Jianyong Lei1, Lunan Yan. 1. Liver Transplantation Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China. leijianyong11@163.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Mainland China, many selection criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) liver transplantation, such as the Hangzhou, the Chengdu, and the Fudan criteria, have been established. No comparisons have been made among the outcomes using the Hangzhou, Chengdu, and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria in patients who underwent successful downstaging therapies. METHODS: After successful downstaging therapies, 72 patients met the UCSF criteria, 86 met the Chengdu criteria, and 102 met the Hangzhou criteria. The data on these HCC patients were retrospectively analyzed, and various outcomes, such as survival and the tumor-free survival rate, were compared among the three groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed among the three groups with regard to the downstaging protocols, baseline characteristics, or liver function. However, the patients who met the Hangzhou criteria had significantly larger tumor targets than those who met the Chengdu or UCSF criteria (P < 0.05). The three groups showed similar 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates (90.9, 80.0, and 78.6 %, respectively, for the UCSF criteria; 91.6, 81.9, and 75.6 %, respectively, for the Hangzhou criteria; and 91.1, 83.3, and 79.4 %, respectively, for the Chengdu criteria); 1-, 3-, and 5-year tumor-free survival rates (83.3, 77.5, and 75 %, respectively, for the UCSF criteria; 86.3, 78.8, and 75.6 %, respectively, for the Hangzhou criteria; and 87.3, 79.2, and 76.4 %, respectively, for the Chengdu criteria); and 1-, 3-, and 5-year tumor recurrence rates (9.2, 17.5, and 21.4 %, respectively, for the UCSF criteria; 8.4, 16.4, and 20 % for the Hangzhou criteria; and 8.9, 14.6, and 17.6 % for the Chengdu criteria). CONCLUSION: Because they have contributed to similar outcomes but to larger HCC patient pools, the Hangzhou criteria for HCC transplantation should be comprehensively accepted in China for HCC patients after successful downstaging therapies.
BACKGROUND: In Mainland China, many selection criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) liver transplantation, such as the Hangzhou, the Chengdu, and the Fudan criteria, have been established. No comparisons have been made among the outcomes using the Hangzhou, Chengdu, and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria in patients who underwent successful downstaging therapies. METHODS: After successful downstaging therapies, 72 patients met the UCSF criteria, 86 met the Chengdu criteria, and 102 met the Hangzhou criteria. The data on these HCC patients were retrospectively analyzed, and various outcomes, such as survival and the tumor-free survival rate, were compared among the three groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed among the three groups with regard to the downstaging protocols, baseline characteristics, or liver function. However, the patients who met the Hangzhou criteria had significantly larger tumor targets than those who met the Chengdu or UCSF criteria (P < 0.05). The three groups showed similar 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates (90.9, 80.0, and 78.6 %, respectively, for the UCSF criteria; 91.6, 81.9, and 75.6 %, respectively, for the Hangzhou criteria; and 91.1, 83.3, and 79.4 %, respectively, for the Chengdu criteria); 1-, 3-, and 5-year tumor-free survival rates (83.3, 77.5, and 75 %, respectively, for the UCSF criteria; 86.3, 78.8, and 75.6 %, respectively, for the Hangzhou criteria; and 87.3, 79.2, and 76.4 %, respectively, for the Chengdu criteria); and 1-, 3-, and 5-year tumor recurrence rates (9.2, 17.5, and 21.4 %, respectively, for the UCSF criteria; 8.4, 16.4, and 20 % for the Hangzhou criteria; and 8.9, 14.6, and 17.6 % for the Chengdu criteria). CONCLUSION: Because they have contributed to similar outcomes but to larger HCC patient pools, the Hangzhou criteria for HCC transplantation should be comprehensively accepted in China for HCC patients after successful downstaging therapies.
Authors: U Cillo; A Vitale; F Grigoletto; E Gringeri; F D'Amico; M Valmasoni; A Brolese; G Zanus; N Srsen; A Carraro; P Burra; F Farinati; P Angeli; D F D'Amico Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Francis Y Yao; Milan Kinkhabwala; Jeanne M LaBerge; Nathan M Bass; Robert Brown; Robert Kerlan; Alan Venook; Nancy L Ascher; Jean C Emond; John P Roberts Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: F Y Yao; L Ferrell; N M Bass; J J Watson; P Bacchetti; A Venook; N L Ascher; J P Roberts Journal: Hepatology Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Timothy M Pawlik; Ana L Gleisner; Robert A Anders; Lia Assumpcao; Warren Maley; Michael A Choti Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: John P Duffy; Andrew Vardanian; Elizabeth Benjamin; Melissa Watson; Douglas G Farmer; Rafik M Ghobrial; Gerald Lipshutz; Hasan Yersiz; David S K Lu; Charles Lassman; Myron J Tong; Jonathan R Hiatt; Ronald W Busuttil Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Norman M Kneteman; José Oberholzer; Mohammed Al Saghier; Glenda A Meeberg; Maurice Blitz; Mang M Ma; Winnie W S Wong; Klaus Gutfreund; Andrew L Mason; Larry D Jewell; A M James Shapiro; Vincent G Bain; David L Bigam Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: William C Chapman; M B Majella Doyle; Jourdan E Stuart; Neeta Vachharajani; Jeffrey S Crippin; Christopher D Anderson; Jeffrey A Lowell; Surendra Shenoy; Michael D Darcy; Daniel B Brown Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: I Fouzas; G C Sotiropoulos; H Lang; S Nadalin; S Beckebaum; G Sgourakis; F H Saner; A Radtke; V Papanikolaou; H A Baba; A Paul; C E Broelsch; M Malagó Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 1.066