Mehta, Neil

AbstractBackground and AimsIdentifying international differences in utilization and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) after donation after circulatory death (DCD) donation provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking and population‐level insight.MethodsAdult (≥18 years) LT data between 2008 and 2018 from the UK and US were used to assess mortality and graft failure after DCD LT. We used time‐dependent Cox‐regression methods to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for risk‐adjusted short‐term (0–90 days) and longer‐term (90 days–5 years) outcomes.ResultsOne‐thousand five‐hundred‐and‐sixty LT receipts from the UK and 3426 from the US were included. Over the study period, the use of DCD livers increased from 15.7% to 23.9% in the UK compared to 5.1% to 7.6% in the US. In the UK, DCD donors were older (UK:51 vs. US:33 years) with longer cold ischaemia time (UK: 437 vs. US: 333 min). Recipients in the US had higher Model for End‐stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, higher body mass index, higher proportions of ascites, encephalopathy, diabetes and previous abdominal surgeries. No difference in the risk‐adjusted short‐term mortality or graft failure was observed between the countries. In the longer‐term (90 days–5 years), the UK had lower mortality and graft failure (adj.mortality HR:UK: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49–0.80); graft failure HR: UK: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58–0.91). The cumulative incidence of retransplantation was higher in the UK (5 years: UK: 11.9% vs. 4.6%; p < .001).ConclusionsFor those receiving a DCD LT, longer‐term post‐transplant outcomes in the UK are superior to the US, however, significant differences in recipient illness, graft quality and access to retransplantation were seen between the two countries.

For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplantation (LT), United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) enacted policy changes in 2015 to improve equity between HCC and non‐HCC patients. We evaluated the impact of these changes on regional disparities in wait‐list dropout and LT. We included patients in the UNOS database listed with Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease HCC exceptions in long‐wait regions (LWRs), mid‐wait regions (MWRs), and short‐wait regions (SWRs) before these policy changes (era 1, January 1 to December 31, 2013) and after (era 2, October 7, 2015, to October 7, 2016). Cumulative incidence of wait‐list dropout and LT were evaluated using competing risk regression. Median time to LT increased by 3.6 months (3.1 to 6.7 months) in SWRs and 1.3 months (6.9 to 8.2 months) in MWRs (P < 0.001), with a slight decrease in LWRs (13.4 to 12.9 months; P = 0.02). The 2‐year cumulative incidence of dropout increased from 9.7% to 14.8% in SWRs (P = 0.03) and from 18.9% to 22.6% in MWRs (P = 0.18) but decreased in LWRs from 26.7% to 24.8% (P = 0.31). Factors predicting wait‐list dropout included listing in era 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17), in LWRs (HR, 2.56), and in MWRs (HR, 1.91). Regional differences in wait‐list outcomes decreased with policy changes, but HCC patients in SWRs remain advantaged. Recent policy change may narrow these disparities.

With recent changes in United Network for Organ Sharing policy, patients in the United States with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are likely to spend more time on the liver transplantation (LT) waiting list. The increasing wait time will allow for an opportunity to assess tumor biology prior to LT. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) paradigm provides such a framework for this assessment, and yet little is understood of its utility as it would apply for patients listed for LT in the United States. Through a collaboration between the University of California, San Francisco, and the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, the experience of 772 patients listed for LT were retrospectively reviewed to study the impact of immediate mRECIST classification following locoregional therapy (LRT) on pre‐ and post‐LT outcomes. Patients who had progression of disease (PD; n = 72), failed to respond to LRT (n = 89) at any time point, or did not achieve radiologic complete response (CR; n = 224) were all at significant risk for wait‐list dropout (odds ratio [OR] = 12.11, 4.81, and 2.48; respectively). CR identified a cohort of patients who were at a reduced risk for wait‐list dropout. However, 24.9% eventually required further intervention while waiting for transplant, and as many as 82.4% were found to have residual HCC on explant pathology. Failure to respond to LRT was associated with increased risk for recurrence (OR = 3.00) more so than PD (OR = 1.36), suggesting that despite PD, patients who eventually can respond to LRT may represent favorable candidates for LT. In conclusion, for patients awaiting LT, the mRECIST assessment provides critical guidance for patient management. Although PD portends a poor prognosis, our findings suggest that further aggressive LRT should be pursued because a response to LRT may yield acceptable results for patients awaiting LT as well as after LT.