Taner, C. Burcin

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.

Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the rate, predictors, and impact of complete pathologic response (cPR) to pretransplant locoregional therapy (LRT) in a large, multicenter cohort of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). Background: LRT is used to mitigate waitlist dropout for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Degree of tumor necrosis found on explant has been associated with recurrence and overall survival, but has not been evaluated in a large, multicenter study. Methods: Comparisons were made among patients receiving pre-LT LRT with (n = 802) and without (n = 2637) cPR from the United States Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (UMHTC), and multivariable predictors of cPR were identified using logistic regression. Results: Of 3439 patients, 802 (23%) had cPR on explant. Compared with patients without cPR, cPR patients were younger; had lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, AFP levels, and neutrophil–lymphocyte ratios (NLR); were more likely to have tumors within Milan criteria and fewer LRT treatments; and had significantly lower 1-, 3-, and 5-year incidence of post-LT recurrence (1.3%, 3.5%, and 5.2% vs 6.2%, 13.5%, and 16.4%; P < 0.001) and superior overall survival (92%, 84%, and 75% vs 90%, 78%, and 68%; P < 0.001). Multivariable predictors of cPR included age, sex, liver disease diagnosis, MELD, AFP, NLR, radiographic Milan status, and number of LRT treatments (C-statistic 0.67). Conclusions: For LT recipients with HCC receiving pretransplant LRT, achieving cPR portends significantly lower posttransplant recurrence and superior survival. Factors predicting cPR are identified, which may help prioritize patients and guide LRT strategies to optimize posttransplant cancer outcomes.

The frequency at which steatotic deceased donor liver grafts are encountered will likely continue to increase. Utilization of liver grafts with moderate‐to‐severe steatosis for liver transplantation (LT) has been previously shown to be associated with increased rates of primary nonfunction and decreased recipient survival. In order to better inform clinical decision making and guide future research, critical evaluation of the literature on donor liver steatosis and posttransplantation outcome is needed. This literature review aims to provide the “skinny” on using deceased donor steatotic livers for LT.

355 Background: In this study, we sought to determine the prognostic factors impacting survival of patients with NELM who underwent LT at Mayo Clinic. Methods: We performed a three-site retrospective analysis of patients with unresectable NELM treated with LT from 1990 -2017. Cases were identified from clinical databases at Mayo Clinic. Data on demographics, timing of diagnosis and transplant, extent of liver involvement, and tumor grade, were extracted. Extent of liver involvement was calculated using previously validated standardized volumetry with high defined as > 25% increase in the weight of the extracted liver at the time of the transplant as compared to the standard liver volume. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: We identified 37 patients. Median age at LT was 47 (range 17.0-64.0), male: female (73% vs. 27%, respectively). Primary tumor site was in the pancreas in 51.3% and in the small bowels in 43.2%; 78.4% had NELM at presentation. While primary tumor resection was done at the time of LT in 5 (13.9%) cases, most patients (80.6%) had ˃6-months interval between primary tumor resection and LT surgery. Prior to LT, 25 (74.3%) patients received somatostatin analogues and 18 (61.3%) had liver-directed therapy. Median time from diagnosis to transplant was 33.6 months (0-246). High extent of liver involvement was identified in 12 patients (33.3%). Disease-Free Survival (DFS) at 3, 5, and 10 years was 56.8%, 43.1%, and 22.4% respectively. Overall-survival (OS) at 3, 5, and 10 years was 86.9%, 79.6%, and 52.6% respectively. High extent of liver involvement at the time of transplantation was associated with inferior DFS and OS and patients˃45 years-old at the time of transplantation had worse DFS. Patients whose disease met the OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) criteria for NELM transplantation had significantly better DFS and OS with median 10-year OS of 80.7 % vs. 17%. Conclusions: LT is a reasonable therapeutic option for selected patients with unresectable NELM with 10-year OS of 52.6%. High extent of liver involvement was associated with worse long-term outcomes while meeting OPTN criteria resulted in best outcomes.

Background. The present multicenter study investigated whether equivalent outcomes to primary liver transplant (LT) could be achieved with liver retransplant (reLT) and whether improvements in outcomes have taken place over time, particularly in the direct-acting antiviral era. Methods. All reLT performed at Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Clinic Rochester, and Mayo Clinic Arizona were divided into era 1 (2002–2007), era 2 (2008–2012), and era 3 (2013–2017) based on the date of reLT. Results. Improvement in graft survival (GS) after reLT was seen over the 3 eras (P < 0.001). In era 1, GS after reLT was inferior to primary LT (P < 0.001), whereas no difference was seen between reLT and primary LT in era 2 (P = 0.68) or era 3 (P = 0.36). A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved sustained viral response (SVR) within the first year after reLT in each subsequent era (era 1: 10.3%, era 2: 22.5%, and era 3: 100%) (P < 0.001). Graft survival was superior in patients undergoing reLT for recurrent hepatitis C virus who achieved SVR after reLT compared with those who did not (P = 0.03). Conclusions. Results similar to primary LT were achieved in era 3. These improvements coincide with the availability of direct-acting antivirals, which resulted in a 100% SVR rate in era 3 and a decrease in the number of patients undergoing reLT for recurrent hepatitis C virus. The historic dogma that reLT results in inferior outcomes should be revisited.

AbstractBackgroundHepatic artery stenosis (HAS) after liver transplant (LT) is a source of significant morbidity. Some reports have suggested higher arterial complications in patients who receive donation after cardiac death (DCD) livers.MethodsA total of 2860 consecutive LT were reviewed from a prospectively collected database. All angiograms performed in LT recipients were reviewed and primary patency rates determined by need for further intervention or graft loss due to HAT.ResultsHepatic artery stenosis was seen in 4.6% of DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) recipients. Recipient male gender, age at transplant, complex donor hepatic artery anatomy, and prolonged operative time were all associated with HAS, but not DCD status. While HAS in recipients of DCD grafts required more stents (1.7% vs 0.6%, P = 0.04) and had worse primary patency rates (logrank, P = 0.02), outcomes as defined by HAT, patient and graft survival were not significantly different between the recipients of DCD or DBD grafts.ConclusionWe observed no significant difference in the incidence of hepatic artery complications, patient survival, or graft survival in recipients of DCD or DBD grafts. However, HAS in DCD recipients had worse primary patency and a higher need for stent placement.

Abstract Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) identifies allografts with marginal function soon after liver transplantation (LT) and is associated with poor LT outcomes. The impact of EAD on post-LT renal recovery, however, has not been studied. Data on 69 primary LT recipients (41 with and 28 without history of renal dysfunction) who received renal replacement therapy (RRT) for a median (range) of 9 (13-41) days before LT were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was renal nonrecovery defined as RRT requirement 30 days from LT. Early allograft dysfunction developed in 21 (30%) patients, and 22 (32%) patients did not recover renal function. Early allograft dysfunction was more common in the renal nonrecovery group (50% vs 21%, P = 0.016). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that EAD (odds ratio, 7.25; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-25.8; P = 0.002) and baseline serum creatinine (odds ratio, 3.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-8.1; P = 0.007) were independently associated with renal nonrecovery. History of renal dysfunction, duration of renal dysfunction, and duration of RRT were not related to renal recovery ( P > 0.2 for all). Patients who had EAD and renal nonrecovery had the worst 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival, whereas those without EAD and recovered renal function had the best outcomes ( P < 0.001). Post-LT EAD was independently associated with renal nonrecovery in LT recipients on RRT for a short duration before LT. Furthermore, EAD in the setting of renal nonrecovery resulted in the worst long-term survival. Measures to prevent EAD should be undertaken in LT recipients on RRT at time of LT.

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.

Variation in average Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at liver transplantation (LT) by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) regions is well documented. The present study aimed to investigate MELD variation at the interregional, intraregional, and intra–donation service area (DSA) levels. Patients undergoing LT between 2015 and 2016 were obtained from the UNOS standard analysis and research file. The distribution of allocation MELD score including median, skew, and kurtosis was examined for all transplant programs. Intraregional median allocation MELD varied significantly within all 11 UNOS regions. The largest variation between programs was seen in region 5 (MELD 24.0 versus 38.5) and region 3 (MELD 20.5 versus 32.0). Regions 1, 5, and 9 had the largest proportion of programs with a highly negative skewed MELD score (50%, 57%, and 57%, respectively), whereas regions 3, 6, 10, and 11 did not have any programs with a highly negative skew. MELD score distribution was also examined in programs located in the same DSA, where no barriers exist and theoretically no significant difference in allocation should be observed. The largest DSA variation in median allocation MELD score was seen in NYRT‐OP1 LiveOnNY (MELD score variation 11), AZOB‐OP1 Donor Network of Arizona (MELD score variation 11), MAOB‐OP1 New England Organ Bank (MELD score variation 9), and TXGC‐OP1 LifeGift Organ Donation Ctr (MELD score variation 9). In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that this MELD disparity is not only present at the interregional level but can be seen within regions and even within DSAs between programs located as close as several city blocks away. Although organ availability likely accounts for a component of this disparity, the present study suggests that transplant center behavior may also play a significant role.Liver Transplantation 24 488–496 2018AASLD.