Linda S Sher1, David M Levi2, Julie S Wecsler1, Mary Lo3, Lydia M Petrovic4, Susan Groshen3, Lingyun Ji3, Teresa Diago Uso5, A Joseph Tector6, Ann S Hamilton3, J Wallis Marsh7, Myron E Schwartz8. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Pathology, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of General Surgery and Transplant Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. Department of Surgery, Recanati/Miller Transplantation Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient selection for liver transplantation for metastatic neuroendocrine tumors remains a topic of debate. There is no established MELD exception, making it difficult to obtain donor organs. METHODS: A multicenter database was created assessing outcomes for liver and multivisceral transplantation for metastatic neuroendocrine tumors and identifying prognostic factors for survival. Demographic, transplant, primary tumor site and management, pathology, recurrent disease and survival data were collected and analyzed. Survival probabilities were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Analysis included 85 patients who underwent liver transplantation November 1988-January 2012 at 28 centers. One, three, and five-year patient survival rates were 83%, 60%, and 52%, respectively; 40 of 85 patients died, with 20 of 40 deaths due to recurrent disease. In univariate analyses, the following were predictors of poor prognosis: large vessel invasion (P < 0.001), extent of extrahepatic resection at liver transplant (P = 0.007), and tumor differentiation (P = 0.003). In multivariable analysis, predictors of poor overall survival included large vessel invasion (P = 0.001), and extent of extrahepatic resection at liver transplant (P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: In the absence of poor prognostic factors, metastatic neuroendocrine tumor is an acceptable indication for liver transplantation. Identification of favorable prognostic factors should allow assignment of a MELD exception similar to hepatocellular carcinoma.
BACKGROUND:Patient selection for liver transplantation for metastatic neuroendocrine tumors remains a topic of debate. There is no established MELD exception, making it difficult to obtain donor organs. METHODS: A multicenter database was created assessing outcomes for liver and multivisceral transplantation for metastatic neuroendocrine tumors and identifying prognostic factors for survival. Demographic, transplant, primary tumor site and management, pathology, recurrent disease and survival data were collected and analyzed. Survival probabilities were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Analysis included 85 patients who underwent liver transplantation November 1988-January 2012 at 28 centers. One, three, and five-year patient survival rates were 83%, 60%, and 52%, respectively; 40 of 85 patientsdied, with 20 of 40 deaths due to recurrent disease. In univariate analyses, the following were predictors of poor prognosis: large vessel invasion (P < 0.001), extent of extrahepatic resection at liver transplant (P = 0.007), and tumor differentiation (P = 0.003). In multivariable analysis, predictors of poor overall survival included large vessel invasion (P = 0.001), and extent of extrahepatic resection at liver transplant (P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: In the absence of poor prognostic factors, metastatic neuroendocrine tumor is an acceptable indication for liver transplantation. Identification of favorable prognostic factors should allow assignment of a MELD exception similar to hepatocellular carcinoma.
Authors: Eliano Bonaccorsi-Riani; Carlos Apestegui; Anne Jouret-Mourin; Christine Sempoux; Pierre Goffette; Olga Ciccarelli; Ivan Borbath; Catherine Hubert; Jean François Gigot; Ziad Hassoun; Jan Lerut Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Clifford S Cho; Daniel M Labow; Laura Tang; David S Klimstra; Agnes G Loeffler; Glen E Leverson; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin; Michael I D'Angelica; Sharon M Weber; Leslie H Blumgart; Ronald P Dematteo Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Frederike G I van Vilsteren; Edwina S Baskin-Bey; David M Nagorney; Schuyler O Sanderson; Walter K Kremers; Charles B Rosen; Gregory J Gores; Timothy J Hobday Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: James C Yao; Alexandria T Phan; David Z Chang; Robert A Wolff; Kenneth Hess; Sanjay Gupta; Carmen Jacobs; Jeannette E Mares; Andrea N Landgraf; Asif Rashid; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John K Ramage; A Ahmed; J Ardill; N Bax; D J Breen; M E Caplin; P Corrie; J Davar; A H Davies; V Lewington; T Meyer; J Newell-Price; G Poston; N Reed; A Rockall; W Steward; R V Thakker; C Toubanakis; J Valle; C Verbeke; A B Grossman Journal: Gut Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 23.059