David D Lee1,2, Gonzalo Sapisochin3, Neil Mehta4, Andre Gorgen3, Kaitlyn R Musto2, Hana Hajda5, Francis Y Yao4, David O Hodge6, Rickey E Carter6, Denise M Harnois2. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago, IL. 2. Department of Transplantation, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. 3. Multi-Organ Transplant, Department of Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 5. Clinical Research Internship Program (CRISP), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, no surveillance guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) exist. In this retrospective, multicenter study, we have investigated the role of surveillance imaging on postrecurrence outcomes. METHODS: Patients with recurrent HCC after LT from 2002 to 2016 were reviewed from 3 transplant centers (University of California San Francisco, Mayo Clinic Florida, and University of Toronto). For this study, we proposed the term cumulative exposure to surveillance (CETS) as a way to define the cumulative sum of all the protected intervals that each surveillance test provides. In our analysis, CETS has been treated as a continuous variable in months. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three patients from 3 centers had recurrent HCC post-LT. The median follow-up was 31.3 months, and median time to recurrence was 13.3 months. Increasing CETS was associated with improved postrecurrence survival (hazard ratio, 0.94; P < 0.01) as was treatment of recurrence with resection or ablation (hazard ratio, 0.31; P < 0.001). An receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve, 0.64) for CETS covariate showed that 252 days of coverage (or 3 surveillance scans) within the first 24 months provided the highest probability for aggressive postrecurrence treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this review of 223 patients with post-LT HCC recurrence, we found that increasing CETS does lead to improved postrecurrence survival as well as a higher probability for aggressive recurrence treatment. We found that 252 days of monitoring (ie, 3 surveillance scans) in the first 24 months was associated with the ability to offer potentially curative treatment.
BACKGROUND: Currently, no surveillance guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) exist. In this retrospective, multicenter study, we have investigated the role of surveillance imaging on postrecurrence outcomes. METHODS:Patients with recurrent HCC after LT from 2002 to 2016 were reviewed from 3 transplant centers (University of California San Francisco, Mayo Clinic Florida, and University of Toronto). For this study, we proposed the term cumulative exposure to surveillance (CETS) as a way to define the cumulative sum of all the protected intervals that each surveillance test provides. In our analysis, CETS has been treated as a continuous variable in months. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three patients from 3 centers had recurrent HCC post-LT. The median follow-up was 31.3 months, and median time to recurrence was 13.3 months. Increasing CETS was associated with improved postrecurrence survival (hazard ratio, 0.94; P < 0.01) as was treatment of recurrence with resection or ablation (hazard ratio, 0.31; P < 0.001). An receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve, 0.64) for CETS covariate showed that 252 days of coverage (or 3 surveillance scans) within the first 24 months provided the highest probability for aggressive postrecurrence treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this review of 223 patients with post-LT HCC recurrence, we found that increasing CETS does lead to improved postrecurrence survival as well as a higher probability for aggressive recurrence treatment. We found that 252 days of monitoring (ie, 3 surveillance scans) in the first 24 months was associated with the ability to offer potentially curative treatment.
Authors: Quirino Lai; Andre Viveiros; Samuele Iesari; Alessandro Vitale; Gianluca Mennini; Simona Onali; Maria Hoppe-Lotichius; Marco Colasanti; Tommaso M Manzia; Federico Mocchegiani; Gabriele Spoletini; Salvatore Agnes; Marco Vivarelli; Giuseppe Tisone; Giuseppe M Ettorre; Jens Mittler; Emmanuel Tsochatzis; Massimo Rossi; Umberto Cillo; Benedikt Schaefer; Jan P Lerut Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Wojciech Andrzej Straś; Dariusz Wasiak; Beata Łągiewska; Olga Tronina; Marta Hreńczuk; Joanna Gotlib; Wojciech Lisik; Piotr Małkowski Journal: Ann Transplant Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 1.530
Authors: Charlotte Costentin; Federico Piñero; Helena Degroote; Andrea Notarpaolo; Ilka F Boin; Karim Boudjema; Cinzia Baccaro; Luis G Podestá; Philippe Bachellier; Giuseppe Maria Ettorre; Jaime Poniachik; Fabrice Muscari; Fabrizio Dibenedetto; Sergio Hoyos Duque; Ephrem Salame; Umberto Cillo; Sebastian Marciano; Claire Vanlemmens; Stefano Fagiuoli; Patrizia Burra; Hans Van Vlierberghe; Daniel Cherqui; Quirino Lai; Marcelo Silva; Fernando Rubinstein; Christophe Duvoux Journal: JHEP Rep Date: 2022-02-02
Authors: Ramin Raul Ossami Saidy; Maximilian Paul Postel; Michael Johannes Pflüger; Wenzel Schoening; Robert Öllinger; Safak Gül-Klein; Moritz Schmelzle; Frank Tacke; Johann Pratschke; Dennis Eurich Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 6.639