Back to Authors

Roberts, John P

0000-0003-3303-9406

Mayo Clinic

University of California, San Francisco

Citations 2

Optimizing liver transplant outcomes for colorectal liver metastases in the United States
Chávez‐Villa, Mariana , Sasaki, Kazunari , Nakayama, Toshihiro , Byrne, Matthew , Jiménez-Soto, Cristina , Ruffolo, Luis I. , Endo, Yutaka , Dokus, M. Katherine , Bekki, Yuki , Qadan, Motaz , Tomiyama, Koji , Roberts, J.P., Byrne, Matthew M , Roberts, John P , Pomfret, Elizabeth , Wall, Anji E , Hernández-Alejandro, Roberto , Wall, Anji

Liver Transplantation | October 14, 2025 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 508-517

10.1097/lvt.0000000000000746 Get It

The TransMet trial and Norwegian studies have shown excellent outcomes in highly selected patients undergoing liver transplant (LT) for unresectable colorectal liver metastases (uCRLM). Our aim is to provide an updated analysis of the current state of LT for uCRLM in the United States. Adult patients with a diagnosis of uCRLM listed for LT between December 2017 and March 2025 were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database and analyzed. An analysis of living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT) was performed. During this period, 222 patients were listed, and 158 received an LT across 33 centers. Of these, 76 (48.1%) underwent LDLT, and 82 patients (51.9%) underwent DDLT. Of the 82 deceased donors, 56 (68.2%) were out-of-sequence offers. Overall, the 3-year survival and disease-free survival rates were 66.7% and 44.0%, respectively. The 3-year survival for LDLT and DDLT was 74.1% and 57.3% ( p =0.04), respectively. While these results have not yet reached the acceptable threshold established for other LT indications, they have improved and are expected to continue improving after the implementation of prioritization points. Given the potential variability of oncologic selection criteria and graft quality, we call for the standardization of nationally accepted selection criteria for listing patients for LT with uCRLM and for providing early access to high-quality organs. To achieve this, it is imperative to create, update, and maintain national databases that allow for the collection of more granular oncological variables.
Influence of surgical technique in donor hepatectomy on immediate and short‐term living donor outcomes – A systematic review of the literature, meta‐analysis, and expert panel recommendations
Cheah, Yee Lee , Kwon, Choon Hyuck David , Pomposelli, James J. , Rudow, Dianne LaPointe , Bröering, Dieter C. , Spiro, Michael , Roberts, John P. , Group, the ERAS4OLT.org Working, Rudow, Dianne LaPointe , Roberts, John P , Heimbach, Julie K. , Raptis, Dimitri , Group, the ERAS4OLT.org Working

Clinical Transplantation | May 11, 2022 | Volume: 36 | Issue: 10 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/ctr.14703 Get It

AbstractBackgroundThere are currently no guidelines pertaining to ERAS pathways in living donor hepatectomy.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to identify whether surgical technique influences immediate and short‐term outcomes after living liver donation surgery.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.MethodsSystematic review and meta‐analysis following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021260707). Endpoints were mortality, overall complications, serious complications, bile eaks, pulmonary complications, estimated blood loss and length of stay.ResultsOf the 2410 screened articles, 21 articles were included for final analysis; three observational, 13 retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Overall complications were higher with right versus left hepatectomy (26.8% vs. 20.8%; OR 1.4, P = .010). Donors after left hepatectomy had shorter length of stay (MD 1.4 days) compared to right hepatectomy. There was no difference in outcomes after right donor hepatectomy with versus without middle hepatic vein. We had limited data on the influence of incision type and minimally invasive approaches on living donor outcomes, and no data on the effect of operative time on donor outcomes.ConclusionsLeft donor hepatectomy should be preferred over right hepatectomy, as it is related to improved donor short‐term outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Right donor hepatectomy with or without MHV has equivalent outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong); no preference is recommended, decision should be based on program's experience and expertise. No difference in outcomes was observed related to incision type, minimally invasive vs. open (QOE; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak); no preference can be recommended.