Sapisochín, Gonzalo

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.

Background and Aims: Liver transplantation has evolved from a treatment restricted to patients with end-stage liver disease to a therapeutic option for selected patients with primary and metastatic liver malignancies. This review explores the rapidly expanding field of transplant oncology, highlighting its role in hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal liver metastasis, neuroendocrine liver metastasis, and intrahepatic and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Emphasis is placed on strategies to broaden eligibility, optimize donor organ use, and improve oncologic outcomes. Approach and Results: We synthesized current evidence from clinical series, registries, and experimental protocols to evaluate patient selection criteria, outcomes, and peri-transplant management. Key topics include downstaging approaches to meet transplant criteria, such as locoregional therapies and systemic regimens, and their prognostic implications. Advances in donor utilization have been analyzed for their capacity to expand the graft pool. In addition, the review addresses the integration of oncologic principles into immunosuppression regimens, balancing graft protection with cancer control. Collectively, the reported studies demonstrate improved survival and reduced recurrence when stringent selection and multimodal therapy were applied. Conclusions: Transplant oncology reshapes the therapeutic landscape of liver malignancies, with growing evidence supporting liver transplantation in carefully selected patients beyond traditional indications. Optimized downstaging, innovative donor strategies, and tailored immunosuppression are pivotal for safe expansion. Continued collaboration between the transplant and oncology disciplines, along with prospective trials, is essential to further define standardized protocols and solidify transplantation as a cornerstone of multidisciplinary cancer care.

ABSTRACT Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as promising agents for the management of advanced HCC. By reducing tumour burden, ICIs may serve as a downstaging/bridging tool to improve transplant candidacy. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of patients receiving pre‐LT ICIs. Methods Multicenter, retrospective cohort study from January 2018 to December 2024, including 48 patients who received ICIs prior to LT (ICI cohort). A control cohort (non‐ICI cohort) was built (1:3) using propensity score matching including 144 patients who underwent LT for HCC without prior ICI. Results Within the ICI cohort ( N = 48) rejection occurred in 9 patients (18.8%), all biopsy‐proven, with a median onset of 31 days post‐LT (12.0–182.0). The median washout period was 60 days (13–96). Patients experiencing rejection had shorter washout periods ( p = 0.029). All rejection episodes were successfully managed; two were steroid‐resistant, one requiring re‐transplantation. There were no rejection‐related deaths. Of the 5 patients with HCC recurrence, 60% received ICI for < 90 days ( p = 0.027). Comparison between the ICI and non‐ICI cohort revealed no significant differences in rejection rates (18.8% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.916), graft failure, HCC recurrence, or overall mortality. Overall survival (OS) did not differ between ICI and non‐ICI patients ( p = 0.625) or between those with and without rejection ( p = 0.119). Rejection was not associated with increased mortality, with deaths primarily attributed to infection or HCC recurrence. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that rejection rates were similar in patients receiving ICIs pre‐LT and it can be safely managed.

Early allograft failure (EAF) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains a clinical challenge. Existing prediction models developed for deceased donor transplantation poorly apply to LDLT due to distinct surgical and physiological factors. This study identifies clinical determinants of EAF and develops an LDLT-specific prediction model. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study from 17 high-volume LDLT centers (January 2016–December 2020) with external validation at a tertiary center in Saudi Arabia (January 2015–December 2022). The primary outcome was EAF (graft loss or patient death ≤90 d). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression identified preoperative/intraoperative risk factors. The EAGLE-LDLT model was constructed using postoperative laboratory values. Performance was compared against established models (EAD, MEAF, A2ALL) using ROC analysis and decision curve analysis. The development cohort included 2944 adult LDLT recipients (67.7% male; median age 55 y; median MELD 14) with a 5.5% EAF rate. External validation included 1020 recipients (median MELD 21, 6.7% EAF). Independent risk factors for EAF were MELD (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.08), donor BMI (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.10), portal vein thrombosis (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.13–2.63), and hepaticojejunostomy (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06–2.36). The EAGLE-LDLT model incorporating peak ALT (>468 U/L), peak INR (>1.9), and bilirubin (>3.5 mg/dL) and INR (>1.3) at POD7, demonstrated superior discrimination (AUC=0.81) compared with MEAF (AUC=0.77, p =0.004), EAD (AUC=0.67, p <0.001), and A2ALL (AUC=0.65, p <0.001). EAGLE-LDLT achieved balanced sensitivity (75.0%) and specificity (73.7%), effectively stratifying patients into high-risk (15% of patients; 40.4% EAF incidence) and low-risk groups. Preoperative and intraoperative clinical factors predict EAF in LDLT. The EAGLE-LDLT model accurately identifies LDLT recipients at the highest risk for EAF postoperatively.

The success of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has bridged the growing gap between organ demand and availability in patients with liver failure or liver cancer. Safety of the living liver donor (LLD) is paramount, and astute intraoperative management plays a critical role in ensuring optimal outcomes for them. Given that intraoperative surgical and anesthesia practices vary widely across centers, the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) and the International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group (iLDLT Group) convened a global consensus conference in Toronto in March 2025 to develop guidelines for intraoperative management of the LLD. This manuscript details the recommendations on intraoperative considerations for the safety of LLD developed by Working Group II of the Consensus Scientific Committee, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for assessment of recommendations, and the Danish model of consensus. Working Group II focused on intraoperative monitoring, fluid and ventilation strategies, surgical techniques for vascular and biliary division, surgeon and center-specific experience, and intraoperative crises planning. These guidelines aim to support both established and emerging LDLT teams to ensure high-quality and safe intraoperative care for the LLD.

Background. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) affects outcomes in liver transplantation (LT). Existing risk models developed for deceased-donor LT depend on posttransplant factors and fall short in living-donor LT (LDLT), where pretransplant evaluations are crucial for preventing EAD and justifying the donor’s risks. Methods. This retrospective study analyzed data from 2944 adult patients who underwent LDLT at 17 centers between 2016 and 2020. We developed a logistic regression model to predict EAD based on this development cohort. We used data from 1020 patients at the King Faisal Transplant Center for external validation. Results. In the development cohort, 321 patients (10.9%) experienced EAD. These patients had poorer health status, more liver decompensation, and higher requirements of hospitalization than those without EAD. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent pretransplant predictors of EAD: laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.09), the necessity for hospitalization at the time of transplant (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.00-3.30), and graft weight in kilogram (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.45). Using these predictors, we developed the model for EAD after LDLT, which demonstrated strong discriminative ability in the development cohort with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74). The model maintained high discrimination during internal validation (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.73) and showed a modest reduction in discriminative power in external validation (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68). Conclusions. EAD post-LDLT is influenced by the recipient’s pretransplant health condition and the graft weight. Integrating the model for EAD after LDLT into the pretransplant process of pairing donors and recipients can enhance the safety and efficacy of LDLT.

614 Background: Liver transplantation (LT) offers a 5-year survival exceeding 70% for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be used to downstage or bridge to transplantation. This study aims to evaluate the safety of ICIs prior to LT. Methods: Multicenter retrospective study, involving 9 centers, included adults who received ICIs and, subsequent LT, between 2019 and 2023. The ICI cohort was matched by age, sex, liver diseases and transplant date (1:3) with a similar cohort of HCC transplanted patients that did not receive ICIs. Results: The ICI cohort included 45 patients (Table part 1). The most common underlying liver diseases were viral. 15.5% of patients had macrovascular invasion and, 62.2% multifocal disease. The most commonly used ICI was nivolumab (75.6%), followed by atezolizumab-bevacizumab (17.8%). The median follow up was 32.5 months (17.4 - 47.6). The median ICI duration was 147 days (129.5-276.5), with a median interval of 58 days (22–193) between the last ICI dose and LT. There were 8 (17.8%) cases of graft rejection, 2 steroid-resistant leading to 1 graft failure. There were 4 (8%) HCC recurrences. During follow-up there were 6 deaths, 2 related to HCC recurrence and 4 non liver related. When compared with 135 non-ICI cohort patients, there were no differences within the groups (Table part 2). Importantly, we found no significant differences in crude rejection rates (p=0.5). Conclusions: Our study suggest that ICI treatment prior to LT is safe. ICI rejection primarily occurs in the acute post-transplant period (within 3 months), with a low risk of death due to graft failure. Further clinical trials are needed. Part 1: ICI cohort descriptive analysis. N (%); Median (IQR); Part 2: Comparison between cohorts. N (%); Mean (SD). (part 1) ICI-cohort n=45 General data Male 38 (84.4) Age 61.2 (7.6) Etiology of liver diseases Hepatitis C 17 (37.8)Hepatitis B 6 (13.3)MASLD 6 (13.3)Viral +Alcohol 5 (11.1)Alcohol 3 (6.7)Autoimmune 3 (6.7)Other 3 (6.7)Combined viral 2 (4.4) Largest tumor (mm) 39 (22) Macrovascular invasion 7 (15.5) Multifocal 28 (62.2) Locoregional therapy 36 (80.0) Number of locoregional therapies 2 (2) Immunotherapy Nivolumab 34 (75.6) Atezolizumab/bevacizumab 8 (17.8) Pembrolizumab 1 (2.2) Nivolumab+pembrolizumab 1 (2.2) PD1 inhibitor clinical trial 1 (2.2) Days of ICI treatment 147 (203) Radiological tumor response ICI No 17 (37.8) Transplant Deceased donor 43 (95.6) Washout period (days) 58 (171) Induction therapy (anti-thymoglobulin) 8 (17.8) Outcomes Rejection Biopsy proven 8 (17.8) 8 (100) Time to rejection (days) 43 (102) Graft failure Rejection 2 (4.4)1 (2.2) HCC recurrence 4 (8) Deaths 6 (13.3) Follow up Since transplant (months) 32.5 (30.2) (part 2) ICI-cohort (n=45) Non-ICI cohort (n= 135) P Post transplant rejection rate 8 (17.8) 32 (23.7) 0.53 Time to rejection (days) 180.1 (SD 218) 62.2 (SD 62.8) 0.25 Overall deaths 6 (13.3) 10 (7.4) 0.36

ImportanceTranexamic acid reduces bleeding and blood transfusion in many types of surgery, but its effect in patients undergoing liver resection for a cancer-related indication remains unclear.ObjectiveTo determine whether tranexamic acid reduces red blood cell transfusion within 7 days of liver resection.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMulticenter randomized clinical trial of tranexamic acid vs placebo conducted from December 1, 2014, to November 8, 2022, at 10 hepatopancreaticobiliary sites in Canada and 1 site in the United States, with 90-day follow-up. Participants, clinicians, and data collectors were blinded to allocation. A volunteer sample of 1384 patients undergoing liver resection for a cancer-related indication met eligibility criteria and consented to randomization.InterventionsTranexamic acid (1-g bolus followed by 1-g infusion over 8 hours; n = 619) or matching placebo (n = 626) beginning at induction of anesthesia.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was receipt of red blood cell transfusion within 7 days of surgery.ResultsThe primary analysis included 1245 participants (mean age, 63.2 years; 39.8% female; 56.1% with a diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases). Perioperative characteristics were similar between groups. Red blood cell transfusion occurred in 16.3% of participants (n = 101) in the tranexamic acid group and 14.5% (n = 91) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.84-1.56]; P = .38; absolute difference, 2% [95% CI, −2% to 6%]). Measured intraoperative blood loss (tranexamic acid, 817.3 mL; placebo, 836.7 mL; P = .75) and total estimated blood loss over 7 days (tranexamic acid, 1504.0 mL; placebo, 1551.2 mL; P = .38) were similar between groups. Participants receiving tranexamic acid experienced significantly more complications compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.02-1.60]; P = .03), with no significant difference in venous thromboembolism (odds ratio, 1.68 [95% CI, 0.95-3.07]; P = .08).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients undergoing liver resection for a cancer-related indication, tranexamic acid did not reduce bleeding or blood transfusion but increased perioperative complications.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02261415

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.