Evaluation of Early Allograft Function Using the Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplantation Risk Score Model

Importance:Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) following a liver transplant (LT) unequivocally portends adverse graft and patient outcomes, but a widely accepted classification or grading system is lacking. Objective:To develop a model for individualized risk estimation of graft failure after LT and then compare the model's prognostic performance with the existing binary EAD definition (bilirubin level of ≥10 mg/dL on postoperative day 7, international normalized ratio of ≥1.6 on postoperative day 7, or aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase level of >2000 U/L within the first 7 days) and the Model for Early Allograft Function (MEAF) score. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective single-center analysis used a transplant database to identify all adult patients who underwent a primary LT and had data on 10 days of post-LT laboratory variables at the Dumont-UCLA Transplant Center of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA between February 1, 2002, and June 30, 2015. Data collection took place from January 4, 2016, to June 30, 2016. Data analysis was conducted from July 1, 2016, to August 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Three-month graft failure-free survival. Results:Of 2021 patients who underwent primary LT over the study period, 2008 (99.4%) had available perioperative data and were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of recipients was 56 (49-62) years, and 1294 recipients (64.4%) were men. Overall survival and graft-failure-free survival rates were 83% and 81% at year 1, 74% and 71% at year 3, and 69% and 65% at year 5, with an 11.1% (222 recipients) incidence of 3-month graft failure or death. Multivariate factors associated with 3-month graft failure-free survival included post-LT aspartate aminotransferase level, international normalized ratio, bilirubin level, and platelet count, measures of which were used to calculate the Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplantation (L-GrAFT) risk score. The L-GrAFT model had an excellent C statistic of 0.85, with a significantly superior discrimination of 3-month graft failure-free survival compared with the existing EAD definition (C statistic, 0.68; P < .001) and the MEAF score (C statistic, 0.70; P < .001). Compared with patients with lower L-GrAFT risk, LT recipients in the highest 10th percentile of L-GrAFT scores had higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (median [IQR], 34 [26-40] vs 31 [25-38]; P = .005); greater need for pretransplant hospitalization (56.8% vs 44.8%; P = .003), renal replacement therapy (42.9% vs 30.5%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (35.8% vs 18.1%; P < .001), and vasopressors (22.9% vs 11.0%; P < .001); longer cold ischemia times (median [IQR], 436 [311-539] vs 401 [302-506] minutes; P = .04); greater intraoperative blood transfusions (median [IQR], 17 [10-26] vs 10 [6-17] units of packed red blood cells; P < .001); and older donors (median [IQR] age, 47 [28-56] vs 41 [25-52] years; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:The L-GrAFT risk score allows a highly accurate, individualized risk estimation of 3-month graft failure following LT that is more accurate than existing EAD and MEAF scores. Multicenter validation may allow for the adoption of the L-GrAFT as a tool for evaluating the need for a retransplant, for establishing standardized grading of early allograft function across transplant centers, and as a highly accurate clinical end point in translational studies aiming to mitigate ischemia or reperfusion injury by modulating donor quality and recipient factors

Evaluation of Early Allograft Function Using the Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplantation Risk Score Model

Importance:Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) following a liver transplant (LT) unequivocally portends adverse graft and patient outcomes, but a widely accepted classification or grading system is lacking. Objective:To develop a model for individualized risk estimation of graft failure after LT and then compare the model's prognostic performance with the existing binary EAD definition (bilirubin level of ≥10 mg/dL on postoperative day 7, international normalized ratio of ≥1.6 on postoperative day 7, or aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase level of >2000 U/L within the first 7 days) and the Model for Early Allograft Function (MEAF) score. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective single-center analysis used a transplant database to identify all adult patients who underwent a primary LT and had data on 10 days of post-LT laboratory variables at the Dumont-UCLA Transplant Center of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA between February 1, 2002, and June 30, 2015. Data collection took place from January 4, 2016, to June 30, 2016. Data analysis was conducted from July 1, 2016, to August 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Three-month graft failure-free survival. Results:Of 2021 patients who underwent primary LT over the study period, 2008 (99.4%) had available perioperative data and were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of recipients was 56 (49-62) years, and 1294 recipients (64.4%) were men. Overall survival and graft-failure-free survival rates were 83% and 81% at year 1, 74% and 71% at year 3, and 69% and 65% at year 5, with an 11.1% (222 recipients) incidence of 3-month graft failure or death. Multivariate factors associated with 3-month graft failure-free survival included post-LT aspartate aminotransferase level, international normalized ratio, bilirubin level, and platelet count, measures of which were used to calculate the Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplantation (L-GrAFT) risk score. The L-GrAFT model had an excellent C statistic of 0.85, with a significantly superior discrimination of 3-month graft failure-free survival compared with the existing EAD definition (C statistic, 0.68; P < .001) and the MEAF score (C statistic, 0.70; P < .001). Compared with patients with lower L-GrAFT risk, LT recipients in the highest 10th percentile of L-GrAFT scores had higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (median [IQR], 34 [26-40] vs 31 [25-38]; P = .005); greater need for pretransplant hospitalization (56.8% vs 44.8%; P = .003), renal replacement therapy (42.9% vs 30.5%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (35.8% vs 18.1%; P < .001), and vasopressors (22.9% vs 11.0%; P < .001); longer cold ischemia times (median [IQR], 436 [311-539] vs 401 [302-506] minutes; P = .04); greater intraoperative blood transfusions (median [IQR], 17 [10-26] vs 10 [6-17] units of packed red blood cells; P < .001); and older donors (median [IQR] age, 47 [28-56] vs 41 [25-52] years; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:The L-GrAFT risk score allows a highly accurate, individualized risk estimation of 3-month graft failure following LT that is more accurate than existing EAD and MEAF scores. Multicenter validation may allow for the adoption of the L-GrAFT as a tool for evaluating the need for a retransplant, for establishing standardized grading of early allograft function across transplant centers, and as a highly accurate clinical end point in translational studies aiming to mitigate ischemia or reperfusion injury by modulating donor quality and recipient factors

Charting the Path Forward for Risk Prediction in Liver Transplant for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: International Validation of HALTHCC Among 4,089 Patients

Prognosticating outcomes in liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to challenge the field. Although Milan Criteria (MC) generalized the practice of LT for HCC and improved outcomes, its predictive character has degraded with increasing candidate and oncological heterogeneity. We sought to validate and recalibrate a previously developed, preoperatively calculated, continuous risk score, the Hazard Associated with Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HALTHCC), in an international cohort. From 2002 to 2014, 4,089 patients (both MC in and out [25.2%]) across 16 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia were included. A continuous risk score using pre‐LT levels of alpha‐fetoprotein, Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease Sodium score, and tumor burden score was recalibrated among a randomly selected cohort (n = 1,021) and validated in the remainder (n = 3,068). This study demonstrated significant heterogeneity by site and year, reflecting practice trends over the last decade. On explant pathology, both vascular invasion (VI) and poorly differentiated component (PDC) increased with increasing HALTHCC score. The lowest‐risk patients (HALTHCC 0‐5) had lower rates of VI and PDC than the highest‐risk patients (HALTHCC > 35) (VI, 7.7%[ 1.2‐14.2] vs. 70.6% [48.3‐92.9] and PDC:4.6% [0.1%‐9.8%] vs. 47.1% [22.6‐71.5]; P < 0.0001 for both). This trend was robust to MC status. This international study was used to adjust the coefficients in the HALTHCC score. Before recalibration, HALTHCC had the greatest discriminatory ability for overall survival (OS; C‐index = 0.61) compared to all previously reported scores. Following recalibration, the prognostic utility increased for both recurrence (C‐index = 0.71) and OS (C‐index = 0.63). Conclusion: This large international trial validated and refined the role for the continuous risk metric, HALTHCC, in establishing pre‐LT risk among candidates with HCC worldwide. Prospective trials introducing HALTHCC into clinical practice are warranted

Charting the Path Forward for Risk Prediction in Liver Transplant for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: International Validation of HALTHCC Among 4,089 Patients

Prognosticating outcomes in liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to challenge the field. Although Milan Criteria (MC) generalized the practice of LT for HCC and improved outcomes, its predictive character has degraded with increasing candidate and oncological heterogeneity. We sought to validate and recalibrate a previously developed, preoperatively calculated, continuous risk score, the Hazard Associated with Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HALTHCC), in an international cohort. From 2002 to 2014, 4,089 patients (both MC in and out [25.2%]) across 16 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia were included. A continuous risk score using pre-LT levels of alpha-fetoprotein, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium score, and tumor burden score was recalibrated among a randomly selected cohort (n = 1,021) and validated in the remainder (n = 3,068). This study demonstrated significant heterogeneity by site and year, reflecting practice trends over the last decade. On explant pathology, both vascular invasion (VI) and poorly differentiated component (PDC) increased with increasing HALTHCC score. The lowest-risk patients (HALTHCC 0-5) had lower rates of VI and PDC than the highest-risk patients (HALTHCC &gt; 35) (VI, 7.7%[ 1.2-14.2] vs. 70.6% [48.3-92.9] and PDC:4.6% [0.1%-9.8%] vs. 47.1% [22.6-71.5]; P &lt; 0.0001 for both). This trend was robust to MC status. This international study was used to adjust the coefficients in the HALTHCC score. Before recalibration, HALTHCC had the greatest discriminatory ability for overall survival (OS; C-index = 0.61) compared to all previously reported scores. Following recalibration, the prognostic utility increased for both recurrence (C-index = 0.71) and OS (C-index = 0.63). Conclusion: This large international trial validated and refined the role for the continuous risk metric, HALTHCC, in establishing pre-LT risk among candidates with HCC worldwide. Prospective trials introducing HALTHCC into clinical practice are warranted

Charting the Path Forward for Risk Prediction in Liver Transplant for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: International Validation of HALTHCC Among 4,089 Patients

DDD: Prognosticating outcomes in liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to challenge the field. While Milan Criteria (MC) generalized the practice of LT for HCC and improved outcomes, its predictive character has degraded with increasing candidate and oncological heterogeneity. We sought to validate and recalibrate a previously developed, preoperatively calculated, continuous risk score, the hazard associated with liver transplantation in HCC (HALTHCC) in an international cohort. From 2002-2014, 4,089 patients (both MC in and out [25.2%]) across 16 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia were included. A continuous risk score using pre-LT levels of alpha feto-protein, model for end stage liver disease sodium score, and tumor burden score was recalibrated amongst a randomly selected cohort (n=1,021) and validated in the remainder (n=3,068). This study demonstrated significant heterogeneity by site and year, reflecting practice trends over the last decade. On explant pathology, both vascular invasion(VI) and poorly differentiated component(PDC) increased with increasing HALTHCC score. The lowest risk patients (HALTHCC 0-5) had lower rates of VI and PDC than the highest risk patients (HALTHCC>35) (VI:7.7%[1.2-14.2] vs 70.6%[48.3-92.9] and PDC:4.6%[0.1-9.8%] vs 47.1%[22.6-71.5]; P<0.0001 for both). This trend was robust to MC status. This international study was used to adjust the coefficients in the HALTHCC score. Before recalibration, HALTHCC had the greatest discriminatory ability for overall survival (C-index=0.61) compared to all previously reported scores. Following recalibration, the prognostic utility increased for both recurrence (C-index=0.71) and overall survival (C-index=0.63). CONCLUSION: This large international trial validated and refined the role for the continuous risk metric, HALTHCC, in establishing pre-LT risk amongst candidates with HCC worldwide. Prospective trials introducing HALTHCC into clinical practice are warranted. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Charting the Path Forward for Risk Prediction in Liver Transplant for HCC: International Validation of HALTHCC amongst 4,089 patients.

DDD: Prognosticating outcomes in liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to challenge the field. While Milan Criteria (MC) generalized the practice of LT for HCC and improved outcomes, its predictive character has degraded with increasing candidate and oncological heterogeneity. We sought to validate and recalibrate a previously developed, preoperatively calculated, continuous risk score, the hazard associated with liver transplantation in HCC (HALTHCC) in an international cohort. From 2002-2014, 4,089 patients (both MC in and out [25.2%]) across 16 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia were included. A continuous risk score using pre-LT levels of alpha feto-protein, model for end stage liver disease sodium score, and tumor burden score was recalibrated amongst a randomly selected cohort (n=1,021) and validated in the remainder (n=3,068). This study demonstrated significant heterogeneity by site and year, reflecting practice trends over the last decade. On explant pathology, both vascular invasion(VI) and poorly differentiated component(PDC) increased with increasing HALTHCC score. The lowest risk patients (HALTHCC 0-5) had lower rates of VI and PDC than the highest risk patients (HALTHCC>35) (VI:7.7%[1.2-14.2] vs 70.6%[48.3-92.9] and PDC:4.6%[0.1-9.8%] vs 47.1%[22.6-71.5]; P<0.0001 for both). This trend was robust to MC status. This international study was used to adjust the coefficients in the HALTHCC score. Before recalibration, HALTHCC had the greatest discriminatory ability for overall survival (C-index=0.61) compared to all previously reported scores. Following recalibration, the prognostic utility increased for both recurrence (C-index=0.71) and overall survival (C-index=0.63). CONCLUSION: This large international trial validated and refined the role for the continuous risk metric, HALTHCC, in establishing pre-LT risk amongst candidates with HCC worldwide. Prospective trials introducing HALTHCC into clinical practice are warranted. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved