Minimizing Incision in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Initial Experience and Comparative Analysis of Upper Midline Incision in 115 Recipients

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) needs “Mercedes Benz” or “J-shaped” incision, causing short and long-term complications. An upper midline incision (UMI) is less invasive alternative but technically challenging. Reporting UMI for recipients in LDLT vs. conventional J-shaped incision. Retrospective analysis, July 2021 to December 2022. Peri-operative details and post-transplant outcomes of 115 consecutive adult LDLT recipients transplanted with UMI compared with 140 recipients with J-shaped incision. Cohorts had similar preoperative and intraoperative variables. The UMI group had significant shorter time to ambulation (3 ± 1.6 vs. 3.6 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.001), ICU stay (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 4.4 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.001), but a similar hospital stay (15.6±7.6 vs. 16.1±10.9 days, p = 0.677), lower incidence of pleural effusion (11.3% vs. 27.1% p = 0.002), and post-operative ileus (1.7% vs. 9.3% p = 0.011). The rates of graft dysfunction (4.3% vs. 8.5% p = 0.412), biliary complications (6.1% vs. 12.1% p = 0.099), 90-day mortality (7.8% vs. 12.1% p = 0.598) were similar. UMI-LDLT afforded benefits such as reduced pleuropulmonary complications, better early post-operative recovery and reduction in scar-related complaints in the medium-term. This is a safe, non-inferior and reproducible technique for LDLT

Post liver transplant recurrence in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: not necessarily the end of the road!

Aim: We analysed outcomes using multimodality therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence post living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).Methods: Of 2363 LDLT’s performed between 2005 to mid 2018, 435 (18.4%) were for HCC within our expanded selection criteria (absence of extrahepatic disease and vascular invasion, irrespective of tumor size and number). Survival after recurrence, and prognostic factors for these patients were studied.Results: Of 435 LDLT patients, 51% had HCC beyond Milan and 43% beyond UCSF criteria at the time of LDLT. pre-LT AFP > 100 ng/mL and tumour FDG-18 PET avidity predicted overall survival (OS), whereas pre-LT AFP > 100 ng/mL, UCSF criteria, and FDG-18 PET avidity predicted recurrence-free survival. Hundred patients (23%) developed HCC recurrence at a median time of 16 months (range 2-108 months) post LDLT. Lungs (53%), liver (37%), and bone (21%) were the most common sites of recurrence. Ninety-five patients received tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) after recurrence and 62 received mTOR inhibitors (protocol-based after LDLT, or post recurrence). Surgical resection of metastases was performed in 14 patients, 15 received stereotactic body radiotherapy, and 18 underwent ablation (radiofrequency, microwave ablation, transarterial chemoembolisation, or percutaneous ethanol injection). One- and 3-yr OS after recurrence were 57%, and 24% respectively, with a maximum post recurrence survival of 7.5 years. HCC recurrence within one year after LDLT (P = 0.004, HR = 2.38, 95%CI: 1.325-4.276), AFP > 200 ng/mL at the time of recurrence (P =0.02, HR = 2.075, 95%CI: 1.121-3.841), and recurrence at multiple sites (P = 0.047, HR = 1.831, 95%CI: 1.009-3.321) were poor prognostics factors for post recurrence survival. Multimodality management of recurrence using combined medical, surgical, ablative treatments and radiotherapy significantly improved survival compared to the use of TKI’s or mTORi’s alone, or in combination.Conclusion: In patients accepted for LDLT beyond the conventional size-number criteria, even after HCC recurrence, an aggressive approach using multimodality therapy, when possible, aids in further prolongation of survival

Fast tracking in adult living donor liver transplantation: A case series of 15 patients

Background and Aims: Fast tracking (FT) for more efficacious use of resources may be difficult after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) due to a partial liver graft, complex vascular anastomoses and longer operating time. Our study was aimed at reporting our experience with FT (on table extubation) in LDLT recipients. A secondary objective of our study was to look at defining a subgroup of patients who could be prospectively planned for FT. Methods: We studied the demographics and outcomes of 15 LDLT recipients extubated immediately in the operating suite based on an uneventful intraoperative course, haemodynamic stability after graft reperfusion and improvement of metabolic parameters post-implantation and vascular anastomoses. Results: Twelve recipients were males, and mean age, body mass index (BMI) and Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score were 43 ± 12 years, 23 ± 3 kg/m2 and 15.5 ± 6, respectively, most were Child–Turcotte–Pugh Class B. Diabetes and hypothyroidism were present in 1 and 2 patients, respectively. Post-extubation, none required immediate re-intubation and one patient needed non-invasive ventilation for 2 h. Conclusion: Fast tracked recipients were young, with a low BMI, low MELD scores, minimal comorbidities and good immediate graft function post-reperfusion

Intention-to-treat analysis of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: living versus deceased donor transplantation

For patients who have cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) reduces waiting time and dropout rates. We performed a comparative intention-to-treat analysis of recurrence rates and survival outcomes after LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in HCC patients. Our study included 183 consecutive patients with HCC who were listed for liver transplantation over a 9-year period at our institution. Tumor recurrence was the primary endpoint. At listing, patient and tumor characteristics were comparable in the two groups (LDLT, n = 36; DDLT, n = 147). Twenty-seven (18.4%) patients dropped out, all from the DDLT waiting list, mainly due to tumor progression (19/27 [70%] patients). The mean waiting time was shorter in the LDLT group (2.6 months versus 7.9 months; P = 0.001). The recurrence rates in the two groups were similar (12.9% and 12.7%, P = 0.78), and there was a trend toward a longer time to recurrence after LDLT (38 ± 27 months versus 16 ± 13 months, P = 0.06). Tumors exceeding the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, tumor grade, and microvascular invasion were independent predictive factors for recurrence. On an intention-to-treat basis, the overall survival (OS) in the two groups was comparable. Patients beyond the Milan and UCSF criteria showed a trend toward worse outcomes with LDLT compared with DDLT (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: The recurrence and survival outcomes after LDLT and DDLT were comparable on an intent-to-treat analysis. Shorter waiting time preventing dropouts is an additional advantage with LDLT. LDLT for HCC patients beyond validated criteria should be proposed with caution

Development and validation of an artificial intelligence model for predicting post‐transplant hepatocellular cancer recurrence

No abstrac

Is perioperative chemotherapy useful for solitary, metachronous, colorectal liver metastases?

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is increasingly used in colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) even when they are initially resectable. The aim of our study was to address the still pending question of whether perioperative chemotherapy is really beneficial in patients developing solitary metastases at a distance from surgery of the primary. METHODS: We analyzed a multicentric cohort of 1471 patients resected for solitary, metachronous, primarily resectable CRLMs without extrahepatic disease in the LiverMetSurvey International Registry over a 15-year period. Patients who received at least 3 cycles of oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy before liver surgery (group CS, n = 169) were compared with those who were resected upfront (group S, n = 1302). RESULTS: Patients of group CS were more frequently females (49% vs 36%, P = 0.001) and had larger metastases (≥5 cm, 33% vs 23%, P = 0.007); no difference was observed with regard to age, site of the primary tumour, time delay to occurrence of metastases, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels at the time of diagnosis in the 2 groups. The rate of postoperative complications was significantly higher in group CS (37.2% vs 24% in group S, P = 0.006). At univariate analysis, preoperative chemotherapy did not impact the overall survival (OS) (60% at 5 years in both groups); however, postoperative chemotherapy was associated with better OS (65% vs 55% at 5 years, P < 0.01). At multivariate analysis, age 70 years or older (P = 0.05), lymph node positivity in the primary tumor (P = 0.02), a primary-to-metastases time delay of less than 12 months (P = 0.04), raised CEA levels of more than 5 ng/mL at diagnosis (P < 0.01), a tumor diameter of 5 cm or more (P < 0.01), noncurative liver resection (P < 0.01), and the absence of postoperative chemotherapy (P < 0.01) were independent prognostic factors of survival. The disease-free survival (DFS) was negatively influenced by CEA level of more than 5 ng/mL (P < 0.01), size of the metastases 5 cm or more (P = 0.05), and the absence of postoperative chemotherapy (P < 0.01). When patients with metastases of less than 5 cm in size were compared to those with metastases of size 5 cm or more, preoperative chemotherapy did not influence the OS or DFS in either group. Postoperative chemotherapy, on the other hand, improved OS and DFS in patients with metastases of size 5 cm or more but not in patients with metastases of less than 5 cm in size. CONCLUSIONS: Although preoperative chemotherapy does not seem to benefit the outcome of patients with solitary, metachronous CRLM, postoperative chemotherapy is associated with better OS and DFS, mainly when the tumor diameter exceeds 5 cm

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Working Group Report from the ILTS Transplant Oncology Consensus Conference

Liver transplantation (LT) offers excellent long-term outcome for certain patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with a push to not simply rely on tumor size and number. Selection criteria should also consider tumor biology (including alpha-fetoprotein), probability of waitlist and post-LT survival (ie, transplant benefit), organ availability, and waitlist composition. These criteria may be expanded for live donor LT (LDLT) compared to deceased donor LT though this should not adversely affect the double equipoise in LDLT, namely ensuring both acceptable recipient outcomes and donor safety. HCC patients with compensated liver disease and minimal tumor burden have low urgency for LT, especially after local-regional therapy with complete response, and do not appear to derive the same benefit from LT as other waitlist candidates. These guidelines were developed to assist in selecting appropriate HCC patients for both deceased donor LT and LDLT

De Novo Malignancy After Liver Transplantation: Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Management-Guidelines From the ILTS-SETH Consensus Conference

: De novo malignancies (DNMs) following liver transplantation (LT) have been reported as 1 of the major causes of late mortality, being the most common cause of death in the second decade after LT. The overall incidence of DNMs is reported to be in the range of 3.1% to 14.4%, and the incidence is 2- to 3-fold higher in transplant recipients than in age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Long-term immunosuppressive therapy, which is the key in maintaining host tolerance and achieving good long-term outcomes, is known to contribute to a higher risk of DNMs. However, the incidence and type of DNM also depends on different risk factors, including patient demographics, cause of the underlying chronic liver disease, behavior (smoking and alcohol abuse), and pre-existing premalignant conditions. The estimated standardized incidence ratio for different DNMs is also variable. The International Liver Transplantation Society-Spanish Society of Liver Transplantation Consensus Conference working group on DNM has summarized and discussed the current available literature on epidemiology, risk factors, management, and survival after DNMs. Recommendations for screening and surveillance for specific tumors, as well as immunosuppression and cancer-specific management in patients with DNM, are summarized