Degree of Discordance Between FIB-4 and Transient Elastography: An Application of Current Guidelines on General Population Cohort.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the American Gastroenterological Association/American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AGA/AASLD) Clinical Care Pathway, Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) is used to stratify patients at risk for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) as low-, indeterminate-, or high-risk for developing advanced liver fibrosis. We assessed the performance of FIB-4 in a general population. METHODS: Using the 2017 to 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys dataset, we selected subjects ≥18 years who had FibroScan data. We followed AGA/AASLD guidelines to identify subjects with characteristics that place them at risk for MASLD-associated liver fibrosis. Other causes of liver disease were excluded. Our final cohort had 3741 subjects. We then categorized these subjects based on recommended FIB-4 cutoffs. FibroScan liver stiffness measurement (LSM) served as the outcome measurement. RESULTS: Among the 2776 subjects (74.2%) classified as low risk by FIB-4, 277 subjects (10%) were not classified at low risk by LSM, and 75 subjects (2.7%) were classified as high risk by LSM. Among the 86 subjects classified as high risk by FIB-4, 68 subjects (79.1%) were not at high risk by LSM, and 54 subjects (62.8%) were at low risk by LSM. Subjects misclassified by FIB-4 as low risk were older; had a higher body mass index, waist circumference, glycohemoglobin A1c level, alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, diastolic blood pressure, controlled attenuation parameter score, white blood cell count, alkaline phosphatase, and fasting glucose level; but had lower high-density lipoprotein, and albumin level (all P < .05). Misclassified subjects were also more likely to have prediabetes/diabetes. CONCLUSION: Using FIB-4 in the AGA/AASLD guidelines to risk-stratify subjects at risk for MASLD-associated fibrosis results in many subjects being misclassified into the low- and high-risk categories. Therefore, it may be worthwhile considering caution in interpretation and/or alternative strategies.

Management of Established Small-for-size Syndrome in Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Medical, Radiological, and Surgical Interventions: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

Treatment Disparities Partially Mediate Socioeconomic- and Race/Ethnicity-Based Survival Disparities in Stage I-II Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Low socioeconomic status (SES) patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receive procedural treatments less often and have shorter survival. Little is known about the extent to which these survival disparities result from treatment-related disparities versus other causal pathways. We aimed to estimate the proportion of SES-based survival disparities that are mediated by treatment- and facility-related factors among patients with stage I-II HCC. METHODS: We analyzed patients aged 18-75 years diagnosed with stage I-II HCC in 2008-2016 using the National Cancer Database. Inverse odds weighting mediation analysis was used to calculate the proportion mediated by three mediators: procedure type, facility volume, and facility procedural interventions offered. Intersectional analyses were performed to determine whether treatment disparities played a larger role in survival disparities among Black and Hispanic patients. RESULTS: Among 46,003 patients, 15.0% had low SES, 71.6% had middle SES, and 13.4% had high SES. Five-year overall survival was 46.9%, 39.9%, and 35.7% among high, middle, and low SES patients, respectively. Procedure type mediated 45.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.1-60.7%) and 36.7% (95% CI 25.7-47.7%) of overall survival disparities for low and middle SES patients, respectively, which was more than was mediated by the two facility-level mediators. Procedure type mediated a larger proportion of survival disparities among low-middle SES Black (46.6-48.2%) and Hispanic patients (92.9-93.7%) than in White patients (29.5-29.7%). CONCLUSIONS: SES-based disparities in use of procedural interventions mediate a large proportion of survival disparities, particularly among Black and Hispanic patients. Initiatives aimed at attenuating these treatment disparities should be pursued.

Development and validation of a REcurrent Liver cAncer Prediction ScorE (RELAPSE) following liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium.

HCC recurrence following liver transplantation (LT) is highly morbid and occurs despite strict patient selection criteria. Individualized prediction of post-LT HCC recurrence risk remains an important need. Clinico-radiologic and pathologic data of 4981 patients with HCC undergoing LT from the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (UMHTC) were analyzed to develop a REcurrent Liver cAncer Prediction ScorE (RELAPSE). Multivariable Fine and Gray competing risk analysis and machine learning algorithms (Random Survival Forest and Classification and Regression Tree models) identified variables to model HCC recurrence. RELAPSE was externally validated in 1160 HCC LT recipients from the European Hepatocellular Cancer Liver Transplant study group. Of 4981 UMHTC patients with HCC undergoing LT, 71.9% were within Milan criteria, 16.1% were initially beyond Milan criteria with 9.4% downstaged before LT, and 12.0% had incidental HCC on explant pathology. Overall and recurrence-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89.7%, 78.6%, and 69.8% and 86.8%, 74.9%, and 66.7%, respectively, with a 5-year incidence of HCC recurrence of 12.5% (median 16 months) and non-HCC mortality of 20.8%. A multivariable model identified maximum alpha-fetoprotein (HR = 1.35 per-log SD, 95% CI,1.22-1.50, p < 0.001), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (HR = 1.16 per-log SD, 95% CI,1.04-1.28, p < 0.006), pathologic maximum tumor diameter (HR = 1.53 per-log SD, 95% CI, 1.35-1.73, p < 0.001), microvascular (HR = 2.37, 95%-CI, 1.87-2.99, p < 0.001) and macrovascular (HR = 3.38, 95% CI, 2.41-4.75, p < 0.001) invasion, and tumor differentiation (moderate HR = 1.75, 95% CI, 1.29-2.37, p < 0.001; poor HR = 2.62, 95% CI, 1.54-3.32, p < 0.001) as independent variables predicting post-LT HCC recurrence (C-statistic = 0.78). Machine learning algorithms incorporating additional covariates improved prediction of recurrence (Random Survival Forest C-statistic = 0.81). Despite significant differences in European Hepatocellular Cancer Liver Transplant recipient radiologic, treatment, and pathologic characteristics, external validation of RELAPSE demonstrated consistent 2- and 5-year recurrence risk discrimination (AUCs 0.77 and 0.75, respectively). We developed and externally validated a RELAPSE score that accurately discriminates post-LT HCC recurrence risk and may allow for individualized post-LT surveillance, immunosuppression modification, and selection of high-risk patients for adjuvant therapies.

Are short-term complications associated with poor allograft and patient survival after liver transplantation? A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Maximizing patient and allograft survival after liver transplant (LT) is important from both a patient care and organ utilization perspective. Although individual studies have addressed the effects of short-term post-LT complications on a limited scale, there has not been a systematic review of the literature formally assessing the potential effects of early complications on long-term outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To identify whether short-term complications after LT affect allograft and overall survival, to identify short-term complications of particular clinical interest and significance, and to provide recommendations to improve post-LT graft and patient survival. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. RESULTS: The literature review and analysis provided show that short-term complications have a large impact on allograft and patient survival after LT. The complications with the strongest effect on survival are acute kidney injury (AKI), biliary complications, and early allograft dysfunction (EAD). CONCLUSION: This panel recommends taking measures to reduce the risk and incidence of short-term complications post-LT. Clinicians should pay particular attention to preventing or ameliorating AKI, biliary complications, and EAD (Quality of evidence; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong).

Early Liver Transplantation for Severe Alcohol-Associated Hepatitis and a History of Prior Liver Decompensation.

INTRODUCTION: In the published studies of early liver transplantation (LT) for alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), patients with a prior liver decompensation are excluded. The appropriateness of this criteria is unknown. METHODS: Among 6 American Consortium of Early Liver Transplantation for Alcohol-Associated Hepatitis sites, we included consecutive early LT for clinically diagnosed AH between 2007 and 2020. Patients were stratified as first vs prior history of liver decompensation, with the latter defined as a diagnosis of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, variceal bleeding, or jaundice, and evidence of alcohol use after this event. Adjusted Cox regression assessed the association of first (vs prior) decompensation with post-LT mortality and harmful (i.e., any binge and/or frequent) alcohol use. RESULTS: A total of 241 LT recipients (210 first vs 31 prior decompensation) were included: median age 43 vs 38 years ( P = 0.23), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium score of 39 vs 39 ( P = 0.98), and follow-up after LT 2.3 vs 1.7 years ( P = 0.08). Unadjusted 1- and 3-year survival among first vs prior decompensation was 93% (95% confidence interval [CI] 89%-96%) vs 86% (95% CI 66%-94%) and 85% (95% CI 79%-90%) vs 78% (95% CI 57%-89%). Prior (vs first) decompensation was associated with higher adjusted post-LT mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.72, 95% CI 1.61-4.59) and harmful alcohol use (adjusted hazard ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.07-2.94). DISCUSSION: Prior liver decompensation was associated with higher risk of post-LT mortality and harmful alcohol use. These results are a preliminary safety signal and validate first decompensation as a criterion for consideration in early LT for AH patients. However, the high 3-year survival suggests a survival benefit for early LT and the need for larger studies to refine this criterion. These results suggest that prior liver decompensation is a risk factor, but not an absolute contraindication to early LT.

Prospective Multicenter Study of Early Antiviral Therapy in Liver and Kidney Transplant Recipients of HCV-Viremic Donors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Organs from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic donors have been used in HCV-uninfected recipients (D+/R-), but the optimal treatment approach has not been defined. We evaluated the kinetics of HCV infection following transplant in D+/R- kidney-transplant (KT) and liver-transplant (LT) recipients when a preemptive antiviral strategy was used. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Six US transplant programs prospectively treated D+/R- primary LT and KT recipients with sofosbuvir-velpastasvir for 12 weeks starting once viremia was confirmed following transplant and the patients were judged to be clinically stable, including estimated glomerular filtration rate >30 mL/min. Primary endpoints were sustained virologic response at 12 weeks following transplant and safety (assessed by proportion of treatment-related adverse and serious adverse events). Of the 24 patients transplanted (13 liver, of whom 2 had prior-treated HCV infection; 11 kidney), 23 became viremic after transplant. The median (interquartile range) time from transplant to start of antiviral therapy was 7.0 (6.0, 12.0) versus 16.5 (9.8, 24.5) days, and the median (interquartile range) HCV-RNA level 3 days after transplant was 6.5 (3.9, 7.1) versus 3.6 (2.9, 4.0) log10  IU/mL in LT versus KT recipients, respectively. By week 4 of treatment, 10 of 13 (77%) LT, but only 2 of 10 (20%) KT, had undetectable HCV RNA (P = 0.01). At the end of treatment, all LT recipients were HCV RNA-undetectable, whereas 3 (30%) of the kidney recipients still had detectable, but not quantifiable, viremia. All achieved sustained virologic response at 12 weeks following transplant (lower 95% confidence interval bound: 85%). Serious adverse events considered possibly related to treatment were antibody-mediated rejection, biliary sclerosis, cardiomyopathy, and graft-versus-host disease, with the latter associated with multiorgan failure, premature treatment discontinuation, and death. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differing kinetics of early HCV infection in liver versus non-liver recipients, a preemptive antiviral strategy is effective. Vigilance for adverse immunologic events is warranted.

Posttransplant Outcomes in Older Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Are Driven by Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Factors.

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is growing in the United States, especially among the elderly. Older patients are increasingly receiving transplants as a result of HCC, but the impact of advancing age on long-term posttransplant outcomes is not clear. To study this, we used data from the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium of 4980 patients. We divided the patients into 4 groups by age at transplantation: 18 to 64 years (n = 4001), 65 to 69 years (n = 683), 70 to 74 years (n = 252), and ≥75 years (n = 44). There were no differences in HCC tumor stage, type of bridging locoregional therapy, or explant residual tumor between the groups. Older age was confirmed to be an independent and significant predictor of overall survival even after adjusting for demographic, etiologic, and cancer-related factors on multivariable analysis. A dose-response effect of age on survival was observed, with every 5-year increase in age older than 50 years resulting in an absolute increase of 8.3% in the mortality rate. Competing risk analysis revealed that older patients experienced higher rates of non-HCC-related mortality (P = 0.004), and not HCC-related death (P = 0.24). To delineate the precise cause of death, we further analyzed a single-center cohort of patients who received a transplant as a result of HCC (n = 302). Patients older than 65 years had a higher incidence of de novo cancer (18.1% versus 7.6%; P = 0.006) after transplantation and higher overall cancer-related mortality (14.3% versus 6.6%; P = 0.03). Even carefully selected elderly patients with HCC have significantly worse posttransplant survival rates, which are mostly driven by non-HCC-related causes. Minimizing immunosuppression and closer surveillance for de novo cancers can potentially improve the outcomes in elderly patients who received a transplant as a result of HCC.

Liver Transplantation for Cholangiocarcinoma and Mixed Hepatocellular Cholangiocarcinoma: Working Group Report From the ILTS Transplant Oncology Consensus Conference.

Liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma has been an absolute contraindication worldwide due to poor results. However, in recent years and thanks to improvements of patient management and treatments of this cancer, this indication has been revisited. This consensus paper, approved by the International Liver Transplant Society, aims to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Working Group Report from the ILTS Transplant Oncology Consensus Conference.

Liver transplantation (LT) offers excellent long-term outcome for certain patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with a push to not simply rely on tumor size and number. Selection criteria should also consider tumor biology (including alpha-fetoprotein), probability of waitlist and post-LT survival (ie, transplant benefit), organ availability, and waitlist composition. These criteria may be expanded for live donor LT (LDLT) compared to deceased donor LT though this should not adversely affect the double equipoise in LDLT, namely ensuring both acceptable recipient outcomes and donor safety. HCC patients with compensated liver disease and minimal tumor burden have low urgency for LT, especially after local-regional therapy with complete response, and do not appear to derive the same benefit from LT as other waitlist candidates. These guidelines were developed to assist in selecting appropriate HCC patients for both deceased donor LT and LDLT.

Posttransplant Management of Recipients Undergoing Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Working Group Report From the ILTS Transplant Oncology Consensus Conference.

Although liver transplantation (LT) is the best treatment for patients with localized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), recurrence occurs in 6%-18% of patients. Several factors, particularly morphological criteria combined with dynamic parameters, known before LT modify this risk and combined in prediction models may be used to stratify patients at need of variable surveillance strategies. Additional variables though likely explain differences in recurrence rates in patients with the same pre-LT HCC status. One of these variables is possibly immunosuppression (IS). Once recurrence takes place, management is highly heterogenous. Within the International Liver Transplantation Society Consensus Conference on Liver Transplant Oncology, working group 4 aim was to analyze the data regarding posttransplant management of recipients undergoing LT for HCC. Three areas of research were considered: (1) cancer prediction models and surveillance strategies; (2) tailored IS for cancer recipients; and (3) new adjuvant therapies for HCC recurrence. Following formulation of several questions, a literature search was undertaken with abstract review followed by article retrieval and full-data extraction. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system was used for evidence rating incorporating strength of recommendation and quality of evidence.

Liver Transplantation Outcomes in a U.S. Multicenter Cohort of 789 Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Presenting Beyond Milan Criteria.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently approved liver transplant (LT) prioritization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond Milan Criteria (MC) who are down-staged (DS) with locoregional therapy (LRT). We evaluated post-LT outcomes, predictors of down-staging, and the impact of LRT in patients with beyond-MC HCC from the U.S. Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (20 centers, 2002-2013). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Clinicopathologic characteristics, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and HCC recurrence (HCC-R) were compared between patients within MC (n = 3,570) and beyond MC (n = 789) who were down-staged (DS, n = 465), treated with LRT and not down-staged (LRT-NoDS, n = 242), or untreated (NoLRT-NoDS, n = 82). Five-year post-LT OS and RFS was higher in MC (71.3% and 68.2%) compared with DS (64.3% and 59.5%) and was lowest in NoDS (n = 324; 60.2% and 53.8%; overall P < 0.001). DS patients had superior RFS (60% vs. 54%, P = 0.043) and lower 5-year HCC-R (18% vs. 32%, P < 0.001) compared with NoDS, with further stratification by maximum radiologic tumor diameter (5-year HCC-R of 15.5% in DS/<5 cm and 39.1% in NoDS/>5 cm, P < 0.001). Multivariate predictors of down-staging included alpha-fetoprotein response to LRT, pathologic tumor number and size, and wait time >12 months. LRT-NoDS had greater HCC-R compared with NoLRT-NoDS (34.1% vs. 26.1%, P < 0.001), even after controlling for clinicopathologic variables (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.33, P < 0.001) and inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity matching (HR = 1.82, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In LT recipients with HCC presenting beyond MC, successful down-staging is predicted by wait time, alpha-fetoprotein response to LRT, and tumor burden and results in excellent post-LT outcomes, justifying expansion of LT criteria. In LRT-NoDS patients, higher HCC-R compared with NoLRT-NoDS cannot be explained by clinicopathologic differences, suggesting a potentially aggravating role of LRT in patients with poor tumor biology that warrants further investigation.

Pathologic Response to Pretransplant Locoregional Therapy is Predictive of Patient Outcome After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Analysis From the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the rate, predictors, and impact of complete pathologic response (cPR) to pretransplant locoregional therapy (LRT) in a large, multicenter cohort of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). BACKGROUND: LRT is used to mitigate waitlist dropout for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Degree of tumor necrosis found on explant has been associated with recurrence and overall survival, but has not been evaluated in a large, multicenter study. METHODS: Comparisons were made among patients receiving pre-LT LRT with (n = 802) and without (n = 2637) cPR from the United States Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (UMHTC), and multivariable predictors of cPR were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 3439 patients, 802 (23%) had cPR on explant. Compared with patients without cPR, cPR patients were younger; had lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, AFP levels, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios (NLR); were more likely to have tumors within Milan criteria and fewer LRT treatments; and had significantly lower 1-, 3-, and 5-year incidence of post-LT recurrence (1.3%, 3.5%, and 5.2% vs 6.2%, 13.5%, and 16.4%; P < 0.001) and superior overall survival (92%, 84%, and 75% vs 90%, 78%, and 68%; P < 0.001). Multivariable predictors of cPR included age, sex, liver disease diagnosis, MELD, AFP, NLR, radiographic Milan status, and number of LRT treatments (C-statistic 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: For LT recipients with HCC receiving pretransplant LRT, achieving cPR portends significantly lower posttransplant recurrence and superior survival. Factors predicting cPR are identified, which may help prioritize patients and guide LRT strategies to optimize posttransplant cancer outcomes.

International Liver Transplantation Consensus Statement on End-stage Liver Disease Due to Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Liver Transplantation.

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-related cirrhosis has become one of the most common indications for liver transplantation (LT), particularly in candidates older than 65 years. Typically, NASH candidates have concurrent obesity, metabolic, and cardiovascular risks, which directly impact patient evaluation and selection, waitlist morbidity and mortality, and eventually posttransplant outcomes. The purpose of these guidelines is to highlight specific features commonly observed in NASH candidates and strategies to optimize pretransplant evaluation and waitlist survival. More specifically, the working group addressed the following clinically relevant questions providing recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system supported by rigorous systematic reviews and consensus: (1) Is the outcome after LT similar to that of other etiologies of liver disease? (2) Is the natural history of NASH-related cirrhosis different from other etiologies of end-stage liver disease? (3) How should cardiovascular risk be assessed in the candidate for LT? Should the assessment differ from that done in other etiologies? (4) How should comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity, renal dysfunction, etc.) be treated in the candidate for LT? Should treatment and monitoring of these comorbidities differ from that applied in other etiologies? (5) What are the therapeutic strategies recommended to improve the cardiovascular and nutritional status of a NASH patient in the waiting list for LT? (6) Is there any circumstance where obesity should contraindicate LT? (7) What is the optimal time for bariatric surgery: before, during, or after LT? (8) How relevant is donor steatosis for LT in NASH patients?

Multicenter review of liver transplant for hepatitis B-related liver disease: disparities in gender and ethnicity.

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is the preferred treatment for selected patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related liver disease. This study aimed to (i) define long-term outcomes following OLT for HBV; (ii) to quantify the incidence of HBV recurrence (rHBV) as it relates to anti-HBV treatment; and (iii) to determine outcomes for specific patient subgroups. We performed a retrospective chart review of 738 patients undergoing OLT between 1985 and 2010 at seven US transplant centers and divided the patients into 3 eras, 1985-1994, 1995-2004, and 2005-2010, based on hepatitis B immunoglobulin and antiviral therapies. In Era 3, female gender (p = 0.002), recurrent hepatocellular cancer (p < 0.001), and retransplantation (p = 0.01) were significantly associated with worse survival on multivariate analysis. Survival at three yr was poor for all ethnicities in Era 1, but significantly improved for all except black Americans by Era 3. Era 2 data showed a continued increase in rHBV from five to 10 yr (16.6%, 26.2%). In conclusion, while OLT outcomes have improved because of combination antiviral and immunoglobulin therapy, women and black Americans may not have realized an equal benefit. The rate of rHBV is significant even 10 yr post-transplant with survival affected.

Liver transplantation for hepatitis B liver disease and concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States With hepatitis B immunoglobulin and nucleoside/nucleotide analogues.

Reinfection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) after liver transplantation (LT) may favor the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and combination therapy with hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and nucleoside/nucleotide analogues may reduce HBV recurrence after LT. To test associations between HBV, HCC, and survival, we performed a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing LT for HBV between January 1985 and December 2010 at 7 US transplant centers. After we divided the patients into 3 eras based on evolving strategies in antiviral therapy (1985-1994, 1995-2004, and 2005-2010), we reviewed 16 variables to determine whether there were associations between survival and HCC recurrence. Seven hundred thirty-eight patients underwent transplantation for HBV, and 354 (48.0%) had concomitant HCC, which recurred in 58 patients (16.4%). Three-year survival was much better in era 3 versus era 1 (87% versus 40%, P = 0.001), and the incidence of HCC recurrence was lower (12% versus 29%, P = 0.009). The lungs were the most frequent first site of HCC recurrence, and they were followed by the liver. A multivariate analysis showed that HBV reinfection, HCC recurrence, and HBIG use were associated with worse survival (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.002, respectively); HCC recurrence and stage 3 HCC, among other factors, were associated with HBV reinfection (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004); and stage 3 HCC, vascular invasion of the explanted tumor, and post-LT chemotherapy were associated with HCC recurrence (P = 0.008, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). Patients with HBV reinfection were 3.6 times more likely than patients without HBV to have HCC recurrence. These data suggest further study of attempts at LT for patients with HBV and HCC beyond the Milan criteria if their HBV is aggressively and successfully treated.

Thrombotic microangiopathy following pancreas after kidney transplants.

Advances in immunosuppressive therapy and refinement in surgical techniques have allowed pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplantation to become a viable therapeutic option for patients with brittle type I diabetic recipients of a living donor or previous deceased kidney alone transplant. Although maintenance immunosuppressive therapy is not significantly changed after the addition of a pancreas, a temporary booster in immunosuppressive therapy and an increase in the dose of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) are required after PAK transplantation. The latter has been implicated in the observed variable decline in kidney allograft function. We herein report two cases of kidney allograft dysfunction following PAK transplant due to biopsy-proven transplant, thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). Whether PAK transplantation pre-disposes a subset of patients to the development of post-transplant TMA is not known. Diagnostic kidney biopsies should be considered in PAK transplant recipients with worsening kidney allograft function.