Liver and Intestine Transplantation in the United States, 1995–2004

Three years of survival data are now available and the impact of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) allocation system is becoming clear. After a decline in new registrants to the waiting list in 2002, the number increased to 10 856 new patients in 2004. Since the implementation of MELD, the percentage of patients who have been on the list for 1–2 years has declined from 24% to 19%. There has been a shift upward in the percentage of patients with higher MELD scores on the waiting list.
An increasing percentage of adult living donor liver recipients are over the age of 50 years; from 1% in 1997 to 51% in 2004. Parents donating to children (93% of living donors in 1995), represented only 14% in 2004. Long-term adjusted patient survival declined with increasing recipient age in adults following either DDLT or LDLT.
Cirrhosis caused by chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the leading indication for liver transplantation and is associated with reduced long-term survival in recipients with HCV compared to those without HCV, 68% at 5 years compared to 76%.
Although the intestine waiting list has more than doubled over the last decade, an increasing number of centers now perform intestinal transplantation with greater success.     

Outcomes of Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplant Recipients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results of the A2ALL Cohort†

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents an increasing fraction of liver transplant indications; the role of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) remains unclear. In the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, patients with HCC and an LDLT or deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) for which at least one potential living donor had been evaluated were compared for recurrence and posttransplant mortality rates. Mortality from date of evaluation of each recipient's first potential living donor was also analyzed. Unadjusted 5‐year HCC recurrence was significantly higher after LDLT (38%) than DDLT (11%), (p = 0.0004). After adjustment for tumor characteristics, HCC recurrence remained significantly different between LDLT and DDLT recipients (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.35; p = 0.04) for the overall cohort but not for recipients transplanted following the introduction of MELD prioritization. Five‐year posttransplant survival was similar in LDLT and DDLT recipients from time of transplant (HR = 1.32; p = 0.27) and from date of LDLT evaluation (HR = 0.73; p = 0.36). We conclude that the higher recurrence observed after LDLT is likely due to differences in tumor characteristics, pretransplant HCC management and waiting time.     

Liver and Intestine Transplantation in the United States 1998–2007

Liver transplantation numbers in the United States remained constant from 2004 to 2007, while the number of waiting list candidates has trended down. In 2007, the waiting list was at its smallest since 1999, with adults ≥50 years representing the majority of candidates. Noncholestatic cirrhosis was most commonly diagnosed. Most age groups had decreased waiting list death rates; however, children <1 year had the highest death rate. Use of liver allografts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors increased in 2007. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)/pediatric model for end-stage liver disease (PELD) scores have changed very little since 2002, with MELD/PELD <15 accounting for 75% of the waiting list. Over the same period, the number of transplants for MELD/PELD <15 decreased from 16.4% to 9.8%. Hepatocellular carcinoma exceptions increased slightly. The intestine transplantation waiting list decreased from 2006, with the majority of candidates being children <5 years old. Death rates improved, but remain unacceptably high. Policy changes have been implemented to improve allocation and recovery of intestine grafts to positively impact mortality. In addition to evaluating trends in liver and intestine transplantation, we review in depth, issues related to organ acceptance rates, DCD, living donor transplantation and MELD/PELD exceptions.     

The Risk of End‐Stage Renal Disease Among Living Donor Liver Transplant Recipients in the United States

Since initiation of model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD)‐based allocation for liver transplantation, the risk of posttransplant end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) has increased. Recent US data have demonstrated comparable, if not superior survival, among recipients of living donor liver transplants (LDLT) when compared to deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients. However, little is known about the incidence of ESRD post‐LDLT. We analyzed linked Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and US Renal Data System (USRDS) data of first‐time liver‐alone transplant recipients from February 27, 2002 to March 1, 2011, and restricted the cohort to recipients with a laboratory MELD score ≤25 not on dialysis prior to transplantation, in order to evaluate the incidence of ESRD post‐LDLT, and to compare the incidence among LDLT versus DDLT recipients. There were 28 707 DDLT and 1917 LDLT recipients included in the analyses. The 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year unadjusted risk of ESRD was 1.7%, 2.9% and 3.4% in LDLT recipients, compared with 1.5%, 3.0% and 4.8% in DDLT recipients (p > 0.05), respectively. In multivariable competing risk Cox regression models, there was no association between receiving an LDLT and risk of ESRD (sub‐hazard ratio: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.77–1.26, p = 0.92). In conclusion, the incidence of ESRD post‐LDLT in the United States is low, and there are no significant differences among LDLT and DDLT recipients with MELD scores ≤25 at transplantation.     

Outcomes in hepatitis C virus-infected recipients of living donor vs. deceased donor liver transplantation.

In this retrospective study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected transplant recipients in the 9-center Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, graft and patient survival and the development of advanced fibrosis were compared among 181 living donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients and 94 deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients. Overall 3-year graft and patient survival were 68% and 74% in LDLT, and 80% and 82% in DDLT, respectively. Graft survival, but not patient survival, was significantly lower for LDLT compared to DDLT (P = 0.04 and P = 0.20, respectively). Further analyses demonstrated lower graft and patient survival among the first 20 LDLT cases at each center (LDLT 20; P = 0.002 and P = 0.002, respectively) and DDLT recipients (P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). Graft and patient survival in LDLT >20 and DDLT were not significantly different (P = 0.66 and P = 0.74, respectively). Overall, 3-year graft survival for DDLT, LDLT >20, and LDLT 20 were not significantly different. Important predictors of graft loss in HCV-infected patients were limited LDLT experience, pretransplant HCC, and higher MELD at transplantation.     

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Long-Term Results Compared With Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

Objective

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may represent a valid therapeutic option allowing several advantages for patients affected by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). However, some reports in the literature have demonstrated worse long-term and disease-free survivals among patients treated by LDLT than deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for HCC. Herein we have reported our long-term results comparing LDLT with DDLT for HCC.

Patients and Methods

Among 179 patients who underwent OLT from January 2000 to December 2007, 25 (13.9%) received LDLT with HCC 154 (86.1%) received DDLT. Patients were selected based on the Milan criteria. Transarterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, percutaneous alcoholization, or liver resection was applied as a downstaging procedure while on the waiting list. Patients with stage II HCC were proposed for LDLT.

Results

The overall 3- and 5-year survival rates were 77.3% and 68.7% versus 82.8% and 76.7% for LDLT and DDLT recipients, respectively, with no significant difference by the log-rank test. Moreover, the 3- and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 95.5% and 95.5% (LDLT) versus 90.5% and 89.4% (DDLT; P = NS).

Conclusions

LDLT guarantees the same long-term results as DDLT where there are analogous selection criteria for candidates. The Milan criteria remain a valid tool to select candidates for LDLT to achieve optimal long-term results.     

OPTN/SRTR 2019 Annual Data Report: Liver

This year was notable for changes to exception points determined by the geographic median allocation Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and implementation of the National Liver Review Board, which took place on May 14, 2019. The national acuity circle liver distribution policy was also implemented but reverted to donor service area- and region-based boundaries after 1 week. In 2019, growth continued in the number of new waiting list registrations (12,767) and transplants performed (8,896), including living-donor transplants (524). Compared with 2018, living-donor liver transplants increased 31%. Women continued to have a lower deceased­donor transplant rate and a higher pretransplant mortality rate than men. The median waiting time for candidates with a MELD of 15-34 decreased, while the number of transplants performed for patients with exception points decreased. These changes may have been related to the policy changes that took effect in May 2019, which increased waiting list priority for candidates without exception status. Hepatitis C continued to decline as an indication for liver transplant, as the proportion of liver transplant recipients with alcohol-related liver disease and clinical profiles consistent with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis increased. Graft and patient survival have improved despite changing recipient demographics including older age, higher MELD, and higher prevalence of obesity and diabetes.     

Survival Benefit-Based Deceased-Donor Liver Allocation

Currently, patients awaiting deceased-donor liver transplantation are prioritized by medical urgency. Specifically, wait-listed chronic liver failure patients are sequenced in decreasing order of Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. To maximize lifetime gained through liver transplantation, posttransplant survival should be considered in prioritizing liver waiting list candidates. We evaluate a survival benefit based system for allocating deceased-donor livers to chronic liver failure patients. Under the proposed system, at the time of offer, the transplant survival benefit score would be computed for each patient active on the waiting list. The proposed score is based on the difference in 5-year mean lifetime (with vs. without a liver transplant) and accounts for patient and donor characteristics. The rank correlation between benefit score and MELD score is 0.67. There is great overlap in the distribution of benefit scores across MELD categories, since waiting list mortality is significantly affected by several factors. Simulation results indicate that over 2000 life-years would be saved per year if benefit-based allocation was implemented. The shortage of donor livers increases the need to maximize the life-saving capacity of procured livers. Allocation of deceased-donor livers to chronic liver failure patients would be improved by prioritizing patients by transplant survival benefit.     

Use of living donor liver transplantation varies with the availability of deceased donor liver transplantation

The demographics of patients in the United States who undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) versus patients who undergo deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are interesting with respect to the demographics of the donor service areas (DSAs). We examined adult recipients of primary, non-status 1 liver-only transplants from 2003 to 2009. The likelihood of undergoing LDLT was compared to the likelihood of undergoing DDLT by multivariate logistic regression. We examined the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for undergoing LDLT versus DDLT for patients with the same diagnosis and blood type after we stratified the DSAs into quintiles by the median match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. LDLT was performed for 1497 of 32,927 liver transplants (4.5%). LDLT decreased in frequency by approximately 30% from 2003 to 2009. In comparison with DDLT recipients, LDLT recipients were younger and had higher albumin levels, lower body mass indices, and lower match MELD scores. Females had increased odds of LDLT in comparison with males (OR = 1.74, P < 0.001). Patients with MELD exception scores were less likely to undergo LDLT (OR = 0.22, P < 0.001). Patients with cholestatic liver disease (adjusted OR = 2.04, P < 0.001) or malignant neoplasms other than hepatocellular carcinoma (adjusted OR = 3.33, P < 0.001) were more likely than patients with hepatitis C virus to undergo LDLT. Other characteristics associated with decreased odds of LDLT were black race (adjusted OR = 0.41, P < 0.001) and government insurance (adjusted OR = 0.51, P < 0.001). LDLT was more frequent in DSAs with high median MELD scores; the adjusted OR for LDLT was 38 for the DSAs in the highest quintile (P < 0.001). In conclusion, there are significant differences associated with race, insurance, sex, MELD exceptions, and DSA MELD scores between patients who undergo LDLT and patients who undergo DDLT. These differences can be hypothesized to be driven in part by the relative availability of LDLT versus DDLT at both the patient level and the DSA level.     

Kidney and pancreas transplantation

Data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients offer a unique and comprehensive view of US trends in kidney and pancreas waiting list characteristics and outcomes, transplant recipient and donor characteristics, and patient and allograft survival. Important findings from our review of developments during 2002 and the decade's transplantation trends appear below.
The kidney waiting list has continued to grow, increasing from 47 830 in 2001 to 50 855 in 2002. This growth has occurred despite the increasing importance of living donor transplantation, which rose from 28% of total kidney transplants in 1993 to 43% in 2002.
Policies and procedures to expedite the allocation of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys were developed and implemented during 2002, when 15% of deceased donor transplants were performed with ECD kidneys. Unadjusted 1- and 5-year deceased donor kidney allograft survivals were 81% and 51% for ECD kidney recipients, and 90% and 68% for non-ECD kidney recipients, respectively.
Although more patients have been placed on the simultaneous kidney-pancreas waiting list, the number of these transplants dropped from a peak of 970 in 1998 to 905 in 2002. This decline may be due to competition for organs from increasing numbers of isolated pancreas and islet transplants.     

Resource Utilization of Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Is Similar at an Experienced Transplant Center

Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been shown to decrease waiting-list mortality, little is known of its financial impact relative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We performed a retrospective cohort study of the comprehensive resource utilization, using financial charges as a surrogate measure—from the pretransplant through the posttransplant periods—of 489 adult liver transplants (LDLT n = 86; DDLT n = 403) between January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2006, at a single center with substantial experience in LDLT. Baseline characteristics differed between LDLT versus DDLT with regards to age at transplantation (p = 0.02), male gender (p < 0.01), percentage Caucasians (p < 0.01) and transplant model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (p < 0.01). In univariate analysis, there was a trend toward decreased total transplant charges with LDLT (p = 0.06), despite increased surgical charges associated with LDLT (p < 0.01). After adjustment for the covariates that were associated with financial charges, there was no significant difference in total transplant charges (p = 0.82). MELD score at transplant was the strongest driver of resource utilization. We conclude that at an experienced transplant center, LDLT imposes a similar overall financial burden than DDLT, despite the increased complexity of living donor surgery and the addition of the costs of the living donor. We speculate that LDLT optimizes transplantation by transplanting healthier and younger recipients.     

Reduced Mortality with Right-Lobe Living Donor Compared to Deceased-Donor Liver Transplantation When Analyzed from the Time of Listing

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) is not yet a fully accepted therapy for patients with end-stage liver failure in the Western hemisphere because of concerns about donor safety and inferior recipient outcomes. An outcome analysis from the time of listing for all adult patients who were listed for liver transplantation (LT) at our center was performed. From 2000 to 2006, 1091 patients were listed for LT. One hundred fifty-four patients (LRD; 14%) had suitable live donors and 153 (99%) underwent RLDLT. Of the remaining patients (DD/Waiting List; n = 937), 350 underwent deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT); 312 died or dropped off the waiting list; and 275 were still waiting at the time of this analysis. The LRD group had shorter mean waiting times (6.0 months vs. 9.8 months; p < 0.001). Although medical model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were similar at the time of listing, MELD scores at LT were significantly higher in the DD/Waiting List group (15.4 vs. 19.5; p = 0.002). Patients in Group 1 had a survival advantage with RLDLT from the time of listing (1-year survival 90% vs. 80%; p < 0.001). To our knowledge, this is the first report to document a survival advantage at time of listing for RLDLT over DDLT.     

Consequences of the Implementation of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease System for Liver Allocation in Brazil

Background

In July 2006, the system for liver allocation in Brazil started to rely on the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scale, replacing the previous chronological criteria. Under the new system, the score for listing pediatric patients is obtained by multiplication of the calculated PELD score by 3. The current criteria also features extra points for diseases such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study sought to analyze the consequences of implementation of the MELD system on waiting list mortality, posttransplant survival rates and characteristics of the transplanted patients.

Methods

We retrospectively studied data from the State Health Secretariat of São Paulo, regarding all patients registered on the waiting list for liver transplantation in the State of São Paulo, in two periods: July 2005 to July 2006 (pre-MELD era) and July 2006 to July 2010 (MELD era). Patient survival rates calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method were compared by the log-rank test. P values <.05 were considered statistically relevant.

Results

After implementation of the MELD, waiting list registrations decreased by 39.8%; the percentage of transplants in HCC recipients increased from 2.4% to 23.7%; pediatric transplants increased from 6.5% to 9.3%; deaths on the list fell from 599 in the pre-MELD era to 359 in the last year analyzed; recipients with higher MELD displayed significantly lower posttransplant survival rates; HCC patients, better survival after transplantation (P = .002); No difference was observed comparing survival rates between pre-MELD and MELD eras (P = 474) or between adults and children (P = .867).

Conclusion

Under the MELD system for liver allocation in Brazil, there was a reduction in waiting list mortality and an increased number of transplantations in pediatric and HCC recipients. Survival rates of patients with higher MELD score were inferior. However, this result was offset by the greater survival in HCC recipients, with no difference in patient survival rates between the pre-MELD and MELD eras.     

The Survival Benefit of Liver Transplantation

Demand for liver transplantation continues to exceed donor organ supply. Comparing recipient survival to that of comparable candidates without a transplant can improve understanding of transplant survival benefit. Waiting list and post-transplant mortality was studied among a cohort of 12 996 adult patients placed on the waiting list between 2001 and 2003. Time-dependent Cox regression models were fitted to determine relative mortality rates for candidates and recipients. Overall, deceased donor transplant recipients had a 79% lower mortality risk than candidates (HR = 0.21; p < 0.001). At Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) 18-20, mortality risk was 38% lower (p < 0.01) among recipients compared to candidates. Survival benefit increased with increasing MELD score; at the maximum score of 40, recipient mortality risk was 96% lower than that for candidates (p < 0.001). In contrast, at lower MELD scores, recipient mortality risk during the first post-transplant year was much higher than for candidates (HR = 3.64 at MELD 6-11, HR = 2.35 at MELD 12-14; both p < 0.001). Liver transplant survival benefit at 1 year is concentrated among patients at higher risk of pre-transplant death. Futile transplants among severely ill patients are not identified under current practice. With 1 year post-transplant follow-up, patients at lower risk of pre-transplant death do not have a demonstrable survival benefit from liver transplant.     

Reduced Priority MELD Score for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Does Not Adversely Impact Candidate Survival Awaiting Liver Transplantation

The liver organ allocation policy of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). The policy provides additional priority for candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are awaiting deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). However, this priority was reduced on February 27, 2003 to a MELD of 20 for stage T1 and of 24 for stage T2 HCC. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of reduced priority on HCC candidate survival while on the waiting list. The UNOS database was reviewed for all HCC candidates listed after February 27, 2002, The HCC candidates were grouped into two time periods: MELD 1 (listed between February 27, 2002, and February 26, 2003) and MELD 2 (listed between February 27, 2003 and February 26, 2004). For the two time periods, the national DDLT incidence rates for HCC patients were 1.44 versus 1.53 DDLT per person-year (p = NS) and the waiting times were similar for the two periods (138.0 +/- 196.8 vs. 129.0 +/- 133.8 days; p = NS). Furthermore, the 3-, 6- and 12-month candidate, patient survival and dropout rates were also similar nationally. Regional differences in rates of DDLT for HCC were observed during both MELD periods. Consequently, the reduced MELD score for stage T1 and T2 HCC candidates awaiting DDLT has not had an impact nationally either on their survival on the waiting list or on their ability to obtain a liver transplant within a reasonable time frame. However, regional variations point to the need for reform in how organs are allocated for HCC at the regional level.     

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation

Prior single center or registry studies have shown that living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases waitlist mortality and offers superior patient survival over deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for adult LDLT and DDLT via systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine patient survival and graft survival, MELD, waiting time, technical complications, and postoperative infections. Out of 8600 abstracts, 19 international studies comparing adult LDLT and DDLT published between 1/2005 and 12/2017 were included. U.S. outcomes were analyzed using registry data. Overall, 4571 LDLT and 66,826 DDLT patients were examined. LDLT was associated with lower mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplant (5-year HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81–0.93], p < .0001), similar graft survival, lower MELD at transplant (p < .04), shorter waiting time (p < .0001), and lower risk of rejection (p = .02), with a higher risk of biliary complications (OR 2.14, p < .0001). No differences were observed in rates of hepatic artery thrombosis. In meta-regression analysis, MELD difference was significantly associated with posttransplant survival (R² 0.56, p = .02). In conclusion, LDLT is associated with improved patient survival, less waiting time, and lower MELD at LT, despite posing a higher risk of biliary complications that did not affect survival posttransplant.     

Pediatric transplantation

Analysis of the OPTN/SRTR database demonstrates that, in 2002, pediatric recipients accounted for 7% of all recipients, while pediatric individuals accounted for 14% of deceased organ donors. For children fortunate enough to receive a transplant, there has been continued improvement in outcomes following all forms of transplantation. Current 1-year graft survival is generally excellent, with survival rates following transplantation in many cases equaling or exceeding those of all other recipients. In renal transplantation, despite excellent early graft survival, there is evidence that long-term graft survival for adolescent recipients is well below that of other recipients. A causative role for noncompliance is possible. While the significant improvements in graft and patient survival are laudable, waiting list mortality remains excessive. Pediatric candidates awaiting liver, intestine, and thoracic transplantation face mortality rates generally greater than those of their adult counterparts. This finding is particularly pronounced in patients aged 5 years and younger. While mortality awaiting transplantation is an important consideration in refining organ allocation strategies, it is important to realize that other issues, in addition to mortality, are critical for children. Consideration of the impact of end-stage organ disease on growth and development is often equally important, both while awaiting and after transplantation.     

Liver and intestine transplantation: summary analysis, 1994–2003

With nearly two years of data available since the inception of the MELD and PELD allocation system, this article examines national OPTN/SRTR data to describe trends in waiting list composition, waiting list mortality, transplant rates, and patient and graft outcomes for liver transplantation.
Following a 6% reduction in the size of the waiting list after MELD was implemented in 2002, the number of patients on the waiting list grew by 2% from 2002 to 2003, while the number of liver transplants increased by 6%. The overall death rate while on the liver waiting list has decreased from 225 deaths per 1,000 patient years in 1994 to 124 deaths in 2003. As with the waiting list death rates, post-transplant death rates have also decreased over the past decade. Unadjusted one-year patient survival was lower for older donor age groups (88% for donors aged 18–34, 87% for donors aged 35–49, 85% for donors aged 50-64); a similar trend was observed at three and five years following transplantation.
Intestine transplantation is performed with slowly increasing frequency and success. Early graft losses and rejection rates have changed little since 1994, but rejection is easier to control and long-term survival is improving.     

Thoracic Organ Transplantation in the United States, 1995–2004

This article reviews trends in thoracic organ transplantation based on OPTN/SRTR data from 1995 to 2004. The number of active waiting list patients for heart transplants continues to decline, primarily because there are fewer patients with coronary artery disease listed for transplantation. Waiting times for heart transplantation have decreased, and waiting list deaths also have declined, from 259 per 1000 patient-years at risk in 1995 to 156 in 2004. Fewer heart transplants were performed in 2004 than in 1995, but adjusted patient survival increased to 88% at 1 year and 73% at 5 years. Emphysema, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and cystic fibrosis were the most common indications among lung transplant recipients in 2004. Waiting time for lung transplantation decreased between 1999 and 2004. Waiting list mortality decreased to 134 per 1000 patient-years at risk in 2004. One-year survival following transplantation has improved significantly in the past decade. The number of combined heart-lung transplants performed in the United States remains low, with only 39 performed in 2004. Overall unadjusted survival, at 58% at 1 year and 40% at 5 years, is lower among heart-lung recipients than among either heart or lung recipients alone.     

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence and Death Following Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

We examined mortality and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among 106 transplant candidates with cirrhosis and HCC who had a potential living donor evaluated between January 1998 and February 2003 at the nine centers participating in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL). Cox regression models were fitted to compare time from donor evaluation and time from transplant to death or HCC recurrence between 58 living donor liver transplant (LDLT) and 34 deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients. Mean age and calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at transplant were similar between LDLT and DDLT recipients (age: 55 vs. 52 years, p = 0.21; MELD: 13 vs. 15, p = 0.08). Relative to DDLT recipients, LDLT recipients had a shorter time from listing to transplant (mean 160 vs. 469 days, p < 0.0001) and a higher rate of HCC recurrence within 3 years than DDLT recipients (29% vs. 0%, p = 0.002), but there was no difference in mortality or the combined outcome of mortality or recurrence. LDLT recipients had lower relative mortality risk than patients who did not undergo LDLT after the center had more experience (p = 0.03). Enthusiasm for LDLT as HCC treatment is dampened by higher HCC recurrence compared to DDLT.