| Literature DB >> 32806712 |
Yuri Boteon1,2, Mauricio Alfredo Flores Carvalho3, Rebecca Panconesi3, Paolo Muiesan3,4,5, Andrea Schlegel3.
Abstract
Tumour recurrence is currently a hot topic in liver transplantation. The basic mechanisms are increasingly discussed, and, for example, recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma is often described in pre-injured donor livers, which frequently suffer from significant ischemia/reperfusion injury. This review article highlights the underlying mechanisms and describes the specific tissue milieu required to promote tumour recurrence after liver transplantation. We summarise the current literature in this field and show risk factors that contribute to a pro-tumour-recurrent environment. Finally, the potential role of new machine perfusion technology is discussed, including the most recent data, which demonstrate a protective effect of hypothermic oxygenated perfusion before liver transplantation.Entities:
Keywords: cancer recurrence; hepatocellular carcinoma; ischemia reperfusion injury; machine perfusion; mitochondria
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32806712 PMCID: PMC7460879 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21165791
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Underlying mechanism of reperfusion injury and the link to tumour recurrence. Ischemia-reperfusion injury was shown to be directly linked to tumour cell resettling and recurrence through creation of a favourable milieu for tumour cells to reconnect within tissues. Multiple intercellular pathways between donor and recipient tissue and the circulation are highlighted.
Clinical studies linking ischaemia-reperfusion injury and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation.
| First Author/Year Publication/Reference | Database/Centre | Donor Type | Number of Subjects | Preservation Method | Donor and Recipient Risk Factors Associated with Outcomes | Parameters Associated with IRI | Main Findings/Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Mueller M, et al., 2020, [ | Two-centre comparison (UK, Switzerland) | DBD vs. DCD with HOPE | 70; 70 | Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) | Transplantation with non-perfused grafts (DBD), advanced HCC risk (outside Milan, UCSF, and Metroticket II) | ALT release, INR, CRP | 4-fold higher tumour recurrence rate in un-perfused DBD livers compared to HOPE-treated DCD cohort (25.7% vs. 5.7%, |
|
| |||||||
| Silverstein J et al., 2020, [ | UNOS | DBD vs. DCD | 6996; 567 | SCS | DCD organs (low cumulative risk, short cold ischemia time of 6 and 5.4 h; young median donor age with 45 and 33 years), donor age, DRI, MELD | – | Liver transplantation with DCD liver grafts was an independent predictor of mortality. Differences in survival were observed in subgroups with higher risk of recurrence, including RETREAT score >4, AFP > 100 ng/mL, and viable tumours on last imaging. Donor or graft quality and HCC parameters impact on outcomes |
| Martinez-Insfran A.L. et al., 2019, [ | Single centre (Europe) | DBD vs. DCD | 18; 18 | SCS | Cold ischemia time (overall low risk DCD grafts, short donor warm and cold ischemia times) | AST release, ALT release, prothrombin time | DCD liver recipients have inferior patient survival, not significant with |
| Grąt M, et al., 2018, [ | Single centre (Europe) | DBD | 195 | SCS | Cold ischemia times, recipient WIT (implantation time) | AST release, LDH release, GGT, Peak Bilirubin, INR | AST ≥1896 U/L increases the risk of HCC recurrence after LT, already in patients within Milan criteria ( |
| Khorsandi SE et al., 2016, [ | Single centre (UK) | DBD vs. DCD | 256; 91 | SCS | DCD vs. DBD grafts, donor warm and cold ischemia times, HCC risk factors | AST release, INR | DCD livers release more transaminases (AST) and have an impaired function (INR), recipients of good quality DCD livers have a similar risk of HCC recurrence compared to standard DBD donor liver recipients |
| Orci LA, et al., 2015, [ | UNOS | DBD vs. DCD | 9724 | SCS | Donor WIT in DCD organs, donor age, donor BMI | – | Donor age >60 years and donor WIT was a risk factor for an increased HCC recurrence ( |
| Nagai et al., 2015, [ | Two-centre analysis (USA) | DBD | 391 | SCS | Cold ischemia time and recipient WIT (implantation time), outside Milan, micro/macrovascular invasion, AFP >200 ng/mL; poor differentiation | AST release, ALT release | CIT >10 h and recipient WIT >50 min were independent risk factors for HCC recurrence after LT ( |
| Kornberg A, et al., 2015, [ | Single centre (Europe) | DBD | 106 | SCS | Cold ischemia time and recipient WIT, HCC risk factors | AST release, ALT release | Prolonged mean CIT (468.0 vs. 375.5 min; |
| Croome et al., 2015, [ | Single centre (USA) | DBD vs. DCD | 340; 57 | SCS | Cold ischemia time and donor WIT, recipient AFP, recipient disease severity | – | Good DCD livers have a similar risk of HCC recurrence compared to standard DBD donor livers |
| Croome K et al., 2013, [ | UNOS | DBD vs. DCD | 5638; 242 | SCS | Warm ischemia time, cold ischemia time, recipient age, lab MELD | – | DCD liver recipients have a higher risk of HCC recurrence compared to DBD graft recipients, recipients of livers with a warm ischemia time of >15 min, or a cold ischemia time of > 6 h 20 min had lower survival rates |