Citations

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: Intracardiac thrombosis (ICT) during liver transplantation (LT) is a rare but life-threatening complication with limited data regarding its risk factors, management, and outcomes. This study aimed to identify factors associated with ICT development, define predictors of intraoperative outcomes, and propose a novel classification and management algorithm for ICT. Methods: A multicenter, international retrospective case-control study was conducted on liver transplant recipients from seven centers between January 2005 and December 2023. ICT cases were identified through transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or autopsy and matched 1:1 with controls. Results: Among 11 077 liver transplant recipients screened, 133 patients (1.2%) developed ICT. ICT occurred predominantly after reperfusion (58%). Compared to controls, ICT cases exhibited higher preoperative international normalized ratio ( P = 0.001) and fibrinogen levels ( P = 0.014). Post-reperfusion syndrome ( P < 0.001), disseminated intravascular coagulation ( P < 0.001), and primary graft failure ( P = 0.002) were also more common in the ICT group. Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration during surgery (odds ratio [OR] 8.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09–38.1; P = 0.004) was associated with ICT development. ICT was associated with markedly higher rates of cardiac arrest ( P < 0.001) and intraoperative mortality ( P < 0.001), with thrombus location in the left heart chambers representing a significant predictor of mortality (OR 20.7, 95% CI: 6.25–81.3; P < 0.001). ICT grades 2 and 3 were associated with a markedly increased risk of intraoperative cardiac arrest ( P < 0.05). Importantly, delayed use of TEE was strongly associated with intraoperative death (OR 6.27, 95% CI: 1.45–27.1; P = 0.014). The 90-day mortality was 43% in ICT cases compared to 4.5% in controls, while 1-year mortality was 46% versus 10.5%, respectively. Conclusions: ICT during LT is a rare but severe complication associated with intraoperative mortality and poor short-term survival. Coagulation profile and intraoperative management play critical roles in ICT development. The early use of TEE enables timely diagnosis and intervention, improving patient outcomes. We propose a novel ICT classification offering a systematic framework for risk stratification and management to mitigate progression and mortality.

HCC recurrence following liver transplantation (LT) is highly morbid and occurs despite strict patient selection criteria. Individualized prediction of post-LT HCC recurrence risk remains an important need. Clinico-radiologic and pathologic data of 4981 patients with HCC undergoing LT from the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (UMHTC) were analyzed to develop a REcurrent Liver cAncer Prediction ScorE (RELAPSE). Multivariable Fine and Gray competing risk analysis and machine learning algorithms (Random Survival Forest and Classification and Regression Tree models) identified variables to model HCC recurrence. RELAPSE was externally validated in 1160 HCC LT recipients from the European Hepatocellular Cancer Liver Transplant study group. Of 4981 UMHTC patients with HCC undergoing LT, 71.9% were within Milan criteria, 16.1% were initially beyond Milan criteria with 9.4% downstaged before LT, and 12.0% had incidental HCC on explant pathology. Overall and recurrence-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89.7%, 78.6%, and 69.8% and 86.8%, 74.9%, and 66.7%, respectively, with a 5-year incidence of HCC recurrence of 12.5% (median 16 months) and non-HCC mortality of 20.8%. A multivariable model identified maximum alpha-fetoprotein (HR = 1.35 per-log SD, 95% CI,1.22–1.50, p < 0.001), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (HR = 1.16 per-log SD, 95% CI,1.04–1.28, p < 0.006), pathologic maximum tumor diameter (HR = 1.53 per-log SD, 95% CI, 1.35–1.73, p < 0.001), microvascular (HR = 2.37, 95%–CI, 1.87–2.99, p < 0.001) and macrovascular (HR = 3.38, 95% CI, 2.41–4.75, p < 0.001) invasion, and tumor differentiation (moderate HR = 1.75, 95% CI, 1.29–2.37, p < 0.001; poor HR = 2.62, 95% CI, 1.54–3.32, p < 0.001) as independent variables predicting post-LT HCC recurrence (C-statistic = 0.78). Machine learning algorithms incorporating additional covariates improved prediction of recurrence (Random Survival Forest C-statistic = 0.81). Despite significant differences in European Hepatocellular Cancer Liver Transplant recipient radiologic, treatment, and pathologic characteristics, external validation of RELAPSE demonstrated consistent 2- and 5-year recurrence risk discrimination (AUCs 0.77 and 0.75, respectively). We developed and externally validated a RELAPSE score that accurately discriminates post-LT HCC recurrence risk and may allow for individualized post-LT surveillance, immunosuppression modification, and selection of high-risk patients for adjuvant therapies.

NAFLD will soon be the most common indication for liver transplantation (LT). In NAFLD, HCC may occur at earlier stages of fibrosis and present with more advanced tumor stage, raising concern for aggressive disease. Thus, adult LT recipients with HCC from 20 US centers transplanted between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed to determine whether NAFLD impacts recurrence-free post-LT survival. Five hundred and thirty-eight (10.8%) of 4981 total patients had NAFLD. Patients with NAFLD were significantly older (63 vs. 58, p<0.001), had higher body mass index (30.5 vs. 27.4, p<0.001), and were more likely to have diabetes (57.3% vs. 28.8%, p<0.001). Patients with NAFLD were less likely to receive pre-LT locoregional therapy (63.6% vs. 72.9%, p<0.001), had higher median lab MELD (15 vs. 13, p<0.001) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (3.8 vs. 2.9, p<0.001), and were more likely to have their maximum pre-LT alpha fetoprotein at time of LT (44.1% vs. 36.1%, p<0.001). NAFLD patients were more likely to have an incidental HCC on explant (19.4% vs. 10.4%, p<0.001); however, explant characteristics including tumor differentiation and vascular invasion were not different between groups. Comparing NAFLD and non-NAFLD patients, the 1, 3, and 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence (3.1%, 9.1%, 11.5% vs. 4.9%, 10.1%, 12.6%, p=0.36) and recurrence-free survival rates (87%, 76%, and 67% vs. 87%, 75%, and 67%, p=0.97) were not different. In competing risks analysis, NAFLD did not significantly impact recurrence in univariable (HR: 0.88, p=0.36) nor in adjusted analysis (HR: 0.91, p=0.49). With NAFLD among the most common causes of HCC and poised to become the leading indication for LT, a better understanding of disease-specific models to predict recurrence is needed. In this NAFLD cohort, incidental HCCs were common, raising concerns about early detection. However, despite less locoregional therapy and high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, explant tumor characteristics and post-transplant recurrence-free survival were not different compared to non-NAFLD patients.

BackgroundCurative surgical treatments afford the best prognosis for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA); however, the comparative effectiveness of treatment options and factors associated with curative treatment receipt for early stage iCCA remain unknown.MethodsThe authors identified patients who were diagnosed with early stage iCCA, defined as a unifocal tumor <3 cm, during 2004–2018 from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to identify the factors associated with curative treatment and overall survival (OS), respectively.ResultsThe proportion of patients with early stage iCCA increased from 4.5% in 2004 to 7.3% in 2018, with the odds of early stage detection increasing by 3.1% per year (odds ratio [OR], 1.031; 95% CI, 1.015–1.049). Of 1093 patients who had early stage iCCA, 464 (42.5%) underwent resection, 113 (10.3%) underwent ablation, 62 (5.7%) underwent liver transplantation, and 454 (41.5%) received noncurative treatments. Hispanic patients (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33–0.97) and Black patients (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28–0.77) were less likely to receive curative treatments than White patients. Compared with patients who underwent surgical resection, those who underwent liver transplantation had a trend toward improved OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37–1.08), whereas those who underwent local ablation (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01–1.92) and noncurative treatments (aHR, 3.97; 95% CI, 3.24–4.88) experienced worse OS.ConclusionsMore than one third of patients with early stage iCCA did not receive curative treatment, with Hispanic and Black patients being less likely to receive curative treatments than White patients. Surgical resection and liver transplantation were associated with improved survival compared with local ablation. Future studies should investigate disparities in curative treatment receipt and outcomes for early stage iCCA.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is an effective strategy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). To qualify for standardized LT model for end-stage liver disease exception points, the United Network for Organ Sharing National Liver Review Board (NLRB) requires that the presenting and final HCC tumor burden be within the University of California San Francisco criteria, which were recently expanded (within expanded UCSF [W-eUCSF]). Current NLRB criteria may be too restrictive because it has been shown previously that the initial burden does not predict LT failure when tumors downstage to UCSF. This study aims to assess LT outcomes for HCC initially presenting beyond expanded UCSF (B-eUCSF) criteria in a large multicenter collaboration. STUDY DESIGN: Comparisons of B-eUCSF and W-eUCSF candidates undergoing LT at seven academic institutions between 2001 and 2017 were made from a multi-institutional database. Survival outcomes were compared by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 1,846 LT recipients with HCC, 86 (5%) met B-eUCSF criteria at initial presentation, with the remainder meeting W-eUCSF criteria. Despite differences in tumor burden, B-eUCSF candidates achieved comparable 1-, 5- and 10-year overall (89%, 70%, and 55% vs 91%, 74%, and 60%, respectively; p = 0.2) and disease-free (82%, 60%, and 53% vs 89%, 71%, and 59%, respectively; p = 0.07) survival to patients meeting W-eUCSF criteria after LT. Despite increased tumor recurrence in B-eUCSF vs W-eUCSF patients (24% vs 10%, p = 0.0002), post-recurrence survival was similar in both groups (p = 0.69). CONCLUSION: Transplantation for patients initially presenting with HCC B-eUSCF criteria offers a survival advantage similar to those with tumors meeting W-eUCSF criteria at presentation. The current NLRB policy is too stringent, and considerations to expand criteria should be discussed.

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.

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is growing in the United States, especially among the elderly. Older patients are increasingly receiving transplants as a result of HCC, but the impact of advancing age on long‐term posttransplant outcomes is not clear. To study this, we used data from the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium of 4980 patients. We divided the patients into 4 groups by age at transplantation: 18 to 64 years (n = 4001), 65 to 69 years (n = 683), 70 to 74 years (n = 252), and ≥75 years (n = 44). There were no differences in HCC tumor stage, type of bridging locoregional therapy, or explant residual tumor between the groups. Older age was confirmed to be an independent and significant predictor of overall survival even after adjusting for demographic, etiologic, and cancer‐related factors on multivariable analysis. A dose‐response effect of age on survival was observed, with every 5‐year increase in age older than 50 years resulting in an absolute increase of 8.3% in the mortality rate. Competing risk analysis revealed that older patients experienced higher rates of non–HCC‐related mortality (P = 0.004), and not HCC‐related death (P = 0.24). To delineate the precise cause of death, we further analyzed a single‐center cohort of patients who received a transplant as a result of HCC (n = 302). Patients older than 65 years had a higher incidence of de novo cancer (18.1% versus 7.6%; P = 0.006) after transplantation and higher overall cancer‐related mortality (14.3% versus 6.6%; P = 0.03). Even carefully selected elderly patients with HCC have significantly worse posttransplant survival rates, which are mostly driven by non–HCC‐related causes. Minimizing immunosuppression and closer surveillance for de novo cancers can potentially improve the outcomes in elderly patients who received a transplant as a result of HCC.

Background and Aims The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently approved liver transplant (LT) prioritization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond Milan Criteria (MC) who are down‐staged (DS) with locoregional therapy (LRT). We evaluated post‐LT outcomes, predictors of down‐staging, and the impact of LRT in patients with beyond‐MC HCC from the U.S. Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (20 centers, 2002‐2013). Approach and Results Clinicopathologic characteristics, overall survival (OS), recurrence‐free survival (RFS), and HCC recurrence (HCC‐R) were compared between patients within MC (n = 3,570) and beyond MC (n = 789) who were down‐staged (DS, n = 465), treated with LRT and not down‐staged (LRT‐NoDS, n = 242), or untreated (NoLRT‐NoDS, n = 82). Five‐year post‐LT OS and RFS was higher in MC (71.3% and 68.2%) compared with DS (64.3% and 59.5%) and was lowest in NoDS (n = 324; 60.2% and 53.8%; overall P < 0.001). DS patients had superior RFS (60% vs. 54%, P = 0.043) and lower 5‐year HCC‐R (18% vs. 32%, P < 0.001) compared with NoDS, with further stratification by maximum radiologic tumor diameter (5‐year HCC‐R of 15.5% in DS/<5 cm and 39.1% in NoDS/>5 cm, P < 0.001). Multivariate predictors of down‐staging included alpha‐fetoprotein response to LRT, pathologic tumor number and size, and wait time >12 months. LRT‐NoDS had greater HCC‐R compared with NoLRT‐NoDS (34.1% vs. 26.1%, P < 0.001), even after controlling for clinicopathologic variables (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.33, P < 0.001) and inverse probability of treatment‐weighted propensity matching (HR = 1.82, P < 0.001). Conclusions In LT recipients with HCC presenting beyond MC, successful down‐staging is predicted by wait time, alpha‐fetoprotein response to LRT, and tumor burden and results in excellent post‐LT outcomes, justifying expansion of LT criteria. In LRT‐NoDS patients, higher HCC‐R compared with NoLRT‐NoDS cannot be explained by clinicopathologic differences, suggesting a potentially aggravating role of LRT in patients with poor tumor biology that warrants further investigation.