Literature DB >> 24285611

Identification of liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma and a very low dropout risk: implications for the current organ allocation policy.

Neil Mehta1, Jennifer L Dodge, Aparna Goel, John Paul Roberts, Ryutaro Hirose, Francis Y Yao.   

Abstract

It has been shown that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the United Network for Organ Sharing T2 (Milan) criteria have an advantage in comparison with patients without HCC under the current organ allocation system for liver transplantation (LT). We hypothesized that within the T2 HCC group, there is a subgroup with a low risk of wait-list dropout that should not receive the same listing priority. This study evaluated 398 consecutive patients with T2 HCC listed for LT with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exception from March 2005 to January 2011 at our center. Competing risk (CR) regression was used to determine predictors of dropout. The probabilities of dropout due to tumor progression or death without LT according to the CR analysis were 9.4% at 6 months and 19.6% at 12 months. The median time from listing to LT was 8.8 months, and the median time from listing to dropout or death without LT was 7.2 months. Significant predictors of dropout or death without LT according to a multivariate CR regression included 1 tumor of 3.1 to 5 cm (versus 1 tumor of 3 cm or less), 2 or 3 tumors, a lack of a complete response to the first locoregional therapy (LRT), and a high alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level after the first LRT. A subgroup (19.9%) that met certain criteria (1 tumor of 2 to 3 cm, a complete response after the first LRT, and an AFP level ≤ 20 ng/mL after the first LRT) had 1- and 2-year probabilities of dropout of 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, whereas the probabilities were 21.6% and 26.5% for all other patients (P = 0.004). In conclusion, a combination of tumor characteristics and a complete response to the first LRT define a subgroup of patients with a very low risk of wait-list dropout who do not require the same listing priority. Our results may have important implications for the organ allocation policy for HCC.
© 2013 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24285611      PMCID: PMC3883622          DOI: 10.1002/lt.23753

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Liver Transpl        ISSN: 1527-6465            Impact factor:   5.799


  32 in total

1.  Unfair priority for HCC: A problem whose ideal solution remains unsolved.

Authors:  M L Volk
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 8.086

2.  Waiting list removal rates among patients with chronic and malignant liver diseases.

Authors:  R B Freeman; E B Edwards; A M Harper
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  Hepatocellular carcinoma patients are advantaged in the current liver transplant allocation system.

Authors:  K Washburn; E Edwards; A Harper; R Freeman
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 8.086

4.  Report of a national conference on liver allocation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Pomfret; Kenneth Washburn; Christoph Wald; Michael A Nalesnik; David Douglas; Mark Russo; John Roberts; David J Reich; Myron E Schwartz; Luis Mieles; Fred T Lee; Sander Florman; Francis Yao; Ann Harper; Erick Edwards; Richard Freeman; John Lake
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.799

5.  Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma as a bridge to liver transplantation.

Authors:  David S K Lu; Nam C Yu; Steven S Raman; Charles Lassman; Myron J Tong; Carolyn Britten; Francisco Durazo; Sammy Saab; Steven Han; Richard Finn; Jonathan R Hiatt; Ronald W Busuttil
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 17.425

6.  Hepatocellular carcinoma: Ablate and wait versus rapid transplantation.

Authors:  John P Roberts; Alan Venook; Robert Kerlan; Francis Yao
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.799

Review 7.  Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Riccardo Lencioni; Josep M Llovet
Journal:  Semin Liver Dis       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 6.115

8.  Tumor size predicts vascular invasion and histologic grade: Implications for selection of surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Timothy M Pawlik; Keith A Delman; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; David M Nagorney; Irene Oi-Lin Ng; Iwao Ikai; Yoshio Yamaoka; Jacques Belghiti; Gregory Y Lauwers; Ronnie T Poon; Eddie K Abdalla
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.799

9.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

Authors:  E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  Excellent outcome following down-staging of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation: an intention-to-treat analysis.

Authors:  Francis Y Yao; Robert K Kerlan; Ryutaro Hirose; Timothy J Davern; Nathan M Bass; Sandy Feng; Marion Peters; Norah Terrault; Chris E Freise; Nancy L Ascher; John P Roberts
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 17.425

View more
  41 in total

1.  Evaluating the validity of model for end-stage liver disease exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with multiple nodules <2 cm.

Authors:  Mariya L Samoylova; Jennifer L Dodge; Neil Mehta; Francis Y Yao; John P Roberts
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 2.863

2.  Comparison of two equivalent model for end-stage liver disease scores for hepatocellular carcinoma patients using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing liver transplant waiting list registry.

Authors:  Sarah K Alver; Douglas J Lorenz; Kenneth Washburn; Michael R Marvin; Guy N Brock
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 3.782

Review 3.  Strategies to improve outcome of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving a liver transplantation.

Authors:  Marta Guerrero-Misas; Manuel Rodríguez-Perálvarez; Manuel De la Mata
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-04-08

Review 4.  Transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: pushing to the limits?

Authors:  Quirino Lai; Alessandro Vitale
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-09-14

5.  Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: time to be resilient.

Authors:  Jean-Francois Dufour
Journal:  Hepat Oncol       Date:  2014-09-09

6.  Who should undergo liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma? Ablate, wait … and see!

Authors:  Willscott E Naugler; Barry Schlansky; Susan L Orloff
Journal:  Hepat Oncol       Date:  2014-03-20

Review 7.  [Indications for transplantation and bridging procedures for primary hepatobiliary malignancies].

Authors:  J Mittler; S Heinrich; H Lang
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 0.955

8.  Intention to treat outcome of T1 hepatocellular carcinoma with the "wait and not ablate" approach until meeting T2 criteria for liver transplant listing.

Authors:  Neil Mehta; Monika Sarkar; Jennifer L Dodge; Nicholas Fidelman; John P Roberts; Francis Y Yao
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 5.799

Review 9.  Bridging to liver transplantation in HCC patients.

Authors:  Dagmar Kollmann; Nazia Selzner; Markus Selzner
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 3.445

10.  Downstaging of hepatocellular cancer before liver transplant: long-term outcome compared to tumors within Milan criteria.

Authors:  Francis Y Yao; Neil Mehta; Jennifer Flemming; Jennifer Dodge; Bilal Hameed; Oren Fix; Ryutaro Hirose; Nicholas Fidelman; Robert K Kerlan; John P Roberts
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 17.425

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.