Repeated transarterial chemoembolization: An overfitting effort?

n/

European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Consensus Report on Downstaging, Bridging and Immunotherapy in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver transplantation offers the best chance of cure for most patients with non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although not all patients with HCC are eligible for liver transplantation at diagnosis, some can be downstaged using locoregional treatments such as ablation and transarterial chemoembolization. These aforementioned treatments are being applied as bridging therapies to keep patients within transplant criteria and to avoid them from dropping out of the waiting list while awaiting a liver transplant. Moreover, immunotherapy might have great potential to support downstaging and bridging therapies. To address the contemporary status of downstaging, bridging, and immunotherapy in liver transplantation for HCC, European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) convened a dedicated working group comprised of experts in the treatment of HCC to review literature and to develop guidelines pertaining to this cause that were subsequently discussed and voted during the Transplant Learning Journey (TLJ) 3.0 Consensus Conference that took place in person in Prague. The findings and recommendations of the working group on Downstaging, Bridging and Immunotherapy in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma are presented in this article.</p

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is the best available option for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), although its application is limited by stringent selection criteria, costs, and deceased donor graft shortage, particularly in Asia, where living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been developed. Methods: This article reviews the present standards for patient selection represented by size-and-number criteria with particular references to Milan Criteria and novel prediction models based on results achieved in patients exceeding those limits, with consideration of the expanded indication represented by the UCSF Criteria. Results: The expected outcomes after deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) or LDLT are favorable if predetermined selection criteria are applied. However, selection bias, difference in waiting time, and ischemia-regeneration injuries of the graft among DDLT vs LDLT may influence long-term results. In the article, the differences between East and West in first-line treatments for HCC (resection vs transplantation), indications, and ethics for the donor, are summarized as well as possible novel predictors of tumor biology (especially DNA mutation and fractional allelic loss, FAI) to be considered for better outcome prediction. Conclusions: Liver transplantation remains the most promising product of modern surgery and represents a cornerstone in the management of patients with HCC. © 2007 The Author(s)

Direct-acting antivirals and hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis C: A few lights and many shadows

With the introduction of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA), the rate of sustained virological response (SVR) in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) has radically improved to over 95%. Robust scientific evidence supports a beneficial role of SVR after interferon therapy in the progression of cirrhosis, resulting in a decreased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, a debate on the impact of DAAs on the development of HCC is ongoing. This review aimed to analyse the scientific literature regarding the risk of HCC in terms of its recurrence and occurrence after the use of DAAs to eradicate HCV infection. Among 11 studies examining HCC occurrence, the de novo incidence rate ranged from 0 to 7.4% (maximum follow-up: 18 mo). Among 18 studies regarding HCC recurrence, the rate ranged from 0 to 54.4% (maximum "not well-defined" followup: 32 mo). This review highlights the major difficulties in interpreting data and reconciling the results of the included studies. These difficulties include heterogeneous cohorts, potential misclassifications of HCC prior to DAA therapy, the absence of an adequate control group, short follow-up times and different kinds of follow-up. Moreover, no clinical feature-based scoring system accounts for the molecular characteristics and pathobiology of the tumours. Nonetheless, this review does not suggest that there is a higher rate of de novo HCC occurrence or recurrence after DAA therapy in patients with previous HCV infection. \ua9 2018 The Author(s). Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved

Sirolimus Use in Liver Transplant Recipients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma : A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Phase 3 Trial

Background We investigated whether sirolimus-based immunosuppression improves outcomes in liver transplantation (LTx) candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods In a prospective-randomized open-label international trial, 525 LTx recipients with HCC initially receiving mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-free immunosuppression were randomized 4 to 6 weeks after transplantation into a group on mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-free immunosuppression (group A: 264 patients) or a group incorporating sirolimus (group B: 261). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS); intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted after 8 years. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Results Recurrence-free survival was 64.5% in group A and 70.2% in group B at study end, this difference was not significant (P = 0.28; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.62; 1.15). In a planned analysis of RFS rates at yearly intervals, group B showed better outcomes 3 years after transplantation (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.48-1.00). Similarly, OS (P = 0.21; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.58-1.13) was not statistically better in group B at study end, but yearly analyses showed improvement out to 5 years (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00). Interestingly, subgroup (Milan Criteria-based) analyses revealed that low-risk, rather than high-risk, patients benefited most from sirolimus; furthermore, younger recipients (age 60) also benefited, as well sirolimus monotherapy patients. Serious adverse event numbers were alike in groups A (860) and B (874). Conclusions Sirolimus in LTx recipients with HCC does not improve long-term RFS beyond 5 years. However, a RFS and OS benefit is evident in the first 3 to 5 years, especially in low-risk patients. This trial provides the first high-level evidence base for selecting immunosuppression in LTx recipients with HCC.Peer reviewe