Mehta, Neil

Background : Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major cause of cancer-related mortality. Optimal treatment decisions are challenging, and existing treatment allocation frameworks may not fully reflect the evolving therapeutic landscape or contemporary clinical practices in North America. Methods : Using a modified Delphi process, a multidisciplinary panel of 20 North American experts in hepatology, medical oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology developed a consensus-based treatment framework for HCC, termed the BEACON-HCC system. The framework was informed by current evidence and expert opinion through iterative discussion and voting. In a pilot study using 29 real-world patient cases, we assessed concordance between external expert recommendations and BEACON-HCC recommendations and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 2025 treatment recommendations. Results : The BEACON-HCC treatment allocation framework diverges from prior frameworks by incorporating nuanced clinical features such as degree of intrahepatic tumor burden and vascular invasion, and adverse tumor prognostic markers, to align treatment allocation with tumor biology and therapeutic potential. Key innovations include the incorporation of emerging modalities such as external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and systemic-locoregional combination therapies. In the pilot exercise, expert treatment decisions showed 96.6% concordance with BEACON-HCC recommendations and 72.4% concordance with BCLC recommendations. Conclusions : BEACON-HCC is a consensus-based framework for treatment allocation that incorporates the expanding range of therapeutic options available to patients in the North American HCC population. Expert treatment decisions showed a high concordance with the BEACON-HCC system; further validation using empiric clinical data is planned through the HCC-Live Consortium.

Objective: To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of patients post–living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) within and outside standard transplantation selection criteria and the added value of the incorporation of the New York-California (NYCA) score. Background: LDLT offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplantation waitlist, reduce waitlist mortality, and expand selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: Primary adult LDLT recipients between October 1999 and August 2019 were identified from a multicenter cohort of 12 North American centers. Posttransplantation and recurrence-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Three hundred sixty LDLTs were identified. Patients within Milan criteria (MC) at transplantation had a 1, 5, and 10-year posttransplantation survival of 90.9%, 78.5%, and 64.1% versus outside MC 90.4%, 68.6%, and 57.7% (P = 0.20), respectively. For patients within the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, respective posttransplantation survival was 90.6%, 77.8%, and 65.0%, versus outside UCSF 92.1%, 63.8%, and 45.8% (P = 0.08). Fifty-three (83%) patients classified as outside MC at transplantation would have been classified as either low or acceptable risk with the NYCA score. These patients had a 5-year overall survival of 72.2%. Similarly, 28(80%) patients classified as outside UCSF at transplantation would have been classified as a low or acceptable risk with a 5-year overall survival of 65.3%. Conclusions: Long-term survival is excellent for patients with HCC undergoing LDLT within and outside selection criteria, exceeding the minimum recommended 5-year rate of 60% proposed by consensus guidelines. The NYCA categorization offers insight into identifying a substantial proportion of patients with HCC outside the MC and the UCSF criteria who still achieve similar post-LDLT outcomes as patients within the criteria.

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.

Abstract The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process‐based measures and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13‐member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha‐fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high‐risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging‐Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high‐risk population.

Background. Currently, no surveillance guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) exist. In this retrospective, multicenter study, we have investigated the role of surveillance imaging on postrecurrence outcomes. Methods. Patients with recurrent HCC after LT from 2002 to 2016 were reviewed from 3 transplant centers (University of California San Francisco, Mayo Clinic Florida, and University of Toronto). For this study, we proposed the term cumulative exposure to surveillance (CETS) as a way to define the cumulative sum of all the protected intervals that each surveillance test provides. In our analysis, CETS has been treated as a continuous variable in months. Results. Two hundred twenty-three patients from 3 centers had recurrent HCC post-LT. The median follow-up was 31.3 months, and median time to recurrence was 13.3 months. Increasing CETS was associated with improved postrecurrence survival (hazard ratio, 0.94; P < 0.01) as was treatment of recurrence with resection or ablation (hazard ratio, 0.31; P < 0.001). An receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve, 0.64) for CETS covariate showed that 252 days of coverage (or 3 surveillance scans) within the first 24 months provided the highest probability for aggressive postrecurrence treatment. Conclusions. In this review of 223 patients with post-LT HCC recurrence, we found that increasing CETS does lead to improved postrecurrence survival as well as a higher probability for aggressive recurrence treatment. We found that 252 days of monitoring (ie, 3 surveillance scans) in the first 24 months was associated with the ability to offer potentially curative treatment.

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.

The presence of an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in a cirrhotic liver is a contraindication for liver transplantation in most centers worldwide. Recent investigations have shown that “very early” iCCA (single tumors ≤2 cm) may have acceptable results after liver transplantation. This study further evaluates this finding in a larger international multicenter cohort. The study group was composed of those patients who were transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma or decompensated cirrhosis and found to have an iCCA at explant pathology. Patients were divided into those with “very early” iCCA and those with “advanced” disease (single tumor >2 cm or multifocal disease). Between January 2000 and December 2013, 81 patients were found to have an iCCA at explant; 33 had separate nodules of iCCA and hepatocellular carcinoma, and 48 had only iCCA (study group). Within the study group, 15/48 (31%) constituted the “very early” iCCA group and 33/48 (69%) the “advanced” group. There were no significant differences between groups in preoperative characteristics. At explant, the median size of the largest tumor was larger in the “advanced” group (3.1 [2.5‐4.4] versus 1.6 [1.5‐1.8]). After a median follow‐up of 35 (13.5‐76.4) months, the 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year cumulative risks of recurrence were, respectively, 7%, 18%, and 18% in the very early iCCA group versus 30%, 47%, and 61% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.01. The 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year actuarial survival rates were, respectively, 93%, 84%, and 65% in the very early iCCA group versus 79%, 50%, and 45% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.02. Conclusion: Patients with cirrhosis and very early iCCA may become candidates for liver transplantation; a prospective multicenter clinical trial is needed to further confirm these results. (H epatology 2016;64:1178‐1188)