Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Background

Solitary hepatocellular carcinoma measuring ≤3 cm represents approximately 30% of hepatocellular carcinoma cases, yet treatment guidelines lack robust evidence. This study compares oncologic outcomes after ablation, liver resection, and liver transplantation for solitary, small hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

We systematically searched databases up to 7 February 2022, for studies including adults with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma ≤3 cm treated by any ablation, liver resection, or liver transplantation. We excluded non-hepatocellular carcinoma cancers, recurrent/metastatic diseases, and alternative therapies. A frequentist network meta-analysis assessed 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival using only adjusted effect estimates while accounting for bias risk.

Results

We identified 80 studies (4 randomized controlled trials, 72 retrospectives, and 4 prospective cohorts) with 28,211 patients. In the network meta-analysis for 5-year overall survival (26 studies), liver transplantation was associated with the lowest mortality hazard (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.73, referenced to liver resection), followed by liver resection (reference), whereas ablation had the greatest mortality hazard (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.16–1.49, referenced to liver resection). For 5-year recurrence-free survival (19 studies), liver transplantation had the best outcome (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.20–0.63, referenced to liver transplantation), followed by liver resection (reference), with ablation showing the least favorable outcome (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.45–1.93, referenced to liver resection).

Conclusions

This network meta-analysis provides the evidence for comparing treatment modality outcomes for solitary, small (≤3 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma. LT emerges as the superior choice for achieving a better 5-year OS, followed by liver resection, then ablation. When feasible to preserve liver function, liver resection can be prioritized. Ablation with close surveillance should be reserved for individuals unfit for surgery.

Background: The impact of treatment on hepatitis C virus with direct-acting antivirals on 90-day postoperative outcomes, overall survival, and recurrence-free survival in patients after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is unknown. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study. Adults who underwent liver resection for hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2000 and December 2018 were included from 7 international institutions. Groups included direct-acting antiviral treated, non-direct-acting antiviral treated, and untreated hepatitis C virus infection. We used a multivariable model to evaluate the association between receipt of preoperative direct-acting antivirals and 90-day postoperative major complications (Clavien-Dindo class >= III). Results: We identified 738 patients, including 206 (28%) direct-acting antiviral treated, 241 (33%) non-direct-acting antiviral treated, and 291 (39%) untreated patients. The sustained virologic response rate was 92% in the direct-acting antiviral and 71% in the non-direct-acting antiviral treatment groups. The median follow-up was 7.6 years (95% confidence interval 6.1, 8.6) after surgery for the entire cohort. Patients who received direct-acting antiviral therapy had better 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival than those without antiviral therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.26 [0.19, 0.35] and 0.52 [0.43, 0.64], respectively). Patients who received direct-acting antiviral therapy had better 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival than those who received non-direct-acting antiviral therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.49 [0.36, 0.66] and 0.78 [0.63, 0.96], respectively). There was no significant association between preoperative direct-acting antiviral therapy and 90-day postoperative major complications (adjusted odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.08, 1.01). Conclusion: Direct-acting antiviral therapy is associated with improved 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival, without significantly increased risk of 90-day postoperative complications, in patients undergoing liver resection for hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a curative treatment for various liver diseases, reducing waitlist times and associated mortality. We aimed to assess the overall survival (OS), identify predictors for mortality, and analyze differences in risk factors over time. Adult patients undergoing LDLT were selected from the United Network for Organ Sharing database from inception (1987) to 2023. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for analysis, and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were conducted. In total, 7257 LDLT recipients with a median age of 54 years (interquar tile range [IQR]: 45-61 years), 54% male, 80% non-Hispanic White, body mass index of 26.3 kg/m2 (IQR: 23.2-30.0 kg/m2), and model for end-stage liver disease score of 15 (IQR: 11-19) were included. The median cold ischemic time was 1.6 hours (IQR: 1.0-2.3 hours) with 88% right lobe grafts. The follow-up was 4.0 years (IQR: 1.0-9.2 years). The contemporary reached median OS was 17.0 years (95% CI: 16.1, 18.1 years), with the following OS estimates: 1 year 95%; 3 years 89%; 5 years 84%; 10 years 72%; 15 years 56%; and 20 years 43%. Nine independent factors associated with mortality were identified, with an independent improved OS in the recent time era (adjusted hazards ratio: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.71). The median center-caseload per year was 5 (IQR: 2-10), with observed center-specific improvement of OS. LDLT is a safe procedure with excellent OS. Its efficacy has improved despite an increase of risk parameters, suggesting its limits are yet to be met.

Objective:To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of patients post-living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) within and outside standard transplantation selection criteria and the added value of the incorporation of the New York-California (NYCA) score.Background:LDLT offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplantation waitlist, reduce waitlist mortality, and expand selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Methods:Primary adult LDLT recipients between October 1999 and August 2019 were identified from a multicenter cohort of 12 North American centers. Posttransplantation and recurrence-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results:Three hundred sixty LDLTs were identified. Patients within Milan criteria (MC) at transplantation had a 1, 5, and 10-year posttransplantation survival of 90.9%, 78.5%, and 64.1% versus outside MC 90.4%, 68.6%, and 57.7% (P = 0.20), respectively. For patients within the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, respective posttransplantation survival was 90.6%, 77.8%, and 65.0%, versus outside UCSF 92.1%, 63.8%, and 45.8% (P = 0.08). Fifty-three (83%) patients classified as outside MC at transplantation would have been classified as either low or acceptable risk with the NYCA score. These patients had a 5-year overall survival of 72.2%. Similarly, 28(80%) patients classified as outside UCSF at transplantation would have been classified as a low or acceptable risk with a 5-year overall survival of 65.3%.Conclusions:Long-term survival is excellent for patients with HCC undergoing LDLT within and outside selection criteria, exceeding the minimum recommended 5-year rate of 60% proposed by consensus guidelines. The NYCA categorization offers insight into identifying a substantial proportion of patients with HCC outside the MC and the UCSF criteria who still achieve similar post-LDLT outcomes as patients within the criteria.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers the opportunity to decrease waitlist time and mortality for patients with autoimmune liver disease (AILD), autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis. We compared the survival of patients with a potential living donor (pLDLT) on the waitlist versus no potential living donor (pDDLT) on an intention-to-treat basis. Our retrospective cohort study investigated adults with AILD listed for a liver transplant in our program between 2000 and 2021. The pLDLT group comprised recipients with a potential living donor. Otherwise, they were included in the pDDLT group. Intention-to-treat survival was assessed from the time of listing. Of the 533 patients included, 244 (43.8%) had a potential living donor. Waitlist dropout was higher for the pDDLT groups among all AILDs (pDDLT 85 [29.4%] vs. pLDLT 9 [3.7%], p < 0.001). The 1-, 3, and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were higher for pLDLT versus pDDLT among all AILDs (95.7% vs. 78.1%, 89.0% vs. 70.1%, and 87.1% vs. 65.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, pLDLT was associated with a 38% reduction in the risk of death among the AILD cohort (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.93 [p<0.05]), and 60% among the primary sclerosing cholangitis cohort (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74 [p<0.05]). There were no differences in the 1-, 3, and 5-year post-transplant survival between LDLT and DDLT (AILD: 95.6% vs. 92.1%, 89.9% vs. 89.4%, and 89.1% vs. 87.1%, p=0.41). This was consistent after adjusting for covariates (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.56-1.68 [p>0.9]). Our study suggests that having a potential living donor could decrease the risk of death in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis on the waitlist. Importantly, the post-transplant outcomes in this population are similar between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

Background & Aims: Management of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) is not well-defined. Therefore, we evaluated the management of cHCC-CCA using an online hospital-wide multicentre survey sent to expert centres.

Methods: A survey was sent to members of the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENS-CCA) and the International Cholangiocarcinoma Research Network (ICRN), in July 2021. To capture the respondents' contemporary decision making process, a hypothetical case study with different tumour size and number combinations was embedded.

Results: Of 155 surveys obtained, 87 (56%) were completed in full and included for analysis. Respondents represented Europe (68%), North America (20%), Asia (11%), and South America (1%) and included surgeons (46%), oncologists (29%), and hepatologists/gastroenterologists (25%). Two-thirds of the respondents included at least one new patient with cHCC-CCA per year. Liver resection was reported as the most likely treatment for a single cHCC-CCA lesion of 2.0-6.0 cm (range: 73-93%) and for two lesions, one up to 6 cm and a second well-defined lesion of 2.0 cm (range: 60-66%). Nonetheless, marked interdisciplinary differences were noted. Surgeons mainly adhered to resection if technically feasible, whereas up to half of the hepatologists/gastroenterologists and oncologists switched to alternative treatment options with increasing tumour burden. Fifty-one (59%) clinicians considered liver transplantation as an option for patients with cHCC-CCA, with the Milan criteria defining the upper limit of inclusion. Overall, well-defined cHCC-CCA treatment policies were lacking and management was most often dependent on local expertise.

Conclusions: Liver resection is considered the first-line treatment of cHCC-CCA, with many clinicians supporting liver transplantation within limits. Marked interdisciplinary differences were reported, depending on local expertise. These findings stress the need for a well-defined multicentre prospective trial comparing treatments, including liver transplantation, to optimise the therapeutic management of cHCC-CCA.

Impact and implications: Because the treatment of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA), a rare form of liver cancer, is currently not well-defined, we evaluated the contemporary treatment of this rare tumour type through an online survey sent to expert centres around the world. Based on the responses from 87 clinicians (46% surgeons, 29% oncologists, 25% hepatologists/gastroenterologists), representing four continents and 25 different countries, we found that liver resection is considered the first-line treatment of cHCC-CCA, with many clinicians supporting liver transplantation within limits. Nonetheless, marked differences in treatment decisions were reported among the different specialties (surgeon vs. oncologist vs. hepatologist/ gastroenterologist), highlighting the urgent need for a standardisation of therapeutic strategies for patients with cHCC-CCA.

Background: The role of viral hepatitis status in post-hepatectomy outcomes has yet to be delineated. This large, multicentred contemporary study aimed to evaluate the effect of viral hepatitis status on 30-day post-hepatectomy complications in patients treated for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods: Patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database with known viral hepatitis status, who underwent hepatectomy for HCC between 2014 and 2018, were included. Patients were classified as HBV-only, HCV-only, HBV and HCV co-infection (HBV/HCV), or no viral hepatitis (NV). Multivariable models were used to assess outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was any 30-day post-hepatectomy complication. The secondary outcomes were major complications and post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). Subgroup analyses were performed for cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients.

Results: A total of 3234 patients were included. The 30-day complication rate was 207/663 (31.2%) HBV, 356/1077 (33.1%) HCV, 29/81 (35.8%) HBV/HCV, and 534/1413 (37.8%) NV (p = 0.01). On adjusted analysis, viral hepatitis status was not associated with occurrence of any 30-day post-hepatectomy complications (ref: NV, HBV odds ratio (OR) 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-1.12]; HCV OR 0.91 [95% CI: 0.75-1.10]; HBV/HCV OR 1.17 [95% CI: 0.71-1.93]). Similar results were found in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic subgroups, and for secondary outcomes: occurrence of any major complications and PHLF.

Conclusions: In patients with HCC managed with resection, viral hepatitis status is not associated with 30-day post-hepatectomy complications, major complications, or PHLF compared with NV. This suggests that clinical decisions and prognostication of 30-day outcomes in this population likely should not be made based on viral hepatitis status.

Background: Despite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated. Method: We aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant. Results: A total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intentionto-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.32; P =.30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.19; P =.40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant. Conclusion: Patients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.