Elhawary, Ahmed

Background. As cancer therapeutics improve, more liver transplant (LT) candidates will have a history of prior to transplant malignancy (PTM), an established risk for cancer posttransplant. Methods. This study provides granular analysis (with focus on nonliver PTM) of posttransplant cancer risk relating to PTM in 1105 consecutive adult LT recipients (2009–2019, N = 542 with PTM). Results. PTM prevalence increased from 37.8% to 63.2% during this timeframe. Post-LT survival was lower (10 y: 61.2% versus 75.1%; P < 0.001) with higher cancer-related mortality (17.6% versus 2.2%; P < 0.001) in patients with any PTM. The higher cumulative incidence of cancer post-LT associated with PTM (59.7% versus 37.6%; P < 0.001) was not attributable to de novo cancer (38.5% versus 37.7%; P = 0.21) but to recurrence. Cancer recurrence rate (10 y) was lowest in nonliver/nonskin (“other”) PTM (10.6%) with mortality rates from recurrence of only 4% in this cohort. De novo cancers may present at more advanced stage in patients with PTM and lung cancer the most common nonskin de novo malignancy (PTM 21%, no PTM 7%). Family history of cancer was an independent predictor for de novo cancer. Conclusions. PTM associated post-LT cancer outcomes are dominated by skin and liver cancer recurrence and not recurrence of “other” cancers or de novo cancer. This data supports the guidance proposals for cautious liberalization of “other” cancer remission requirements before transplantation. As post-LT cancer is highly prevalent regardless of PTM status, adherence to posttransplant cancer screening and surveillance is critical to identify early cancer after transplant.

The term “futility” in liver transplantation is used inappropriately and inaccurately, as it is frequently applied to patient populations with suboptimal outcomes that are often not truly “futile.” The term “futile” is used interchangeably with poor outcomes. Not all poor outcomes fulfill a definition of futility when considering all viewpoints. Definitions of “futility” are variable throughout the medical literature. We review futility in the context of liver transplantation, encompassing various viewpoints, with a goal to propose focused outcome definitions, including futility, that encompass broader viewpoints, and improve the utilization of “futility” to truly futile situations, and improve communication between providers and patients/families. Focused, appropriate definitions will help the transplant community develop better models to more accurately predict and avoid futile transplants, and better predict an individual patient’s posttransplant outcome.

AbstractBackground: Liver transplant (LT) recipients with untreated hepatitis C (HCV) are at risk for cirrhosis graft failure. The advent of direct acting antiviral agents (DAA) has improved outcomes in HCV.Aims: We aim to examine liver transplant outcomes and allograft fibrosis development/progression after sustained virologic response (SVR).Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 226 consecutive liver transplant recipients with HCV from 2007 to 2018. The cohort was split into transplants pre (Group A) and post (Group B) 2014 to reflect the introduction of DAAs. Fibrosis was monitored with liver biopsy and non‐invasive imaging.Results: Group B had significantly improved HCV treatment rates and earlier SVR compared to Group A, with a cumulative incidence rate of SVR at 2 years of 86.7% versus 15.4% (HR = .11, p < .001). Prior to achieving SVR, Group A demonstrated worsening of fibrosis stage per year (+.21, p < .001) whereas Group B showed minimal change on protocol annual biopsy (−.02, p = .80). After SVR, most patients were followed non‐invasively and demonstrated stable or improved fibrosis stage over time. Patients undergoing transient elastography showed regression in fibrosis stage per year (−.19, p < .001).Conclusion: HCV patients undergoing LT after 2014 had higher rates of SVR and improved clinically relevant transplant outcomes, namely less graft loss and death relating to HCV. Fibrosis progression halted or improved after SVR in both cohorts, suggesting that LT recipients with SVR do not require fibrosis monitoring even with established fibrosis prior to SVR.