Risk assessment in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a two-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-established treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but there are ongoing debates regarding outcomes and selection. This study examines the experience of LT for HCC at a high-volume centre. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was used to identify HCC patients undergoing LT from 2000 to 2020 with more than or equal to 3-years follow-up. Data were obtained from the centre database and electronic medical records. The Metroticket 2.0 HCC-specific 5-year survival scale was calculated for each patient. Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression analyses were employed assessing survival between groups based on Metroticket score and individual donor and recipient risk factors. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-nine patients met criteria. Median follow-up was 96.2 months (8.12 years; interquartile range 59.9-147.8). Three-year recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were 88.6% ( n =504) and 86.6% ( n =493). Five-year RFS and OS were 78.9% ( n =449) and 79.1% ( n =450). Median Metroticket 2.0 score was 0.9 (interquartile range 0.9-0.95). Tumour size greater than 3 cm ( P =0.012), increasing tumour number on imaging ( P =0.001) and explant pathology ( P <0.001) was associated with recurrence. Transplant within Milan ( P <0.001) or UCSF criteria ( P <0.001) had lower recurrence rates. Increasing alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)-values were associated with more HCC recurrence ( P <0.001) and reduced OS ( P =0.008). Chemoembolization was predictive of recurrence in the overall population ( P =0.043) and in those outside-Milan criteria ( P =0.038). A receiver-operator curve using Metroticket 2.0 identified an optimal cut-off of projected survival greater than or equal to 87.5% for predicting recurrence. This cut-off was able to predict RFS ( P <0.001) in the total cohort and predict both, RFS ( P =0.007) and OS ( P =0.016) outside Milan. Receipt of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts (55/478, 13%) or living-donor grafts (3/22, 13.6%) experienced better survival rates compared to donation after cardiac death (DCD) grafts ( n =15/58, 25.6%, P =0.009). Donor age was associated with a higher HCC recurrence ( P =0.006). Both total ischaemia time (TIT) greater than 6hours ( P =0.016) and increasing TIT correlated with higher HCC recurrence ( P =0.027). The use of DCD grafts for outside-Milan candidates was associated with increased recurrence ( P =0.039) and reduced survival ( P =0.033). CONCLUSION: This large two-centre analysis confirms favourable outcomes after LT for HCC. Tumour size and number, pre-transplant AFP, and Milan criteria remain important recipient HCC-risk factors. A higher donor risk (i.e. donor age, DCD grafts, ischaemia time) was associated with poorer outcomes.

Expanding Selection Criteria in Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Long-term Follow-up of a National Registry and 2 Transplant Centers.

BACKGROUND: This study compares selection criteria for liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for inclusivity and predictive ability to identify the most permissive criteria that maintain patient outcomes. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database was queried for deceased donor LT's for HCC (2003-2020) with 3-y follow-up; these data were compared with a 2-center experience. Milan, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 5-5-500, Up-to-seven (U7), HALT-HCC, and Metroticket 2.0 scores were calculated. RESULTS: Nationally, 26 409 patients were included, and 547 at the 2 institutions. Median SRTR-follow-up was 6.8 y (interquartile range 3.9-10.1). Three criteria allowed the expansion of candidacy versus Milan: UCSF (7.7%, n = 1898), Metroticket 2.0 (4.2%, n = 1037), and U7 (3.5%, n = 828). The absolute difference in 3-y overall survival (OS) between scores was 1.5%. HALT-HCC (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.559, 0.551-0.567) best predicted 3-y OS although AUC was notably similar between criteria (0.506 < AUC < 0.527, Mila n = 0.513, UCSF = 0.506, 5-5-500 = 0.522, U7 = 0.511, HALT-HCC = 0.559, and Metroticket 2.0 = 0.520), as was Harrall's c-statistic (0.507 < c-statistic < 0.532). All scores predicted survival to P < 0.001 on competing risk analysis. Median follow-up in our enterprise was 9.8 y (interquartile range 7.1-13.3). U7 (13.0%, n = 58), UCSF (11.1%, n = 50), HALT-HCC (6.4%, n = 29), and Metroticket 2.0 (6.3%, n = 28) allowed candidate expansion. HALT-HCC (AUC = 0.768, 0.713-0.823) and Metroticket 2.0 (AUC = 0.739, 0.677-0.801) were the most predictive of recurrence. All scores predicted recurrence and survival to P < 0.001 using competing risk analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Less restrictive criteria such as Metroticket 2.0, UCSF, or U7 allow broader application of transplants for HCC without sacrificing outcomes. Thus, the criteria for Model for End-stage Liver Disease-exception points for HCC should be expanded to allow more patients to receive life-saving transplantation.