Roberts, John P.

Living liver donation is a critical component for addressing organ shortage and improving outcomes for patients with end-stage liver disease. As the prevalence of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) increases worldwide, understanding and optimizing long-term donor health is paramount. The 2025 International Liver Transplantation Society and International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS-iLDLT) Consensus Conference convened experts in the field of liver transplantation to establish evidence-based guidelines focused on the long-term medical, psychological, and social considerations following living liver donation. The aim of this working group was to integrate current evidence and expert consensus on donor follow-up protocols, risk assessment, and management strategies to promote long-term donor health, quality of life, and living liver donor programs globally to safeguard the welfare of this unique population.

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.

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.

Abstract Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

Background. Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown. Methods. We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. Results. After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. Conclusions. Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.

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.