RESUMO
To date, caval sparing (CS) and total caval replacement (TCR) for recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation (LT) have been compared only in terms of surgical morbidity. Nonetheless, the CS technique is inherently associated with an increased manipulation of the native liver and later exclusion of the venous outflow, which may increase the risk of intraoperative shedding of tumor cells when LT is performed for HCC. A multicenter, retrospective study was performed to assess the impact of recipient hepatectomy (CS vs. TCR) on the risk of posttransplant HCC recurrence among 16 European transplant centers that used either TCR or CS recipient hepatectomy as an elective protocol technique. Exclusion criteria comprised cases of non-center-protocol recipient hepatectomy technique, living-donor LT, HCC diagnosis suspected on preoperative imaging but not confirmed at the pathological examination of the explanted liver, HCC in close contact with the IVC, and previous liver resection for HCC. In 2420 patients, CS and TCR approaches were used in 1452 (60%) and 968 (40%) cases, respectively. Group adjustment with inverse probability weighting was performed for high-volume center, recipient age, alcohol abuse, viral hepatitis, Child-Pugh class C, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, cold ischemia time, clinical HCC stage within Milan criteria, pre-LT downstaging/bridging therapies, pre-LT alphafetoprotein serum levels, number and size of tumor nodules, microvascular invasion, and complete necrosis of all tumor nodules (matched cohort, TCR, n = 938; CS, n = 935). In a multivariate cause-specific hazard model, CS was associated with a higher risk of HCC recurrence (HR: 1.536, p = 0.007). In conclusion, TCR recipient hepatectomy, compared to the CS approach, may be associated with some protective effect against post-LT tumor recurrence.
RESUMO
Background: Locoregional therapies (LRTs) are commonly used to increase the number of potential candidates for liver transplantation (LT). The aim of this paper is to assess the outcomes of LRTs prior to LT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond the listing criteria. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Medline and Web of Science databases for reports published before May 2021. We included papers assessing adult patients with HCC considered for LT and reporting intention-to-treat (ITT) survival outcomes. Two reviewers independently identified and extracted the data and evaluated the papers. Outcomes analysed were drop-out rate; time on the waiting list; and 1, 3 and 5 year survival after LT and based on an ITT analysis. Results: The literature search yielded 3,106 records, of which 11 papers (1874 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Patients with HCC beyond the listing criteria and successfully downstaged presented a higher drop-out rate (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.45−2.88, p < 0.001) and a longer time from the initial assessment to LT than those with HCC within the listing criteria (MD 1.93, 95% CI 0.91−2.94, p < 0.001). The 1, 3 and 5 year survival post-LT and based on an ITT analysis did not show significant differences between the two groups. Patients with HCC beyond the listing criteria, successfully downstaged and then transplanted, presented longer 3 year (OR 3.77, 95% CI 1.26−11.32, p = 0.02) and 5 year overall survival (OS) (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15−8.23, p = 0.02) in comparison with those that were not submitted to LT. Conclusions: Patients with HCC beyond the listing criteria undergoing downstaging presented a higher drop-out rate in comparison with those with HCC within the listing criteria. However, the two groups did not present significant differences in 1, 3 and 5 year survival rates based on an ITT analysis. Patients with HCC beyond the listing, when successfully downstaged and transplanted, presented longer 3 and 5-year OS in comparison with those who were not transplanted.