Expanding Selection Criteria in Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Long-term Follow-up of a National Registry and 2 Transplant Centers
Author:
Wehrle Chase J1, Kusakabe Jiro1, Akabane Miho2, Maspero Marianna3, Zervos Bobby4, Modaresi Esfeh Jamak5, Whitsett Linganna Maureen5, Imaoka Yuki2, Khalil Mazhar1, Pita Alejandro1, Kim Jaekeun1, Diago-Uso Teresa6, Fujiki Masato1, Eghtesad Bijan1, Quintini Cristiano6, Kwon Choon David1, Pinna Antonio4, Aucejo Federico1, Miller Charles1, Mazzaferro Vincenzo3, Schlegel Andrea17, Sasaki Kazunari2, Hashimoto Koji1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Surgery, Transplantation Center, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 2. Department of Surgery, Stanford University Hospital, Palo Alto, CA. 3. General Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Liver Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic Weston Hospital, Weston, FL. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 6. Department of Surgery, Digestive Disease Institute, Transplantation Center, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 7. Department of Immunology, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|