Cannon, Robert M.

Importance Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is an emerging recovery modality for transplantable allografts from controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) donors. In the US, only 11.4% of liver recipients who are transplanted from a deceased donor receive a cDCD liver. NRP has the potential to safely expand the US donor pool with improved transplant outcomes as compared with standard super rapid recovery (SRR). Objective To assess outcomes of US liver transplants using controlled donation after circulatory death livers recovered with normothermic regional perfusion vs standard super rapid recovery. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a retrospective, observational cohort study comparing liver transplant outcomes from cDCD donors recovered by NRP vs SRR. Outcomes of cDCD liver transplant from January 2017 to May 2023 were collated from 17 US transplant centers and included livers recovered by SRR and NRP (thoracoabdominal NRP [TA-NRP] and abdominal NRP [A-NRP]). Seven transplant centers used NRP, allowing for liver allografts to be transplanted at 17 centers; 10 centers imported livers recovered via NRP from other centers. Exposures cDCD livers were recovered by either NRP or SRR. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). Secondary end points included primary nonfunction (PNF), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), biliary anastomotic strictures, posttransplant length of stay (LOS), and patient and graft survival. Results A total of 242 cDCD livers were included in this study: 136 recovered by SRR and 106 recovered by NRP (TA-NRP, 79 and A-NRP, 27). Median (IQR) NRP and SRR donor age was 30.5 (22-44) years and 36 (27-49) years, respectively. Median (IQR) posttransplant LOS was significantly shorter in the NRP cohort (7 [5-11] days vs 10 [7-16] days; P < .001). PNF occurred only in the SRR allografts group (n = 2). EAD was more common in the SRR cohort (123 of 136 [56.1%] vs 77 of 106 [36.4%]; P = .007). Biliary anastomotic strictures were increased 2.8-fold in SRR recipients (7 of 105 [6.7%] vs 30 of 134 [22.4%]; P = .001). Only SRR recipients had IC (0 vs 12 of 133 [9.0%]; P = .002); IC-free survival by Kaplan-Meier was significantly improved in NRP recipients. Patient and graft survival were comparable between cohorts. Conclusion and Relevance There was comparable patient and graft survival in liver transplant recipients of cDCD donors recovered by NRP vs SRR, with reduced rates of IC, biliary complications, and EAD in NRP recipients. The feasibility of A-NRP and TA-NRP implementation across multiple US transplant centers supports increasing adoption of NRP to improve organ use, access to transplant, and risk of wait-list mortality.

TPS578 Background: Liver transplantation is a curative treatment option in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) however; up to 20% of patients develop recurrent disease. HCC recurrence post-transplant is usually extrahepatic (up to 67%) hence requires effective systemic therapy options. Available data are limited and restricted to small non-randomized studies and case series. Lack of prospective clinical trial data and limited data indicates an area of unmet need in treatment of recurrent HCC after liver transplantation. This phase II study aims evaluate the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib in patients with recurrent HCC after liver transplantation. Methods: This is a multi-institutional phase II trial with lenvatinib in patients with recurrent HCC after transplantation. Lenvatinib is administered 12 mg daily orally in patients ≥60 kg, and 8 mg daily orally in patients <60 kg. Each cycle is 28 days. Restaging scans will be performed every 8 weeks. Eligible patients must have histologically proven HCC that has recurred after liver transplantation and not amenable for surgical resection, age ≥18 years, ECOG PS 0-1, Child Pugh Class A, measurable disease per RECIST version 1.1, adequate organ function, no prior systemic therapy with lenvatinib or another systemic therapy in the post-transplant setting. Prior liver directed therapy is allowed, should be at least >28 days prior to the study enrollment, and should have at least one measurable untreated lesion by RECIST 1.1 Primary endpoint is overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints are safety/tolerability, progression free survival, and overall survival. Pre-treatment and on-treatment peripheral blood samples will be collected for correlative research. A Simon`s two stage Minimax design is employed (H0: ORR = 5%; H1: ORR = 24%; Type I error = 0.05; power = 80%). In the first stage, 11 patients will be accrued, and if there is no objective response among them, the study will be stopped for futility. Otherwise, additional 6 patients will be accrued for a total of 17 patients. This study is currently enrolling patients. Clinical trial information: NCT05103904 .

Objective: To compare conventional low-temperature storage of transplant donor livers [static cold storage (SCS)] with storage of the organs at physiological body temperature [normothermic machine perfusion (NMP)]. Background: The high success rate of liver transplantation is constrained by the shortage of transplantable organs (eg, waiting list mortality >20% in many centers). NMP maintains the liver in a functioning state to improve preservation quality and enable testing of the organ before transplantation. This is of greatest potential value with organs from brain-dead donor organs (DBD) with risk factors (age and comorbidities), and those from donors declared dead by cardiovascular criteria (donation after circulatory death). Methods: Three hundred eighty-three donor organs were randomized by 15 US liver transplant centers to undergo NMP (n = 192) or SCS (n = 191). Two hundred sixty-six donor livers proceeded to transplantation (NMP: n = 136; SCS: n = 130). The primary endpoint of the study was “early allograft dysfunction” (EAD), a marker of early posttransplant liver injury and function. Results: The difference in the incidence of EAD did not achieve significance, with 20.6% (NMP) versus 23.7% (SCS). Using exploratory, “as-treated” rather than “intent-to-treat,” subgroup analyses, there was a greater effect size in donation after circulatory death donor livers (22.8% NMP vs 44.6% SCS) and in organs in the highest risk quartile by donor risk (19.2% NMP vs 33.3% SCS). The incidence of acute cardiovascular decompensation at organ reperfusion, “postreperfusion syndrome,” as a secondary outcome was reduced in the NMP arm (5.9% vs 14.6%). Conclusions: NMP did not lower EAD, perhaps related to the inclusion of lower-risk liver donors, as higher-risk donor livers seemed to benefit more. The technology is safe in standard organ recovery and seems to have the greatest benefit for marginal donors.