to assess the broader applicability of liver transplantation.

Multicenter validation of a score to predict prognosis after the development of HCC recurrence following liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: HCC recurrence after LT impacts negatively on survival. A recent study detected late recurrence (≥12 months), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) <100 ng/mL at recurrence and being amenable for curative-intent treatments as good prognostic factors. With these variables a prognostic score was proposed. The objective of this study was to validate the prognostic score for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence following liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: Data from the University of California, San Francisco, the University Hospital of Birmingham and Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan including patients with HCC recurrence after LT were analyzed. The previous reported score was applied to this cohort. RESULTS: From June 2002-December 2014, 1328 patients had a confirmed HCC in their explanted liver. The study group comprised 130 patients (9.8%) diagnosed with HCC recurrence after LT. Overall median survival after HCC recurrence was 12.4 (95% CI 10.2-16.3) months. Application of the previously reported score showed a significantly superior survival for the good prognosis group compared to moderate and poor prognosis groups (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The score continues to identify a group of patients who would benefit from aggressive treatment and experience significant improved survival following recurrent HCC after LT.

Surgical Complications after Right Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donation: Largest Single-Center Western World Experience.

The authors assessed the incidence, management, and risk factors for postoperative complications after right lobe (RL) live donor hepatectomy in a high-volume center in North America. All donors undergoing an RL live donor hepatectomy between 2000 and 2017 at our institution were included. The primary outcome was the development of complications (both medical and surgical). Predictors of postoperative complications were determined by logistic regression. A total of 587 patients underwent RL live donor hepatectomy. Among those, 187 postoperative complications were diagnosed in 141 (24%) patients. One patient had >90-day morbidity, and there were no donor deaths. Overall complications were significantly higher in the first era, 2000 to 2008 (81 [57.4%]) versus the second era, 2009 to 2017 (60 [42.6%]) (p = 0.01). On multivariate analysis, the only predictor of postoperative complications was the center volume of RL live donor hepatectomy in the previous 12 months with an odds ratio of 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.95-0.99). In conclusion, increasing center volume is associated with lower rates of postoperative complications after RL living liver donation.

Current status of liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma.

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is the second most common liver cancer, and it is associated with a poor prognosis. CCA can be divided into intrahepatic, hilar, and distal. Despite the subtype, the median survival is 12-24 months without treatment. Liver transplantation (LT) is recognized worldwide as a curative option for hepatocellular carcinoma. On the other hand, the initial results for LT for CCA were very poor mainly due to a lack of adequate patient selection. In the last 2 decades, improvements have been made in the management of unresectable hilar CCA, and the results of LT after neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been shown to be promising. This has prompted a consideration of hilar CCA as an indication for LT in some centers. Furthermore, some recent research has shown promising results after LT for patients with early stages of intrahepatic CCA. A better understanding of the best tools to prognosticate the outcomes of LT for CCA is still needed. Here, we aimed to review the role of LT for the treatment of patients with perihilar and intrahepatic CCA. Also, we will discuss the most recent advances in the field and the future direction of the management of this disease in an era of transplantation oncology. Liver Transplantation 24 294-303 2018 AASLD.