Nakhleh, Raouf E.

The number of steatotic deceased donor livers encountered has continued to rise as a result of the obesity epidemic. Little is known about the histological characteristics of moderately macrosteatotic livers over time in the recipient following liver transplantation (LT). All recipients undergoing LT at Mayo Clinic Florida with donor livers with moderate macrosteatosis (30%‐60%) from 2000‐2017 were identified (n = 96). Routine protocol liver biopsies were performed 1‐week and 6‐months following LT. All liver donor and protocol biopsies were read by an experienced liver pathologist. Of the 96 moderate macrosteatosis LTs, 70 recipients had post‐LT protocol liver biopsies available and comprised the study cohort. Median donor allograft macrosteatosis at the time of transplant was 33% (IQR, 30%‐40%) compared with 0% (IQR, 0%‐2%) at 1‐week (P < 0.001) and 0% (IQR, 0%‐0%) at 6‐months (P < 0.001) following LT. Biopsies at 1‐week post‐LT displayed pericentral necrosis in 57.1% of recipients and lipopeliosis in 34.3% of recipients. In the 6‐month post‐LT biopsies, cholestasis was seen in 3 (4.3%) of the recipients, whereas grade 2 fibrosis was seen in 6 recipients (8.6%). Graft survival at 5 years in the present cohort was 74.0%. Moderate macrosteatosis (30%‐60%) in the donor allograft demonstrates complete reversal on liver biopsies performed as early as 7 days following LT and remains absent at 6‐months following LT. Both pericentral necrosis and lipopeliosis are common features on day 7 biopsies. Despite these encouraging findings, the perioperative risks of using these livers (postreperfusion cardiac arrest and primary nonfunction) should not be understated. Long‐term graft survival is acceptable in patients who are able to overcome the immediate perioperative risk of using moderately steatotic donor livers.

A repeat survey of the Association of the Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, done 10 years after the original was used to assess trends and variability in classifying scenarios as errors, and the preferred post signout report modification for correcting error by the membership of the Association of the Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. The results were analyzed to inform on whether interpretive amendment rates might act as surrogate measures of interpretive error in pathology. An analyses of the responses indicated that primary level misinterpretations (benign to malignant and vice versa) were universally qualified as error; secondary-level misinterpretations or misclassifications were inconsistently labeled error. There was added variability in the preferred post signout report modification used to correct report alterations. The classification of a scenario as error appeared to correlate with severity of potential harm of the missed call, the perceived subjectivity of the diagnosis, and ambiguity of reporting terminology. Substantial differences in policies for error detection and optimal reporting format were documented between departments. In conclusion, the inconsistency in labeling scenarios as error, disagreement about the optimal post signout report modification for the correction of the error, and variability in error detection policies preclude the use of the misinterpretation amendment rate as a surrogate measure for error in anatomic pathology. There is little change in uniformity of definition, attitudes and perception of interpretive error in anatomic pathology in the last 10 years.

It has been suggested that microsteatosis does not negatively impact graft survival following liver transplantation (LT). The present study represents the largest series on donor livers with significant microsteatosis and investigates the impact of microsteatosis on perioperative factors such as postreperfusion syndrome (PRS), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), and postoperative renal dysfunction. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing LT with donor livers with isolated microsteatosis (≥30%; n = 239) between 2000 and 2017 were compared with a propensity score–matched cohort of patients undergoing LT with donor livers with no steatosis (n = 239). Patients in the microsteatosis group had a higher rate of PRS (33.1% versus 24.2%; P = 0.03), EAD (38.2% versus 23.0%; P < 0.001), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) requirement following LT (10.9% versus 3.6%; P = 0.002) than the no steatosis group. No difference in patient (P = 0.33) or graft survival (P = 0.18) was observed between the 2 groups. On multivariate regression, livers with microsteatosis had an increased risk of graft loss with retransplant recipients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.59; P < 0.001), increasing Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (HR, 1.13; P = 0.01), and organs from donation after circulatory death donors (HR, 1.46; P = 0.003). In conclusion, recipients of donor livers with significant microsteatosis are at an increased risk of PRS, EAD, and postoperative renal dysfunction requiring CRRT. Livers with significant microsteatosis should be avoided in retransplant recipients and in recipients with high biological MELD scores. Once appropriately selected recipients of these livers are able to overcome the initial perioperative implications of using these donor livers, longterm patient and graft survival is similar to recipients receiving grafts with no steatosis.

Although hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become a common indication for liver transplantation (LT), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and combined hepatocellular carcinoma–cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC‐CCA) are historically contraindicated due to their aggressive behavior. On the basis of recent experiences, some groups have proposed a clinical trial investigating the role of LT for patients with early cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), defined as a single lesion ≤ 2 cm. The purpose of this study is to assess the clinicopathologic features and outcomes following LT for patients who were initially diagnosed with HCC and subsequently found to have either ICC or cHCC‐CCA on explant. Patients with the diagnosis of primary liver cancer (PLC) after LT from a single center were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes for patients with early CCA were compared with patients with HCC within Milan criteria (MC). Out of 618 patients transplanted with PLC, 44 patients were found to have CCA on explant. On the basis of preoperative imaging, 12 patients met criteria for early CCA and were compared with 319 patients who had HCC within MC. The 1‐ and 5‐year overall survival for early CCA versus HCC was 63.6% versus 90.0% and 63.6% versus 70.3% (log‐rank, P = 0.25), respectively. Overall recurrence was 33.3% for early CCA versus 11% for HCC. On explant the patients with CCA were more likely understaged with higher tumor grade and vascular invasion. In conclusion, patients with CCA present a diagnostic challenge, which often leads to the finding of more aggressive lesions on explant after LT, higher recurrence rates, and worse post‐LT survival. Careful consideration of this diagnostic conundrum needs to be made before a clinical trial is undertaken. Liver Transplantation 24 634–644 2018 AASLD.

Context.— The classification and prognosis determination in acute leukemia (AL) are complex and it is unclear what testing is being performed in practice. Objective.— To survey physicians describing their current practice of test ordering in the diagnosis of AL. Design.— In anticipation of a guideline by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the American Society for Hematology on laboratory testing needed for the initial workup of AL, a baseline survey was designed by an expert panel from CAP. Members of professional societies were asked to describe their current practice of test ordering. Results.— Two hundred ninety-four responses were received with 258 respondents analyzed after the first qualifying survey question regarding initial diagnosis of AL. One hundred seventy-six of 249 respondents (70.7%) were board-certified hematopathologists. Flow cytometry and karyotype analysis were routinely performed for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (99.1% [232 of 234] and 96.2% [225 of 234], respectively) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (98.3% [229 of 233] and 96.6% [225 of 233], respectively). In addition, fluorescence in situ hybridization studies were routinely performed by 81.2% (190 of 234) of respondents for AML and 85.0% (198 of 233) of respondents for ALL; other molecular studies were performed by 78.2% (183) for AML and 54.9% (128) for ALL; immunohistochemistry by 44.9% (105) for AML and 47.6% (111) for ALL; and cytochemistry by 24.8% (58) for AML and 14.2% (33) for ALL. Conclusions.— While flow cytometry and karyotyping are routinely reported as being performed for the diagnosis of AL, there is marked variation in the reporting of testing patterns for other genetic studies, immunohistochemistry, and cytochemistry.

AbstractGraft‐versus‐host disease (GVHD) is a rare, fatal complication following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). To date, several risk factors have been proposed, but reports on these factors have been inconclusive. This is a retrospective, case–control study of prospectively collected data from 2775OLTs performed at our institution. Eight cases ofGVHDafterOLTwere diagnosed on the basis of the patient's clinical characteristics, and the findings were confirmed with skin and colonic biopsies. Each case was matched to three controls based on the diagnosis of liver disease, recipient's age, and blood group. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with the development ofGVHDafterOLT. The univariate and multivariate analyses identified two main risk factors associated with development ofGVHDinOLTrecipients, a difference between recipient and donor age of >20 yr, and any human leukocyte antigen classImatches. Taking these two risk factors into consideration while matching prospective donors and recipients may reduce further incidence ofGVHDinOLTpatients. However, further studies are recommended to validate these findings.