ABSTRACT
BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is generally diagnosed at an advanced stage, which limits curative treatment options for these patients. Locoregional therapy (LRT) is the standard approach to bridge and downstage unresectable HCC for liver transplantation (LT). Atezolizumab-bevacizumab (atezo-bev) can induce objective responses in nearly one-third of patients; however, the role and outcomes of downstaging using atezo-bev remains unknown. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center study, we included consecutive patients between November 2020 and August 2023, who received atezo-bev with or without LRT and were subsequently considered for resection/LT after downstaging. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients who received atezo-bev, 12 patients (10.4%) achieved complete or partial response and were willing to undergo LT; they (age, 58.5 years; women, 17%; Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage system B/C, 5/7) had received 3-12 cycles of atezo- bev, and four of them had received prior LRT. Three patients died before LT, while three were awaiting LT. Six patients underwent curative therapies: four underwent living donor LT after a median of 79.5 days (range, 54-114) following the last atezo-bev dose, one underwent deceased donor LT 38 days after the last dose, and one underwent resection. All but one patient had complete pathologic response with no viable HCC. Three patients experienced wound healing complications, and one required re-exploration and succumbed to sepsis. After a median follow-up of 10 months (range, 4-30), none of the alive patients developed HCC recurrence or graft rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical therapy, including LT, is possible after atezo-bev therapy in well-selected patients after downstaging.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is associated with excellent survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). There is a lack of data assessing the healthcare utilization and outcomes of patients with APASL-defined ACLF undergoing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Our aim was to assess pre-LT healthcare utilization and post-LT outcomes in such patients. METHODS: Patients with ACLF who underwent LDLT at our center between 1st April 2019 and 1st October 2021 were included. RESULTS: Seventy-three ACLF patients willing to undergo LDLT were listed; eighteen patients died within 30 days. Fifty-five patients underwent LDLT (age:38.05 ± 14.76 years; alcohol:52.7%; males:81.8%). Most were in grade II ACLF (87.3%) at the time of LDLT (APASL ACLF Research Consortium [AARC] score: 9.05 ± 1; MELD NA: 28.15 ± 4.13). Survival rate was 72.73%; mean follow-up period of 925.21 days; 58.2% (32/55) developed complications during the first year post-LT; 45% (25/55) and 12.7% (7/55) developed infections within and after 3 months. Pre-LT, each patient required a median of 2 (1-4) admissions for 17 (4-45) days. Fifty-six percent (31/55) of patients underwent plasma exchange pre-LDLT. A median amount of Rs. 8,25,090 (INR 26,000-43,58,154) was spent to stabilize the patient (who were sicker and waited longer to undergo LDLT); though post-LT survival benefit was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: LDLT was associated with 73% survival and, thus, is a viable option in those with APASL-defined ACLF. There was a pre-LT high healthcare resource utilization of plasma exchange, with the intention of optimization, while survival benefit has not been demonstrated.