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.

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.

Combined Liver Transplant and Cardiac Surgery: Long-Term Outcomes and Predictors of Success.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to report our institutional outcomes of single-staged combined liver transplantation (LT) and cardiac surgery (CS). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Concurrent LT and CS is a potential treatment for combined cardiac dysfunction and end-stage liver disease, yet only 54 cases have been previously reported in the literature. Thus, the outcomes of this approach are relatively unknown, and this approach has been previously regarded as extremely risky. METHODS: Thirty-one patients at our institution underwent combined cardiac surgery and liver transplant. Patients with at least one-year follow-up were included. The Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (LOOCV) machine-learning approach was used to generate a model for mortality. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 8.2 years (IQR 4.6-13.6 y). One- and five-year survival was 74.2% (N=23) and 55% (N=17), respectively. Negative predictive factors of survival included recipient age>60 years (P=0.036), NASH-cirrhosis (P=0.031), Coronary Artery Bypass-Graft (CABG)-based CS (P=0.046) and pre-operative renal dysfunction (P=0.024). The final model demonstrated that renal dysfunction had a relative weighted impact of 3.2 versus CABG (1.7), age ≥60y (1.7) or NASH (1.3). Elevated LT+CS risk score was associated with an increased five-year mortality after surgery (AUC=0.731, P=<0.001). Conversely, the widely accepted STS-PROM calculator was unable to successfully stratify patients according to 1- (P>0.99) or 5-year (P=0.695) survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series describing combined LT+CS, with joint surgical management appearing feasible in highly selected patients. CABG and pre-operative renal dysfunction are important negative predictors of mortality. The four-variable LT+CS score may help predict patients at high risk for post-operative mortality.