不同移植标准下挽救性肝移植的疗效对比分析

目的分析比较符合米兰标准、UCSF标准、杭州标准的肝细胞肝癌(hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC)切除术后肿瘤复发患者肝移植术后的预后情况。方法回顾性分析2015年1月至2019年10月在复旦大学附属华山医院行公民逝世后器官捐献(donation after citizen death, DCD)肝移植的256例HCC患者的临床资料。其中, 行初期肝移植175例(PLT组), 挽救性肝移植81例(SLT组)。采用t检验、秩和检验或χ2检验比较两组受者的一般资料、肿瘤病理特征、术后并发症等, 用Kaplan-Meier法和Log-rank检验比较两组受者的术后总生存率(overall survival rate, OS)和无复发生存率(recurrence-free survival rate, RFS)。SLT组符合米兰标准者31例(米兰标准组)、符合加州大学旧金山分校(UCSF)标准者45例(UCSF标准组)、符合杭州标准者69例(杭州标准组), 比较三组受者的OS和RFS。按肝移植术前是否接受降期/桥接治疗, 将SLT组受者再分为降期治疗组(32例)和未降期...     

肝细胞肝癌肝移植受者术后生存及肿瘤复发临床分析

目的比较符合米兰标准和杭州标准的肝细胞肝癌(HCC)肝移植受者术后生存及肿瘤复发情况,分析移植术后生存和肿瘤复发影响因素。 方法回顾性分析青岛大学附属医院器官移植中心2014年2月1日至2018年12月31日符合米兰标准和杭州标准的119例HCC肝移植受者临床资料。符合米兰标准受者79例(米兰标准组),超出米兰标准但符合杭州标准者受者40例(杭州标准组)。所有受者肝移植术后均规律随访,收集受者性别、年龄和手术时间等临床资料。无瘤生存时间以受者移植术后发现肿瘤复发转移为观察终点,累积生存时间以受者移植术后死亡为观察终点。采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制生存曲线,采用log-rank检验比较组间累积生存率和无瘤生存率。采用Cox比例风险模型进行影响累积生存时间和无瘤生存时间的单因素和多因素分析。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。 结果截至2019年7月31日,119例受者术后中位随访时间为27个月(15～43个月),其中术后因肿瘤复发死亡11例复发转移27例。米兰标准组受者1、3和5年累积生存率分别为98.7%、90.2%和90.2%,杭州标准组分别为97.2%、73.9%和73.9%,差异均无统计学意义(χ²＝0.219、1.598和1.598,P均>0.05)。米兰标准组受者1、3和5年累积无瘤生存率分别为90.3%、82.1%和68.6%,杭州标准组分别为81.6%、56.0%和56.0%,两组受者术后1年和5年累积无瘤生存率差异均无统计学意义(χ²＝1.587和3.707,P均>0.05),3年累积无瘤生存率差异有统计学意义(χ²＝5.543,P<0.05)。多因素分析结果证实术前有无脉管癌栓是影响其累积生存率的独立危险因素,差异有统计学意义(HR＝0.159,P<0.05);术前有无脉管癌栓和病理分化类型是影响无瘤生存的独立危险因素,差异均有统计学意义(HR＝0.338和0.395,P均<0.05)。 结论符合杭州标准的HCC肝移植受者移植术后可获得较好的累积生存率及无瘤生存率,受者术前是否存在脉管癌栓及病理分化程度可以指导移植术后肿瘤复发的预防。     

西罗莫司应用于肝癌肝移植受者的疗效分析

目的 评估肝癌肝移植受者应用西罗莫司对肿瘤复发和受者存活的影响.方法 回顾性分析2006年1月至2011年1月行肝癌肝移植的142例受者的资料,根据术后是否应用西罗莫司分为研究组(62例)和对照组(80例).采用生存分析方法比较两组患者的无瘤生存时间、带瘤生存时间及受者对西罗莫司的耐受性.结果 两组受者无瘤生存率的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组符合米兰标准者、超过米兰标准且符合美国加州大学旧金山分校(UCSF)标准者、超过UCSF标准者分别相比较,受者无瘤生存率的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).对照组中有35例肝移植后肿瘤复发,其中21例肿瘤复发后加用西罗莫司,带瘤生存时间中位数为12个月;14例复发后继续使用原有免疫抑制剂,带瘤生存时间中位数为8个月;两者带瘤生存时间的差异有统计学意义(P=0.039).研究组新发糖尿病发生率低于对照组,但是口腔溃疡和高脂血症发生率却高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 未发现西罗莫司能明显降低肝癌肝移植后肿瘤复发率,但移植后肿瘤复发者应用西罗莫司可延长其带瘤生存时间;应用西罗莫司者移植后糖尿病的发生率较低.     

符合米兰标准和杭州标准的肝癌肝移植受者预后回顾性分析

目的比较符合米兰标准和符合杭州标准的肝细胞肝癌(HCC)患者行肝移植术后生存和肿瘤复发情况,验证杭州标准的临床应用价值。方法回顾性分析2006年1月至2011年12月中国肝移植注册登记的肝移植手术,并在浙江大学医学院附属第一医院、重庆医科大学附属第一医院两家肝移植中心接受随访调查受者的临床资料,196例肝癌肝移植受者纳入研究。将符合米兰标准的HCC患者作为米兰标准组,共90例(45.9%);超出米兰标准但符合杭州标准者作为杭州标准组,共40例(20.4%);肿瘤结节直径之和8 cm,术前AFP400 ng/m L且组织学分级为低度分化者作为超出杭州标准组,共66例(33.7%)。比较3组受者术后生存率、无瘤生存率,并评判预后。结果米兰标准组受者术后1、3、5年生存率和1、3、5年无瘤生存率分别为88.9%、73.3%、60.0%和84.4%、66.7%、51.1%,杭州标准组受者术后1、3、5年生存率和1、3、5年无瘤生存率分别为80.0%、65.0%、50.0%和75.0%、55.0%、45.0%,超出杭州标准组受者术后1、3、5年生存率和1、3、5年无瘤生存率分别为57.6%、30.3%、18.1%和45.5%、27.3%、18.1%。对3组受者术后累积生存率和无瘤生存率进行比较,米兰标准组和杭州标准组受者术后1、3、5年生存率和1、3、5年无瘤生存率差异均无统计学意义(P均0.05),米兰标准组受者术后1、3、5年生存率和无瘤生存率均显著高于超出杭州标准组受者(P均0.05),杭州标准组受者术后1、3、5年生存率和1、3、5年无瘤生存率均显著高于超出杭州标准组受者(P均0.05)。结论同米兰标准一样,杭州标准也具有很强的科学性,能够显著拓展受益人群,让更多未符合米兰标准的患者能够施行肝移植术。同时杭州标准能有效预测肝移植受者预后,其创新性提出的生物学标准AFP水平和肿瘤分化程度是影响肝癌肝移植受者术后预后的关键性因素。     

肝癌肝移植的标准及其与预后的关系

目的 评价肝移植治疗肝细胞癌的价值以及受者选择对病人术后存活的影响.方法 对我院2000年6月至2007年2月实施的63例原发性肝细胞癌肝移植临床资料进行回顾性分析.采用kaplan-meier法进行生存率统计分析.结果 63例原发性肝细胞癌病人肝移植术后1、3、5年累积生存率分别为77.4%、59.3%、48.9%.符合Milan标准、符合UCSF标准和不符合UCSF标准受者,肝移植术后1、3、5年累积生存率分别为93.8%、92.1%、29.2%;80.8%、79.2%、8.3%;80.8%、79.2%、0.符合Milan标准、符合UCSF标准和不符合UCSF标准受者,术后1、2、3年肿瘤累积复发率分别为6.2%、15.5%、19.2%;7.9%、15.9%、20.8%;70.8%、87.5%、91.7%(P＜0.01).但是,符合UCSF标准与符合Milan标准受者移植术后累积生存率和肝癌累积复发率相似(P＞0.05).结论 以UCSF标准筛选肝癌病人进行肝移植不仅扩大了肝癌肝移植的适应证,还可以取得与Milan标准同样的效果.     

符合杭州标准肝癌肝移植受者术前接受经导管动脉化疗栓塞术治疗对术后疗效影响临床分析

目的分析符合杭州标准肝癌肝移植受者术前接受经导管动脉化疗栓塞术(TACE)治疗对术后肿瘤复发和受者生存情况的影响。 方法回顾性分析2008年1月至2018年12月在中国人民解放军联勤保障部队第九〇〇医院收治的92例符合杭州标准并行肝移植治疗的肝移植受者临床资料,所有受者均经术后病理检查证实为肝细胞癌。根据受者肝移植术前是否接受TACE治疗将其分为TACE治疗组(n＝58)和直接移植组(n＝34)。符合正态分布计量资料采用成组t检验比较,不符合正态分布计量资料采用Mann-Whitney U检验比较,计数资料采用卡方检验或Fisher确切概率法比较。采用Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析,并采用log-rank检验进行比较。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。 结果随访截至2021年12月31日,92例受者术后平均随访时间为(77±48)个月,随访期间共32例受者肿瘤复发。92例受者中9例术前合并门静脉癌栓(PVTT),术前影像学检查均未发现有门静脉侵犯,术后病理提示存在微静脉癌栓,均属于PVTT Ⅰ₀型,9例受者中6例移植术后肿瘤复发,平均无瘤生存时间为(51±48)个月,7例死亡,平均生存时间为(62±43)个月。TACE治疗组受者术后1、3和5年生存率分别为96.6%、84.5%和82.8%,直接移植组分别为91.2%、67.6%和61.8%,两组受者术后1、3年生存率差异均无统计学意义(χ²＝1.205和3.571,P均>0.05);两组受者术后5年生存率差异有统计学意义(χ²＝5.039,P<0.05)。TACE治疗组受者术后1、3和5年无瘤生存率分别为87.9%、77.6%和75.9%,直接移植组分别为76.5%、58.8%和52.9%,两组受者术后1、3年无瘤生存率差异均无统计学意义(χ²＝2.063和3.639,P均>0.05);两组受者术后5年无瘤生存率差异有统计学意义(χ²＝5.124,P<0.05)。两组受者术后生存率及术后无瘤生存率差异均有统计学意义(χ²＝5.013和5.406,P<0.05)。 结论对于符合杭州标准的肝癌肝移植受者,术前接受TACE治疗可能改善移植术后长期疗效。     

肝细胞癌肝移植适应证选择的疗效评估

目的:总结肝癌肝移植不同标准适应证的疗效,探讨影响预后的因素.方法:回顾性分析2002年6月至2007年6月96例肝细胞癌肝移植病例,其中符合米兰(Milan)标准者29例,符合加利福尼亚(UCSF)标准者41例,超过UCSF标准者55例.采用Kaplan-Meier法统计分析不同病例入选标准对肝癌肝移植术后生存率及无瘤生存率的影响,并进行Log-rank和Cox多元回归分析.结果:Milan和UCSF标准内影响长期生存的因素包括肿瘤分化、肿瘤部位、镜下癌栓和TNM分期.Milan标准组术后1、2、3、4年总体生存率分别为92.5%、79.6%、79.6%及53.0%,无瘤生存率分别为90.2%、79.3%、76.3%及51.7%;UCSF标准组术后1、2、3、4年总体生存率分别为92.4%、80.9%、73.0及51.1%,无瘤生存率分别为90.2%、79.8%、71.7%及50.2%;超过UCSF标准组术后1、2、3、4年总体生存率分别为66.3%、39.8%、26.5%及15.9%,无瘤生存率分别为64.4%、31.5%、15.8%及15.8%.Milan、UCSF标准组生存率和无瘤生存率与超过UCSF标准组比较有显著差异(P<0.01),Milan标准组与UCSF标准组间生存率和无瘤生存率无显著差异(P>0.05).结论:与Milan标准相比,UCSF标准显著扩大了肝癌肝移植的适应证范围,更符合作为选择肝癌肝移植病人的标准.     

YTHDF1单核苷酸多态性在符合杭州标准肝移植受者术后肝癌复发中的预测价值

目的探讨YTHDF1单核苷酸多态性(SNP)在符合杭州标准肝移植受者术后肝癌复发中的预测价值。 方法回顾性分析2015年1月1日至2019年5月31日在浙江大学医学院附属第一医院接受肝癌肝移植并符合杭州标准的139例受者临床资料,中位年龄54岁(30～73岁),其中男性120例,女性19例。在1 000 Genmoes Project数据库中,设定人群为汉族、最小等位基因频率>5%及r²>0.8,利用Haploview软件筛选出标签单核苷酸多态性(tagSNP)。采用配对样本Wilcoxon检验比较YTHDF1在肝癌及癌旁组织中的表达差异,采用Kaplan-Meier方法绘制rs68041888 G携带型和非携带型肝癌肝移植受者术后无复发生存曲线并比较无复发生存时间,采用Cox比例风险回归模型进行肝癌肝移植术后肿瘤复发影响因素分析,采用卡方检验或Fisher确切概率法比较肿瘤复发与未复发组受者YTHDF1 tagSNP基因型分布。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。 结果随访至2020年5月31日,139例肝癌肝移植受者平均无复发生存时间为(43.9±2.0)个月(1～56个月),其中28例肝癌复发。YTHDF1在肝癌组织中的表达水平高于癌旁组织,评分中位数分别为6分(4～9分)和3分(1～6分),差异有统计学意义(Z＝4.087,P<0.05)。28例复发组受者rs68041888位点的G/A型、G/G型和A/A型分别为8、13和7例,111例未复发组受者中则分别为42、61和8例,两组基因型分布差异有统计学意义(χ²＝0.025,P<0.05)。其余tagSNP基因型分布差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。rs68041888 G非携带型(位点为A/A型)受者肝癌复发比例高于携带型(位点为G/A型、G/G型),分别为46.7%(7/15)和16.9%(21/124),差异有统计学意义(P＝0.018)。rs68041888 G携带型与非携带型受者术后1年无复发生存比例分别为87.1%(108/124)和66.7%(10/15),无复发生存时间分别为(45.6±2.1)和(27.9±5.2)个月,差异有统计学意义(χ²＝5.980,P＝0.014)。复发组术前AFP≤400 μg/L和rs68041888 G携带型受者比例分别为71.4%(20/28)、75.0%(21/28),均低于未复发组受者[91.0%(101/111)、92.8(103/111)],差异均有统计学意义(χ²＝5.955和5.621,P均<0.05) 。其余指标差异均无统计学有意义(P均>0.05)。将单因素分析中P<0.10的变量纳入Cox比例风险回归模型进行多因素分析。结果显示,术前AFP、肿瘤数量、组织学分级和rs68041888 G携带与否与肿瘤复发有关(RR＝5.024、2.352、2.523和3.693,P均<0.05)。 结论在符合杭州标准的肝癌肝移植受者中,rs68041888 G非携带型受者肿瘤复发风险较高。rs68041888基因型对肝移植术后肝癌复发的预测具有潜在价值。     

不同肝癌肝移植标准对于肝癌切除术后复发补救性肝脏移植有效性的评价

目的 评价米兰标准、UCSF标准、Up-to-seven标准作为肝癌切除术后复发补救性肝移植适应症选择标准的有效性.方法 回顾性分析本治疗组自1999年6月至2011年6月间实施的724例肝癌肝脏移植病例数据,其中包括107例肝癌切除术后复发行补救性肝移植术病例,对不同选择标准在各组病例的生存率进行统计分析.结果 对于首选肝脏移植患者米兰标准、UCSF标准、Up-to-seven标准具有良好的一致性,5年生存率分别为76.2％,75.5％,73.4％.对于补救性肝脏移植,米兰标准、UCSF标准具有与首选肝脏移植一致的有效性,受者术后5年生存率分别83.1％,72.6％;而Up-to-seven标准则不具有一致的有效性,符合该标准的补救性肝脏移植受者5年生存率仅为49.9％,不符合Up-to-seven标准补救性肝脏移植受者的5年生存率为49.4％,二者无统计学差异.结论 米兰标准、UCSF标准对于肝癌切除术后复发补救性肝移植适应症的选择具有较好的有效性,Up-to-seven标准有效性则较低;对于补救性肝癌肝移植应进行三维变量的标准选择,包括首次肝切除时肝癌数据、补救性肝脏移植评估时复发肝癌数据以及肝癌切除术后复发的时间间隔.     

肝癌肝移植适应证标准——验证及再思考

目的对不同的原发性肝细胞癌(肝癌)肝移植适应证标准进行评价与验证。方法 2001年至2007年上海七家肝移植中心施行的肝癌肝移植病例共948例,采用Kaplan-Meier法分析符合米兰标准、加利福尼亚标准和上海复旦标准的肝癌肝移植患者的术后4年总体生存率及无复发生存率,并作比较。结果符合米兰标准(369例)、加利福尼亚标准(470例)和上海复旦标准(554例)的患者的术后4年总体生存率及无复发生存率分别为65.8%和74.1%、66.0%和73.6%、63.9%和70.4%。三种标准的总体生存率及无复发生存率比较差异无统计学意义(均为P0.05)。与符合米兰标准的病例相比,超出米兰标准但符合上海复旦标准的185例,其术后4年生存率及无复发生存率分别为61.5%、65.0%,比较差异亦无统计学意义(均为P0.05)。结论上海复旦标准适度扩大了肝癌肝移植适应证范围且生存率满意,可能更符合中国国情。     

肝移植治疗原发性肝癌103例疗效观察

目的 比较不同受体选择标准肝癌肝移植的远期疗效,分析肝痛肝移植术后肿瘤复发相关因素.方法 总结北京佑安医院2004年4月至2008年3月间的103例肝癌肝移植的临床资料,按照肿瘤的特征将其分为3组:符合米兰标准组(A组)、超出米兰标准但满足UCSF标准组(B组)和超出UCSF标准组(C组),比较3组的总体生存率及无瘤生存率,并分析影响远期预后的相关因素.结果 103例肝癌肝移植总体1、2、3年存活率分别为84.0%、70.5%和60.2%.其中A组50例,1、2、3年生存率和无瘤生存率分别为93.4%、83.8%、73.2%和97.3%、93.9%、88.7%;B组17例,1、2、3年生存率和无瘤生存率分别为93.3%、79.4%、66.2%和86.7%、79.4%、66.2%;C组36例,1、2、3年生存率和无瘤牛存率分别为67.0%、45.5%、34.1%和65.8%、50.0%、41.7%.远期生存率A组与B组比较无差异(P=0.631),A组、B组与C组比较具有统计学差异(P值分别为0.001,0.045).结论 米兰标准是肝癌肝移植最佳适应证,超出米兰标准但满足UCSF标准也可获得满意的远期疗效;肿瘤的分期和微血管侵犯是影响远期预后的风险因素.     

Comparison Between Living Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients Who Met the Milan and UCSF Criteria After Successful Downstaging Therapies

Background and Aims

Various downstaging therapies were introduced to liver recipients who could not meet the relative criteria for liver transplantation, and many endpoints were reported. The most common criteria used were the Milan criteria and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria. However, no comparison was made between them, and we attempted to find possible differences between the living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) patients who met the Milan criteria and those who met the UCSF criteria after accepting preoperative downstaging therapies.

Materials and Methods

We performed a retrospective study of all 72 patients at our center from January 2003 to March 2009 who were diagnosed with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma but accepted various downstaging therapies. Some patients met the Milan criteria (group 1), and some met the UCSF criteria (group 2) but not the Milan criteria. We collected the data from the two groups and then compared the preoperative demographic data, downstaging therapies, intraoperative data from LDLT, and the recovery and complications after LDLT. Survival rates were compared using Kaplan?CMeier analysis.

Results

Only 44 patients (61.1?%) met the criteria for liver transplantation, 21 cases met the Milan criteria (group 1), and 23 cases met the UCSF criteria (group 2) but not the Milan criteria. All of the 44 patients accepted right lobe living liver donor liver transplantation in our center. The difference in the baseline characteristics between the two groups did not reach statistical significance. The mean number of downstaging treatments per patient was 1.81?±?0.35 in group 1 and 1.83?±?0.41 in group 2 (P?=?0.928). Most of the patients received only one downstaging treatment, and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) was the most common downstaging therapy. Four patients suffered complications after downstaging therapies: intra-abdominal hemorrhage after right hepatectomy, upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage after TACE, biliary fistula after resection, and hand?Cfoot syndrome after taking sorafenib. All complications after LDLT, classified according to the Clavien?CDindo system, were compared within the two groups, and the calculated score of the complications in group 1 was 1.48?±?1.63, which was greater than that of group 2 (1.39?±?1.64), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P?=?0.865). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 90.4, 76.2, and 71.4?% in group 1 and 91.3, 73.9, and 69.6?% in group 2, respectively (P?>?0.05). Seven patients (three in group 1 and four in group 2) had tumor recurrence after a median follow-up period of 72?months. The pathology findings were not different between the two groups.

Conclusion

Recipients who meet the Milan or UCSF criteria after accepting successful preoperative downstaging therapy in LDLT can achieve the same result.     

Liver transplantation criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma should be expanded: a 22-year experience with 467 patients at UCLA

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the impact of current staging criteria on long term survival. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: HCC is becoming an increasingly common indication for OLT. Medicare approves OLT only for HCCs meeting the Milan criteria, thus limiting OLT for an expanding pool of potential liver recipients. We analyzed our experience with OLT for HCC to determine if expansion of criteria for OLT for HCC is warranted. METHODS:: All patients undergoing OLT for HCC from 1984 to 2006 were evaluated. Outcomes were compared for patients who met Milan criteria (single tumor < opr =5 cm, maximum of 3 total tumors with none >3 cm), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria (single tumor <6.5 cm, maximum of 3 total tumors with none >4.5 cm, and cumulative tumor size <8 cm), or exceeded UCSF criteria. RESULTS: A total of 467 transplants were performed for HCC. At mean follow up of 6.6 +/- 0.9 years, recurrence rate was 21.2%, and overall 1, 3, and 5-year survival was 82%, 65%, and 52%, respectively. Patients meeting Milan criteria had similar 5-year post-transplant survival to patients meeting UCSF criteria by preoperative imaging (79% vs. 64%; P = 0.061) and explant pathology (86% vs. 71%; P = 0.057). Survival for patients with tumors beyond UCSF criteria was significantly lower and was below 50% at 5 years. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor number (P < 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (P < 0.001), and poor differentiation (P = 0.002) independently predicted poor survival. CONCLUSIONS: This largest single institution experience with OLT for HCC demonstrates prolonged survival after liver transplantation for tumors beyond Milan criteria but within UCSF criteria, both when classified by preoperative imaging and by explant pathology. Measured expansion of OLT criteria is justified for tumors not exceeding the UCSF criteria.     

mTOR抑制剂对肝细胞癌肝移植患者术后生存的影响

目的研究肝细胞癌患者肝移植术后使用mTOR抑制剂为主的免疫抑制剂方案对肿瘤复发及生存期的影响。方法收集我中心2005年1月至2008年12月期间因肝细胞癌行肝移植手术的病例建立数据库。根据患者术后所使用的免疫抑制方案分为两组,单CNIs免疫抑制剂组和含西罗莫司(Rapa)组。按照术前肿瘤所符合的移植标准(米兰标准、UCSF标准以及超标准)对组内病例分层分析,对比各组病例之间在肿瘤复率发、无瘤生存期及总生存期方面的差别。结果对于米兰标准及UCSF标准患者,两组间在肿瘤复发率、无瘤生存期和总生存期方面差别无统计学意义;超标准患者两组无瘤生存率无显著差异,含Rapa组总生存期优于单CNIs组(P0.05)。结论超标准肝癌患者术后使用mTOR抑制剂对于延长患者生存期具有一定作用。     

扩大肝癌肝移植适应证的探索

目的 评价不同入选标准对肝癌肝移植适应证的范围及其对预后的影响,探索扩大肝癌肝移植适应证的可行性.方法 回顾分析北京大学第三医院81例长期随访的肝癌肝移植患者,Kaplan-Meier法计算依Milan、UCSF及Pittsburgh标准入选的肝癌病例数及肝移植术后生存率,观察不同标准的临床应用价值.对可能降低术后生存率的危险因素行单因素及多因素分析,依据主要危险因素建立人选标准模型.结果 81例患者中符合Milan标准者19例,1、2、3年累计生存率分别为87.7%、87.7%及52.6%,无瘤生存率为88.9%、72.7%及72.7%;符合UCSF标准者26例,1、2、3年累计生存率分别为87.2%、80.5%及55.2%,无瘤生存率为84.1%、68.4%及68.4%.新的人选标准为:单发肿瘤直径≤8 cm;多发肿瘤数目≤3个,其中最大肿瘤直径≤6 cm,且所有肿瘤直径总和≤10 cm.81例患者中符合新标准者41例,术后1、2、3年累计生存率分别为89.0%、81.8%及71.8%;1、2、3年无瘤生存率分别为81.9%、72.4%及72.4%.此41例术后累计生存率及无瘤生存率与符合Milan标准的19例及符合UCSF标准的26例比较,差异无统计学意义.41例入选病例与40例排除病例比较,累计生存率及无瘤生存率比较,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 适当扩大肝癌肝移植适应证并不降低术后生存率,新标准具有可行性.     

Impact of UCSF criteria according to pre- and post-OLT tumor features: analysis of 479 patients listed for HCC with a short waiting time.

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) indication for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently based on the Milan criteria. The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) recently proposed an expansion of the selection criteria according to tumors characteristics on the explanted liver. This study: 1) assessed the validity of these criteria in an independent large series and 2) tested for the usefulness of these criteria when applied to pre-OLT tumor evaluation. Between 1985 and 1998, 479 patients were listed for liver transplantation (LT) for HCC and 467 were transplanted. According to pre-OLT (imaging at date of listing) or post-OLT (explanted liver) tumor characteristics, patients were retrospectively classified according to both the Milan and UCSF criteria. The 5-yr survival statistics were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Pre-OLT UCSF criteria were analyzed according to an intention-to-treat principle. Based on the pre-OLT evaluation, 279 patients were Milan+, 44 patients were UCSF+ but Milan- (subgroup of patients that might benefit from the expansion), and 145 patients were UCSF- and Milan-. With a short median waiting time of 4 months, 5-yr survival was 60.1 +/- 3.0%, 45.6 +/- 7.8%, and 34.7 +/- 4.0%, respectively (P < 0.001). The 5-yr survival was arithmetically lower in UCSF+ Milan- patients compared to Milan+ but this difference was not significant (P = 0.10). Based on pathological features of the explanted liver, 5-yr survival was 70.4 +/- 3.4%, 63.6 +/- 7.8%, and 34.1 +/- 3.1%, in Milan+ patients (n = 184), UCSF+ Milan- patients (n = 39), and UCSF- Milan- patients (n = 238), respectively (P < 0.001). However, the 5-yr survival did not differ between Milan+ and UCSF+ Milan- patients (P = 0.33). In conclusion, these results show that when applied to pre-OLT evaluation, the UCSF criteria are associated with a 5-yr survival below 50%. Their applicability is therefore limited, despite similar survival rates compared to the Milan criteria, when the explanted liver is taken into account.     

Selection of patients of hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria for liver transplantation

The Milan criteria have been proven to be reliable and easily applicable in selection of patients with small unresectable hepatocellular carcinomas for liver transplantation. It has been repeatedly shown that patients who met these criteria had a 5-year survival of over 70% after transplantation. Such a result is remarkably good for an otherwise incurable malignancy. The main disadvantage of this set of criteria is that it is rather restrictive. Following it religiously denies transplantation to many patients who have tumor stage slightly more advanced.There have been many attempts to extend the criteria to include tumors with larger sizes (as in the UCSF criteria) or with a larger number (as in the Kyoto criteria). Alpha-fetoprotein and PIVKA-II, two biological markers in more aggressive tumors, have also been employed in the selection of patients, and biopsies have been used by the University of Toronto to determine tumor aggressiveness before deciding on transplantation. Patients with tumors beyond the Milan criteria yet not of a high grade have been accepted for transplantation and their survival is comparable to that of transplant recipients who were within the Milan criteria. Preoperative dual-tracer (¹¹C-acetate and FDG) positron emission tomography has been used to determine tumor grade, and transarterial chemoembolization has been used to downstage tumors, rendering them meeting the Milan criteria. Patients with downstaged tumors have excellent survival after transplantation. Partial response to chemical treatment is a reflection of less aggressive tumor behavior.Careful selection of patients beyond the Milan criteria with the aid of serum tumor marker assay, positron emission tomography or tumor biopsy allows transplanting more patients without compromising survival. The use of liver grafts either from the deceased or from living donors could thus be justified.Key Words: Hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, Milan     

A single‐center retrospective analysis of liver transplantation on 255 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Wang Z‐X, Song S‐H, Teng F, Wang G‐H, Guo W‐Y, Shi X‐M, Ma J, Wu Y‐M, Ding G‐S, Fu Z‐R. A single‐center retrospective analysis of liver transplantation on 255 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Clin Transplant 2010: 24: 752–757. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Background: Liver transplantation (LT) was advocated as a salvage treatment of choice for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study was designed to assess the eligibility of LT criteria for patients with HCC and to analyze the factors influencing the recurrence of HCC following LT, aiming to further improve the efficacy of LT for patients with HCC. Methods: Clinical data of 255 patients with HCC who underwent LT between December 2001 and December 2007 at Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, China were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Among these cases, 75 patients were within the Milan criteria and 180 were beyond it; 110 patients were within the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, while 145 were beyond it. The difference in overall survival rates was not only significant between the patients within and beyond the Milan criteria but also between patients within and beyond the UCSF criteria. Tumor‐node‐metastasis (TNM) staging, portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT), and the pre‐operative alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP) level were independent risk factors affecting the overall survival and post‐operative recurrence‐free survival rates of patients with HCC. Pathological staging and pre‐operative local treatment of HCC had no obvious correlation with the post‐operative recurrence‐free survival rate. Conclusion: LT is an effective treatment modality for HCC. The UCSF criteria did not show better effectiveness than the Milan criteria. TNM staging, PVTT, and the pre‐operative AFP level are closely related to the recurrence of HCC following LT.