Diwan, Tayyab S.

Multi-listing (ML) increases the odds of transplantation compared with single-center listing. However, not all patients have equivalent access to ML. The recent allocation policy change prioritized distance from the donor hospital in an attempt to decrease geographic disparities. This study assessed access to liver transplant (LT) given ML practices before and after the acuity circles policy change. United Network for Organ Sharing data were queried for LTs between January 1, 2016, and November 1, 2024. Patients were grouped by listing at one versus multiple centers and by acuity circle era (ACE). Cohort characteristics and comparisons were described using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank tests. Multivariable logistic regressions and propensity score match (PSM) were performed to assess associations between ML and LT. The final cohort consisted of 105,030 patients; 4084 (3.9%) were multi-listed. Racial/ethnic minority groups, less educated, and publicly insured candidates were less often multi-listed. ML was positively associated with LT in all analyses (overall: OR=1.180, p <0.001; PSM: OR=1.164, p =0.001; pre-ACE: OR=1.127, p =0.015; post-ACE: OR=1.218, p <0.001). Education, race/ethnicity, and insurance type were also associated with LT across all analyses. ML patients were more often transplanted at their primary center with a significant increase in primary center LT post-ACE (53.4% vs. 63.4%, p <0.001). ML and LT had a positive correlation. There was a negative association between minority groups and ML as well as LT. Although acuity circles decreased geographic disparities, they did not change ML accessibility across candidates.

Background. Assessment tools in surgical education help identify improvement areas for trainees. We developed and present validity evidence for a novel Transplant Operative Assessment Tool to optimize technical feedback for surgical trainees in transplantation. Methods. The Transplant Operative Assessment Tool assesses learners on anatomy, technical skills, judgment, and communication. Performance is rated across 5 competency levels. Content validity evidence included a construct map using existing literature and expert cognitive interviews. Ratings were used to develop an item response theory calibration, which was then used to evaluate the tool and provide validity evidence. Results. Eighty-two assessments for 28 trainees (16 residents, 12 fellows) were completed by 25 faculty surgeons across 4 programs. Fifty-six kidney transplants, 13 liver transplants, and 13 donor nephrectomies were assessed. The mean assessment completion time was 4.1 ± 4.3 min. Internal structure validity was evaluated by calculating item infit (range, 0.86–1.15), indicating a strong model fit and confirming a high quality of items. Internal consistency was also high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94). There was a positive correlation between ratings and training level ( P < 0.01), indicating strong discriminatory power. Warm ischemia time for transplant operations did not correlate with performance ( P = 0.16). Conclusions. These data provide validity evidence for a novel operative assessment tool. This instrument can measure performance, monitor progress, document competency, and has the potential to provide valuable feedback.

Background and Aims: The optimal treatment strategy for de novo perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) remains debated. This study compares outcomes between liver transplantation following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (RT+LT) and liver resection (LR), with (LR+VR) and without vascular resection (LR w/o VR). Approach and Results: This single-center, retrospective study included patients with de novo perihilar cholangiocarcinoma treated at the Mayo Clinic Rochester (1993–2023) with curative-intent surgery. Patients underwent either (1) LR, classified as LR+VR or LR w/o VR, or (2) RT+LT following the transplant protocol. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival were analyzed using as-treated and intention-to-treat approaches, incorporating competing risk analysis and direct matching. In the as-treated analysis, RT+LT showed superior median OS compared with LR w/o VR (78.0 vs. 58.2 mo, p =0.03) and LR+VR (25.8 mo, p <0.001). Considering dropout rates (RT+LT: 41%, LR: 28%), intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant OS difference between LR and RT + LT (31.7 vs. 38.5 mo, p =0.19). In matched as-treated analysis, RT + LT had no significant survival benefit over LR w/o VR (50.6 vs. 140.6 mo, p =0.08) or LR+VR (25.8 mo, p =0.11). Perioperative mortality was 4% (RT+LT), 7% (LR w/o VR), and 8% (LR + VR). Conclusions: Both LR and RT+LT achieve excellent oncological outcomes in selected patients with de novo perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Key challenges remain dropouts during neoadjuvant therapy in patients planned for LT and high perioperative mortality for patients undergoing LR. OS doubles in patients undergoing LR+VR compared with dropouts, supporting LR+VR as a viable option for patients who are ineligible for LT. Appropriate patient selection is crucial, as those not undergoing surgery suffer from a dismal prognosis.

Objective: To develop and validate a risk score for predicting post-transplant recurrence in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) patients. Background: pCCA is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. Although neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) followed by liver transplantation (LT) offers a potential cure for patients with unresectable, early-stage de novo or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)-associated pCCA, post-transplant recurrence negatively impacts survival. Currently, no risk stratification tools exist. Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with unresectable de novo or PSC-associated pCCA who underwent neoadjuvant CRT followed by LT at Mayo Clinic (1993–2024). Predictors of post-transplant recurrence were identified using multivariable Cox regression with LASSO variable selection. The Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence after Transplant (PRETREAT) risk score was created by assigning points from model coefficients. Score performance was evaluated by discrimination (c-statistic), internally validated with 10-fold cross-validation, and externally validated in a separate cohort. Survival outcomes were compared across 3 PRETREAT risk groups and between 2 time periods. Results: This study included 399 patients (development: 301; validation: 98). The 5-year cumulative incidence of post-transplant recurrence was 29.7% in the development cohort and 27.6% in the validation cohort. Multivariable analysis identified 4 independent predictors: macroscopic residual tumor on explant [hazard ratio (HR): 12.4], vascular encasement (HR: 2.18), lymphovascular invasion (HR: 2.04), and radial tumor diameter (HR: 1.02/mm). The PRETREAT score (0–22), based on these factors, demonstrated excellent performance in both internal and external validation (C-index 0.83 and 0.85, respectively). Patients were stratified into low-risk (0–7), moderate-risk (8–15), and high-risk (16–22) groups. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates significantly differed across low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk groups (89.0%, 38.3%, and 15.4%, respectively; P<0.001). Over the last decade, overall survival improved significantly only in moderate-risk patients (70.4% vs 46.9%, P=0.024), without significant improvement in recurrence-free survival. Conclusions: The PRETREAT score provides a valuable tool for guiding post-transplant management of pCCA, enabling risk-stratified surveillance, and laying the foundation for future clinical trials.

The transplant selection process for solid organ recipients relies on committee review and is susceptible to human nature and bias. The current model of selection committees has been under-examined and untested. Few studies exist on transplant selection committees. Barriers to quality decision-making have been studied in other industries. Lessons learned in other industries were explored and how they may be applied to a transplant selection committee. These include appointing an ethical representative or an advocate (pro) and dissenter (against) for discussion, adopting an ideal committee size/composition, and reviewing previous committee decisions (post-mortem). The transplant selection committee can function beyond a singular decision and be an opportunity to identify gaps in patients’ treatment plans and available resources. Looking forward, a transplant selection committee that is more consistent, equitable, and protocolized can reduce bias, moral burden, and missed listings for our patients.