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.

Intensive locoregional therapy before Liver Transplantation for colorectal cancer liver metastasis: A novel pre-transplant protocol.

BACKGROUND: We describe a novel pre-liver-transplant (LT) approach in colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) allowing for improved monitoring of tumor biology and reduction of disease burden before committing a patient to transplantation. METHODS: Patients undergoing LT for CRLM at Cleveland Clinic were included. The described protocol involves intensive locoregional therapy with systemic chemotherapy, aiming to reach minimal disease burden revealed by PET scan and CEA. Patients with no detectable disease or irreversible treatment-induced liver injury undergo transplant. RESULTS: Nine patients received liver transplant out of 27 who were evaluated (33.3%). Median follow-up was 700 days. Seven patients (77.8%) received a living donor LT. Five had no detectable disease and four had treatment-induced cirrhosis. Pre-transplant management included chemotherapy (n=9) +/- Bevacizumab (n=6) and/or Anti-EGFR (n=6). Median pre-LT cycles of chemotherapy=16 (Range 10-40). Liver-directed therapy included Yttrium-90 (n=5), ablation (n=4), resection (n=4), and HAI-pump (n=3). Three patients recurred after LT. Actuarial 1- and 2-year recurrence-free survival were 75% (n=6/8) and 60% (n=3/5). Recurrence occurred in the lungs (n=1), liver graft (n=1), and lungs+paraaortic nodes (n=1). Patients with pre-LT detectable disease had reduced RFS (p=0.04). All patients with recurrence had histologically-viable tumor in the liver explant. Patients treated in our protocol (n=16) demonstrated improved survival versus those who were not candidates (n=11) regardless of transplant status (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: A protocol defined by aggressive pre-transplant liver-directed treatment and transplant for patients with undetectable disease or treatment-induced liver injury may help prevent tumor recurrence.

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.

Update to 'A Contemporary Systematic Review on Liver Transplantation for Unresectable Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer'.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and half of patients present with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). Liver transplant (LT) has emerged as a treatment modality for otherwise unresectable CRLM. Since the publication of the Lebeck-Lee systematic review in 2022, additional evidence has come to light supporting LT for CRLM in highly selected patients. This includes reports of >10-year follow-up with over 80% survival rates in low-risk patients. As these updated reports have significantly changed our collective knowledge, this article is intended to serve as an update to the 2022 systematic review to include the most up-to-date evidence on the subject.