Hepatocellular carcinoma: A prime indication for living donor liver transplantation

Cadaveric liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is limited by donor organ availability. This report reviews our initial experience with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for HCC. Since August 1998, a total of 71 adults have undergone LDLT; 27 (38%) for HCC. Underlying diagnoses included hepatitis C in 17, hepatitis B in eight, cryptogenic cirrhosis in one, and primary biliary cirrhosis in one. Four patients had recurrent HCC after resection. Patients with tumors measuring 5 cm or larger received a single dose of intravenous doxorubicin intraoperatively and six cycles of doxorubicin at 3-week intervals beginning 6 weeks postoperatively. All HCC patients are followed with CT scans and alpha-fetoprotein measurements every 3 months during the first 2 years after transplant. Mean waiting time to transplant for patients with HCC was 83 days, compared to 414 (P = 0.001) days for 50 patients with HCC who were transplanted with cadaveric organs during this period. At median follow-up of 236 days, there have been four deaths due to non-tumor-related causes and one death from recurrence; recurrence has been observed in one other patient. LDLT permits expeditious transplantation in patients with early HCC, and provides access to transplantation for patients with HCC exceeding the United Network of Organ Sharing criteria for prioritization who are, in effect, barred from receiving cadaveric organs. Presented at the Third Americas Congress of the American Hepatopancreatobiliary Association, Miami, Fla., Feb. 22–25, 2001.     

活体肝移植治疗肝细胞癌

目的 探讨活体肝移植治疗肝细胞癌的疗效及其影响因素.方法 回顾分析180例肝癌患者接受肝移植治疗(活体肝移植34例,尸体肝移植146例)的临床资料,比较受者术后肿瘤复发率、总体存活率及无瘤存活率,并通过单因素和多因素分析明确其影响因素.结果 尸体肝移植受者术后5年的总体存活率和无瘤存活率分别为53 %和58 %,活体肝移植者均为60 %,两组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).活体肝移植和尸体肝移植术后肝癌的复发率分别为26.5 %和17.8 %,两组间比较,差异也无统计学意义(P＞0.05).经COX多因素分析显示,肿瘤血管侵犯(相对危险度2.118,95 %可信区间1.201~4.353,P＜0.05)和是否符合UCSF标准(相对危险度3.490,95 %可信区间1.862~8.207,P＜0.05)是影响肝癌复发的独立危险因素,而影响受者术后存活率的独立危险因素为是否符合UCSF标准(相对危险度8.573,95 %可信区间3.016~18.261,P＜0.01).结论 活体肝移植是治疗肝细胞癌的一项安全、有效的措施,但受者的选择标准和术后肝癌的高复发率现象需要进一步的临床和基础研究.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the outcome of living donor liver transplantation(LDLT)for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC).Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 180 patients,who had received LDLT(n=34)or deceased donor liver transplantation(DDLT,n=146)for HCC,compared overall and recurrence-free survival between LDLT and DDLT,and identified the risk factors of tumor recurrence and prognosis by univariate and multivariate analysis.Results The 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival rate were 53 % and 58 %,respectively,in DDLT group,and 60 % and 60 %,respectively,in LDLT group.There was no significant difference in overall (P=0.85)and recurrence-free(P=0.89)survival between these two groups.The tumor recurrence rate was 26.5 % in LDLT group,and 17.8 % in DDLT group,respectively(P=0.25).Multivariate COX regression model analysis identified vascular invasion(relative risk 2.118,95 % confidential interval 1.201-4.353,P=0.032)and tumor beyond UCSF criteria(relative risk 3.490,95 % confidential interval 1.862-8.207,P=0.015)as independent risk factors of tumor recurrence,and tumor beyond UCSF criteria(relative risk 8.573,95 % confidential interval 3.016-18.261,P=0.006)as independent predictors of prognosis.Conclusion LDLT is a safe and effective procedure for patients with HCC,but further studies are required for selection criteria of recipients and higher HCC recurrence rate after LDLT.     

Expanded living‐donor liver transplantation criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma based on the Japanese nationwide survey: the 5‐5‐500 rule ‐ a retrospective study

Expansion of the liver transplantation indication criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has long been debated. Here we propose new, expanded living‐donor liver transplantation (LDLT) criteria for HCC patients based on a retrospective data analysis of the Japanese nationwide survey. A total of 965 HCC patients undergoing LDLT were included, 301 (31%) of whom were beyond the Milan criteria. Here, we applied the Greenwood formula to investigate new criteria enabling the maximal enrollment of candidates while securing a 5‐year recurrence rate (95% upper confidence limit) below 10% by examining various combinations of tumor numbers and serum alpha‐fetoprotein values, and maintaining the maximal nodule diameter at 5 cm. Finally, new expanded criteria for LDLT candidates with HCC, the 5‐5‐500 rule (nodule size ≤5 cm in diameter, nodule number ≤5, and alfa‐fetoprotein value ≤500 ng/ml), were established as a new regulation with a 95% confidence interval of a 5‐year recurrence rate of 7.3% (5.2–9.3) and a 19% increase in the number of eligible patients. In addition, the 5‐5‐500 rule could identify patients at high risk of recurrence, among those within and beyond the Milan criteria. In conclusion, the new criteria – the 5‐5‐500 rule – might provide rational expansion for LDLT candidates with HCC.     

Preoperative prediction score of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence in living donor liver transplantation: Validation of SNAPP score developed at Asan Medical Center

The previously proposed scoring systems are not readily available because of the lack of simplicity for predicting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence. We aimed to develop and validate the new score system, which can predict HCC recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) by using morphologic and biologic data. Predictors for HCC recurrence after LDLT were developed (n = 627) and validated (n = 806) in 1433 patients for whom we could collect information to date between 2007 and 2016 at Asan Medical center (AMC) to create the SNAPP score (tumor S ize and N umber, alpha-fetoprotein [A FP], vitamin K absence-II [P IVKA-II], positron emission tomography [P ET]). On logistic regression based on 3-year recurrence-free survival, the SNAPP factors were independently associated with HCC recurrence. The SNAPP score was highly predictive of HCC recurrence (C statistic, 0.920), and 5-year post-LT recurrence rates were significantly different between low, intermediate, and high SNAPP score groups. The performance of the SNAPP score (C-index [95% confidence interval], 0.840 [0.801-0.876]) on predicting tumor recurrence after LDLT was better than that of the New York/California, the Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant (RETREAT), and the Model of Recurrence After Liver Transplant (MoRAL) score. The SNAPP score provides excellent prognostication after LDLT for HCC patients. Hence, we can help voluntary patients’ decisions about whether to undergo LDLT or not.     

活体肝移植治疗原发性肝癌的疗效分析

目的 通过活体肝移植(LDLT)与尸体肝移植(DDLT)治疗原发性肝癌(HCC)的比较,探讨LDLT治疗HCC的疗效.方法 分析2007年1月至2008年12月间我院实施的105例肝癌肝移植手术(其中LDLT38例,DDLT67例)的临床资料和随访结果.结果 LDLT患者1年及3年生存率分别为92.1％及78.9％,...     

Feasibility of salvage liver transplantation for patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Recurrence is the most frequent cause of treatment failure after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) resection. Salvage liver transplantation is an alternative treatment for recurrent HCC. The transplantability for patients with recurrent HCC has not been well studied. STUDY DESIGN: This study sought to determine how many patients with recurrent HCC are still candidates for liver transplantation, and to ascertain the possible time from HCC recurrence to the loss of transplantability. In an university hospital setting, 154 of the 252 patients receiving primary HCC resection, from January 1992 through December 1996, had recurrence and were analyzed. The mean follow-up time was 6 years. Among the 154 patients, 74 patients (group 1) were not eligible for liver transplantation according to the Milan criteria, while 80 patients were eligible (group 2). Demographic characteristics of both groups were compared and the curve of transplantability was calculated. RESULTS: When compared with group 1 patients, group 2 patients displayed more cirrhosis (p = 0.007), lower pTNM stage (p = 0.004), were older (p = 0.004), presented with smaller tumors (p < 0.001), and displayed a longer disease-free interval (p < 0.001). In group 1, only 47% (35/74) patients were eligible for liver transplantation at the time of index hepatectomy, in contrast to 84% (67/80) in the group 2 patients, p < 0.001. The median time from HCC recurrence to the time they were no longer transplantable was 38 months. The total time from the index HCC resection to the time of loss of transplantability was 83 months. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of patients after resection for their primary HCC, 33% patients had no recurrence and were not in need for liver transplantation in a mean follow-up of 72 months. About 52% of the patients with recurrent HCC still meet the criteria for liver transplantation. For patients with some certain characteristics, resection of the primary HCC may postpone the time of liver transplantation and prolong the time in which a suitable donor searched, while primary liver transplantation may be considered for those patients with factors of low transplantability after recurrence.     

Long‐Term Outcomes of Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Japan: An Analysis of More Than 2200 Cases Listed in the Registry of the Japanese Liver Transplantation Society

The Japanese Liver Transplantation Society (JLTS) was established in 1980 in order to characterize and follow trends in patient characteristics and graft survival among all liver transplant patients in Japan. This study analyzed the comprehensive factors that may influence the outcomes of pediatric patients who undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) by evaluating the largest cohort in the world. Between November 1989 and December 2010, 2224 pediatric patients underwent LDLT in Japan. There were 998 male (44.9%) and 1226 female donors (55.1%) without donor mortalities related to transplant surgery. There were 946 male (42.5%) and 1278 female (57.5%) recipients with a median age of 4.0 years (range: 13 days to 17.9 years). Cholestatic liver disease was the leading indication for LDLT (n = 1649; 76.2%), followed by metabolic disorders (n = 194; 8.7%), acute liver failure (n = 192; 8.6%) and neoplastic liver disease (n = 66; 3.0%). The 1‐, 5‐, 10‐ and 20‐year patient survival rates were 88.3%, 85.4%, 82.8% and 79.6%, respectively. Blood‐type incompatibility, recipient age, etiology of liver disease and transplant era were found to be significant predictors of overall survival. We are able to achieve satisfactory long‐term pediatric patient survival outcomes in the JLTS series without compromising the living donors.     

Long-term outcome of living donor liver transplantation for primary biliary cirrhosis

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), the majority of donors are genetically related to their recipients, leading to concerns of an earlier recurrence of PBC and a poorer prognosis due to genetic susceptibility. Totally 81 patients who underwent LDLT for PBC were the subjects of the present study. Immunosuppressive agents consisted of tacrolimus and methylprednisolone. In the outpatient clinic, when the aspartate and alanine aminotransferase level exceeded the upper limit of the normal range, the dose of methylprednisolone was increased from 4 to 6 mg/day for several months. Blood was examined every 2 weeks for 3 months and a liver biopsy was performed when aminotransferase levels did not decrease to the upper limit of the normal range after more than 3 months. Five-year survival and recurrence rates were estimated and the prognostic factors were analyzed. The mean observation period was 6.2 years. Five years after LDLT for PBC, the biopsy-proven PBC recurrence rate was 1%. The 5-year patient survival rate was 80%. The nonrelated or blood-related donor factor and number of human leukocyte antigen matches did not correlate with prognosis. PBC recurrence rate after LDLT in our series was lower than that in previous studies.     

Live Donor Liver Transplantation: A Valid Alternative for Critically Ill Patients Suffering From Acute Liver Failure

We report the outcome of live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for patients suffering from acute liver failure (ALF). From 2006 to 2013, all patients with ALF who received a LDLT (n = 7) at our institution were compared to all ALF patients receiving a deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT = 26). Groups were comparable regarding pretransplant ICU stay (DDLT: 1 [0–7] vs. LDLT: 1 days [0–10]; p = 0.38), mechanical ventilation support (DDLT: 69% vs. LDLT: 57%; p = 0.66), inotropic drug requirement (DDLT: 27% vs. LDLT: 43%; p = 0.64) and dialysis (DDLT: 2 vs. LDLT: 0 patients; p = 1). Median evaluation time for live donors was 24 h (18–72 h). LDLT versus DDLT had similar incidence of overall postoperative complications (31% vs. 43%; p = 0.66). No difference was detected between LDLT and DDLT patients regarding 1‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), 3‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%), and 5‐ (DDLT: 92% vs. LDLT: 86%) year graft and patient survival (p = 0.63). No severe donor complication (Dindo–Clavien ≥3 b) occurred after live liver donation. ALF is a severe disease with high mortality on liver transplant waiting lists worldwide. Therefore, LDLT is an attractive option since live donor work‐up can be expedited and liver transplantation can be performed within 24 h with excellent short‐ and long‐term outcomes.     

Temporary Auxiliary Partial Orthotopic Liver Transplantation Using a Small Graft for Familial Amyloid Polyneuropathy

Donor shortage is a major issue in liver transplantation. We have successfully performed temporary auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation (APOLT) using a small volume graft procured from a living donor for recipients with familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP). The aim of this study was to evaluate this procedure by comparing it with standard living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We compared 13 recipients undergoing this procedure with 23 recipients undergoing a standard LDLT for the treatment of FAP. The estimated donor graft volume and the graft volume/recipient's standard liver volume ratio were significantly smaller in the temporary APOLT group than in the standard LDLT group. Postoperative complications were comparable, although the hospital stay was longer in the temporary APOLT group. All the patients safely underwent a remnant native liver resection about 2 months after their first operation in the temporary APOLT group. No symptoms related to FAP developed before the remnant liver resection, and no significant differences in graft and patient survival were observed between the two groups. We successfully performed temporary APOLT using a small volume liver graft without postoperative liver failure for FAP. Temporary APOLT for FAP might be a useful alternative procedure for expanding the donor pool for LDLT.     

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.     

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.     

Clinical outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive patients

BACKGROUND: Whether hepatitis C virus recurrence occurs earlier and with greater severity for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) than for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) has recently become a subject of debate. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated clinical outcomes for a cohort of 91 HCV-positive patients who underwent LDLT at Kyoto University with a median follow-up period of 25 months. RESULTS: Overall 5-year patient survival for HCV patients was similar to that for non-HCV patients (n=209) who underwent right-lobe LDLT at our institute (69% vs. 71%). Survival rate of patients without HCC (n=34) tended to be better than that of patients with HCC (n=57) (82% vs. 60%, P=0.069). According to annual liver biopsy, rate of fibrosis progression to stage 2 or more (representing significant fibrosis) was 39% at 2 years after LDLT. Univariate analysis showed that female recipient and male donor represented significant risk factors for significant fibrosis. Progression to severe recurrence (defined as the presence of liver cirrhosis (F4) in a liver biopsy and/or the development of clinical decompensation) was observed in five patients. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative patient survival was similar for HCV-positive and -negative recipients in our adult LDLT series. Rates of progression to severe disease due to HCV recurrence seemed comparable between our LDLT recipients and DDLT recipients described in the literature. Although longer-term follow-up is required, our results suggest that LDLT can produce acceptable outcomes also for patients suffering from HCV-related cirrhosis.     

Results of live donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatitic C virus infection: the HCV 3 trial experience

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most common disease indication for liver transplantation (LT). Outcomes are compromised by near universal recurrence of HCV. A prospective multi-center randomized study to evaluate immunosuppressive strategies in HCV+ transplant recipients provided the opportunity to assess impact of live donor (LD) LT. Two hundred and ninety-five patients undergoing LT for HCV (260 deceased donor [DD] recipients/35 LD recipients), randomized to three regimens, were followed for two yr for patient and graft survival and rate and severity of recurrent HCV. Biopsies were performed at baseline, 3, 12, and 24 months. One- and two-yr patient survival for LD recipients was 88.1% and 81.1% vs. 90.5% and 84.6% for DD recipients (p = 0.5665). One- and two-yr graft survival for LD recipients was 82.9% and 76.2% vs. 87.9% and 81.7% for DD recipients (p = 0.3921). Recurrent HCV did not account for more deaths or graft losses in the LD recipients. In this prospective study, controlled for immunosuppression, use of LD organs did not increase the rate or severity of HCV recurrence. The more elective nature of LDLT affords an opportunity to manipulate donor and recipient factors that can impact upon outcomes.     

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.     

Living donor liver transplantation for primary biliary cirrhosis: retrospective analysis of 50 patients in a single center

Summary Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is accepted as an alternative therapy for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), the postoperative results are not well known. Fifty patients with PBC underwent LDLT at Tokyo University Hospital. Their clinical records were retrospectively analyzed. Postoperative death occurred in four patients within 2 months (mortality, 8%), while later death occurred in three patients. In the median follow-up period of 35 months (range 4-84 months), the 1, 3, and 5-year overall survival rates were 90%, 88%, and 80%, respectively. The laboratory data indicated that graft function was sufficient. No recurrence of PBC was confirmed. Multivariate analysis indicated that an updated Mayo score of <10 was a significantly favorable factor for short hospitalization (hazard ratio, 9.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-79.5; P = 0.03). In conclusion, LDLT provides a satisfactory long-term survival with the PBC patients.     

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center experience in Taiwan

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) demonstrates certain survival benefits over deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) but there is no consensus on criteria for the use of LDLT for HCC for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) taking into account strategies to improve survival. METHODS: Thirty-five patients (89% men) underwent LDLT for HCC. The mean age was 51 years (range, 22-61). The median disease severity scores were B, 11-20, and 2B for Child-Turcotte-Pugh, Model for End-stage Liver Disease, and United Network for Organ Sharing, respectively. The transplant records were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: All were within Milan criteria at time of transplantation. A novel approach to downstaging tumors initially beyond the Milan criteria was evaluated using transarterial embolization or percutaneous ethanol injection. Our initial results were encouraging as recipients whose tumors had been downstaged had not had recurrence to date. Seven (20%) patients underwent hepatectomy for HCC before undergoing transplant. The overall mean posttransplant follow-up in this series was 40.3 months (range, 23-75). The overall posttransplant complication rate requiring intervention was 11%. There was only one malignancy recurrence for an overall recurrence rate of 3%. Vascular invasion and small- for-size transplants did not seem to influence tumor recurrence. The nonestimated recipient 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survivals were 98%, 96%, and 90%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This review emphasizes the need for early disease recognition and prompt intervention when Milan criteria are met to improve survival from HCC after LDLT.     

Impact of incidentally found hepatocellular carcinoma on the outcome of living donor liver transplantation

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) nodules newly found in the explant liver have been observed, but the impact on patient prognosis is not known. Sixty HCC patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation were the subjects of the study. Radiologic findings prior to transplantation and pathologic findings of the explant liver were compared. Histologic characteristics of preoperatively overlooked tumors were examined. The influence of the discrepancy between these findings on tumor recurrence was evaluated. A total of 227 HCC nodules were found in the explant livers. Of these, 91 nodules (40%) were newly found by pathologic examination. They were smaller and more likely to be well differentiated than the others. The number and size of the tumors were underestimated in 50% (30/60) and 32% (19/60), respectively. There was no significant difference in the recurrence-free survival rate between patients who met the Milan criteria both in the pre- and post-transplant evaluation (n = 29) and those who met the Milan criteria preoperatively, but exceeded the criteria in the explant (n = 19). Nodules newly found in the explant liver had little impact on recurrence-free survival. A decision for liver transplantation according to the Milan criteria based on preoperative evaluation is valuable for securing an excellent outcome.     

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.     

Auxiliary Partial Orthotopic Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Kyoto University Experience

Auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation (APOLT) was initially indicated as a potentially reversible fulminant hepatic failure and non-cirrhotic metabolic liver disease to compensate for enzyme deficiency without complete removal of the native liver. We expand our indication of APOLT for small-for-size grafts to support the function of implanted grafts during the early post-operative period, and for ABO-incompatibility to sustain a patient's life if the patient has a graft failure. We retrospectively reviewed 31 patients undergoing APOLT from living donor. The indication of APOLT was fulminant hepatic failure in 6, non-cirrhotic metabolic liver disease in 6, small-for-size grafts in 13 and ABO-incompatible cases in 6. The cumulative survival rate for APOLT at 1 and 5 years was 57.9% and 50.6%, and 78.8% and 73.8% for standard LDLT. None of the patients who underwent transplantation with APOLT for fulminant hepatic failure had long-term patient survival. The incidence of acute cellular rejection was higher in APOLT (58.1%) than standard LDLT (35.0%). Biliary complication was higher and the need for retransplantation was greater in APOLT than standard LDLT (p < 0.01). The results suggest that the indications of APOLT should be reconsidered in view of the risk for complications and retransplantation.