Petrowsky, Henrik

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established therapy with curative intent for pediatric and adult patients with acute liver failure and end-stage liver disease. Donor safety remains paramount and commences during preoperative evaluation and assessment. Given the importance of the topic, the International Liver Transplantation Society and International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group consensus conference on Living Liver Donor Safety was convened in March 2025 (Toronto, Canada). Recommendations were based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for assessment of recommendations, and the Danish model of consensus was followed. This report presents 28 recommendations from the working group focused on addressing clinically relevant questions related to the preoperative aspects of living donor safety including assessment of donor acceptability (age, body mass index and hepatic steatosis; medical conditions and contraindications), medical and surgical workup (liver function and procoagulant workup; anatomical considerations and safe remnant), and psychosocial evaluation (timing and team; underlying conditions; non-directed, paired, and anonymous directed donors; urgent living donor workups for acute liver failure).

Abstract Background Perioperative morbidity and mortality remain a point of concern for the Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) procedure. Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) after the second step poses the most significant risk factor for futile outcome. Recovery of liver function after the first step of ALPPS is critically important to allow for sufficient liver function after this surgery. The APRI+ALBI score has been proposed as an easily assessable score to monitor liver function and its dynamic recovery. Aims We explored if the APRI+ALBI score was able to assess liver function recovery after the first step of ALPPS and allow for optimal timing of the 2nd step. Methods Based on the ALPPS registry, patients from 2012 to 2020 with available APRI+ALBI score were included. Postoperative outcomes (PHLF A – C, PHLF B + C, 90-day mortality and severe morbidity) were defined as per standard definitions. The APRI/ALBI score was monitored perioperatively. Results Overall, 464 patients from 16 international participating centers in the ALPPS registry were included. Clinically relevant PHLF (B + C) was observed in 7.5 % and of these 63 % of patients ultimately died due to liver failure. The APRI+ALBI score immediately increased after each surgical intervention and continuously decrease thereafter. Failure of the APRI+ALBI score to decrease until the 2nd step of ALPPS predicted PHLF B+C (p = 0.001; AUC 0.78). Particularly patients with high APRI+ALBI scores and short interstage intervals were at risk to develop PHLF B+C. Conclusion The APRI+ALBI score objectifies liver function recovery after the 1st step of ALPPS and failure to sufficiently decreased is associated with a higher risk for PHLF B+C. This might allow for optimized planning of the 2nd step of ALPPS to allow for sufficient liver function recovery to minimize the risk for PHLF B+C and associated futile outcome.

Objective: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Background: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016–2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Results: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. Conclusion: These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.

Background: In patients with neuroendocrine liver metastasis (NELM), liver transplantation (LT) is an alternative to liver resection (LR), although the choice of therapy remains controversial. In this multicenter study, we aim to provide novel insight in this dispute. Methods: Following a systematic literature search, 15 large international centers were contacted to provide comprehensive data on their patients after LR or LT for NELM. Survival analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method, while multivariable Cox regression served to identify factors influencing survival after either transplantation or resection. Inverse probability weighting and propensity score matching was used for analyses with balanced and equalized baseline characteristics. Results: Overall, 455 patients were analyzed, including 230 after LR and 225 after LT, with a median follow-up of 97 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 85–110 months]. Multivariable analysis revealed G3 grading as a negative prognostic factor for LR [hazard ratio (HR)=2.22, 95% CI: 1.04–4.77, P=0.040], while G2 grading (HR=2.52, 95% CI: 1.15–5.52, P=0.021) and LT outside Milan criteria (HR=2.40, 95% CI: 1.16–4.92, P=0.018) were negative prognostic factors in transplanted patients. Inverse probability-weighted multivariate analyses revealed a distinct survival benefit after LT. Matched patients presented a median overall survival (OS) of 197 months (95% CI: 143–not reached) and a 73% 5-year OS after LT, and 119 months (95% CI: 74–133 months) and a 52.8% 5-year OS after LR (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.3–0.9, P=0.022). However, the survival benefit after LT was lost if patients were transplanted outside Milan criteria. Conclusions: This multicentric study in patients with NELM demonstrates a survival benefit of LT over LR. This benefit depends on adherence to selection criteria, in particular low-grade tumor biology and Milan criteria, and must be balanced against potential risks of LT.

De novo malignancies (DNMs) following liver transplantation (LT) have been reported as 1 of the major causes of late mortality, being the most common cause of death in the second decade after LT. The overall incidence of DNMs is reported to be in the range of 3.1% to 14.4%, and the incidence is 2- to 3-fold higher in transplant recipients than in age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Long-term immunosuppressive therapy, which is the key in maintaining host tolerance and achieving good long-term outcomes, is known to contribute to a higher risk of DNMs. However, the incidence and type of DNM also depends on different risk factors, including patient demographics, cause of the underlying chronic liver disease, behavior (smoking and alcohol abuse), and pre-existing premalignant conditions. The estimated standardized incidence ratio for different DNMs is also variable. The International Liver Transplantation Society–Spanish Society of Liver Transplantation Consensus Conference working group on DNM has summarized and discussed the current available literature on epidemiology, risk factors, management, and survival after DNMs. Recommendations for screening and surveillance for specific tumors, as well as immunosuppression and cancer-specific management in patients with DNM, are summarized.