Citations

Importance Ischemia-reperfusion injury contributes to graft dysfunction after liver transplant. Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) has been shown to improve liver function, but its benefit in extended criteria donors in a US population remains unclear. Objective To assess whether back-to-base portal-venous HOPE impacts outcomes after liver transplant in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants The Bridge to HOPE Trial is a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial with 1-year follow-up. The study took place at 15 US liver transplant centers and patients were enrolled between January 2021 and May 2023. Central assessment of complications and cholangiograms for nonanastomotic biliary strictures (NAS) was blinded to treatment arm. Participants included 219 recipients of extended-criteria donor livers after brain death (DBD) and after circulatory death (DCD) who were randomized 1:1 to HOPE after static cold storage (SCS) (n = 109) or SCS only (n = 110). Randomization was performed after liver inspection and acceptance for transplant. Data were analyzed from December 2024 to July 2025. Intervention After SCS and transport, livers underwent portal-venous HOPE until implant, using the VitaSmart HOPE System. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy end point was early allograft dysfunction (EAD). Other main outcomes included model for early allograft function (MEAF) score, hospital length of stay (LOS), patient and graft survival, and biliary complications. Additional post hoc analyses were performed. Results Overall, 219 patients (82 female [37.4%] and 137 male[62.6%]) were included (DCD, 57 of 219 [26%]) with 97% (212 of 219) completing 12-month follow-up. EAD incidence was 20.2% (22 of 109) with HOPE vs 37.3% (41 of 110) with SCS (rate difference, −17.1%; 95% CI, −27.2 to −7.0; noninferiority P < .001; superiority P = .005). HOPE treatment led to significantly lower MEAF mean (SD) scores (HOPE group, 4.28 [1.75]; control group, 4.82 [1.85]; mean difference, −0.54; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.06; P = .03) and shorter median LOS (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.01-1.73; P = .04). NAS on imaging and 1-year survivals were comparable between groups (patients: HOPE group, 106 of 109 [97.2%] vs SCS, 106 of 110 [96.4%]; graft: HOPE group, 104 of 109 [95.4%] vs SCS, 102 of 110 [92.7%]). Post hoc analyses showed numerically less graft loss due to NAS after HOPE (4 vs 1) and less major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥IIIa) per patient, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance Back-to-base portal-venous HOPE was compared with SCS alone for extended risk DBD and DCD livers. The HOPE approach was safe and associated with reduced EAD, MEAF score, and LOS. These findings support the use of HOPE as a pragmatic strategy to improve early posttransplant outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05045794 .

162 Background: In preclinical studies, the tryptophan-metabolizing enzyme, Indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), promotes resistance to radiation in colorectal cancer, and IDO1 inhibition with epacadostat improves tumor radiosensitivity. In a phase 1 trial, patients (pts) with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC, n=17) were treated with epacadostat in combination with short course radiotherapy (SCRT) and CAPOX which was well-tolerated, and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of epacadostat was 400mg BID. Here we report efficacy and safety from the NCI-supported phase 2 (NCT03516708) multicenter, open-label trial (treatment cohort). Methods: Pts were treated with standard of care (SOC) SCRT, then SOC neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by SOC surgical resection or non-operative management (NOM). Epacadostat (400 mg BID) started with SCRT and continued until starting NAC (a minimum of 21 days). Eight pts were enrolled prior to discontinuation of epacadostat by Incyte in February/March 2025. The primary endpoint is Neoadjuvant Rectal (NAR) score. In patients who underwent NOM, we calculated MRI-based tumor regression grade (MR-TRG). Secondary endpoints are pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, complete clinical response (cCR) rate, and progression free survival (PFS). Results: Table 1 summarizes baseline characteristics and endpoints (primary and secondary). NOM was pursued in 7/8 (87.5%) pts, surgical resection was performed on 1/8 (12.5%). At median follow-up of 12 months, local tumor regrowth occurred in 1 pt initially treated with NOM (after tumor regrowth, he underwent salvage surgery and is currently on surveillance). Treatment with epacadostat was interrupted in 2/8 (25%) patients due to grade 3 maculopapular skin rash. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) regardless of causality (all grades (G)/G3-4) were bloating (75%/0%), increased ALT (62.5%/0%), increased AST (50%/0%), nausea (50%/0%), and constipation (50%/0%). Grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 non-cardiac chest pain occurred in 1 patient each (both unrelated to epacadostat). Conclusions: Epacadostat demonstrates promising efficacy and manageable safety in patients with LARC. The biomarker cohort and correlative studies are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03516708 . Baseline characteristics and endpoints. Patient Age Sex Ethnicity Stage Surgery/NOM NAR MR-TRG cCR/pCR Recurrence 1 52 M Caucasian T3N1 NOM NA 2 Y/NA No 2 45 M Caucasian T3N1 NOM NA 3 Y/NA Local tumor regrowth 3 48 M Caucasian T3N2 NOM NA 3 Y/NA No 4 61 M Caucasian T4N2 NOM NA 3 Y/NA No 5 57 M Caucasian T3N0 NOM NA 1 Y/NA No 6 60 F Caucasian T3N1 Surgery 15 3 N/ypT3N0 No 7 67 M Caucasian T4N0 NOM NA 3 Y/NA No 8 51 M Caucasian T4N2 NOM NA P NA No

TPS3648 Background: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) metabolizes tryptophan along the kynurenine pathway and is recognized as a potent suppressor of tumor reactive immunity. Epacadostat is an orally active, potent and selective inhibitor of IDO1. In preclinical studies, IDO1 was found to promote resistance to radiation in rectal cancer, irrespective of microsatellite instability (MSI) status. IDO1 inhibition with epacadostat improved tumor radiosensitivity by relieving immune suppression and augmenting radiation-induced apoptosis while protecting the normal intestine from radiation damage. In a phase 1 trial, 17 patients were enrolled from 4/2019 to 8/2023. Epacadostat in combination with short-course radiation therapy (SCRT) and CAPOX was well-tolerated and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of epacadostat was determined to be 400 mg BID. An NCI supported Phase 2 trial is ongoing to further evaluate the promising disease responses reported in the dose escalation phase. Methods: This phase 2 multicenter, open-label trial includes treatment and biomarker cohorts. In the treatment cohort, epacadostat at 400 mg BID will be administered concurrently with SCRT followed by epacadostat monotherapy until 1 day prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by standard-of-care (SOC) neoadjuvant chemotherapy and, ultimately, surgical resection or non-operative management (NOM). Biomarker cohort enrollment will commence at completion of treatment cohort accrual. Enrolled patients will be treated with SOC SCRT followed by SOC neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection or NOM. Eligible patients must be a treatment-naïve, newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed, locally advanced rectal cancer (defined by 8 th edition AJCC stage 2 or 3, or stage 1 not eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery) with plans to proceed with neoadjuvant SCRT and chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score. Secondary endpoints are pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, complete clinical response (cCR) rate and progression-free survival (PFS). Exploratory endpoints are pharmacodynamics, PDX and organoid generation, identification of molecular predictors of response and resistance, correlation of radiographic and pathologic response and effect of treatment on patient quality of life. We aim to enroll 27 patients in the treatment cohort and 10 in the biomarker cohort. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03516708 .

Objective: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Background: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016–2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Results: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. Conclusion: These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.

Objective: To compare conventional low-temperature storage of transplant donor livers [static cold storage (SCS)] with storage of the organs at physiological body temperature [normothermic machine perfusion (NMP)]. Background: The high success rate of liver transplantation is constrained by the shortage of transplantable organs (eg, waiting list mortality >20% in many centers). NMP maintains the liver in a functioning state to improve preservation quality and enable testing of the organ before transplantation. This is of greatest potential value with organs from brain-dead donor organs (DBD) with risk factors (age and comorbidities), and those from donors declared dead by cardiovascular criteria (donation after circulatory death). Methods: Three hundred eighty-three donor organs were randomized by 15 US liver transplant centers to undergo NMP (n = 192) or SCS (n = 191). Two hundred sixty-six donor livers proceeded to transplantation (NMP: n = 136; SCS: n = 130). The primary endpoint of the study was “early allograft dysfunction” (EAD), a marker of early posttransplant liver injury and function. Results: The difference in the incidence of EAD did not achieve significance, with 20.6% (NMP) versus 23.7% (SCS). Using exploratory, “as-treated” rather than “intent-to-treat,” subgroup analyses, there was a greater effect size in donation after circulatory death donor livers (22.8% NMP vs 44.6% SCS) and in organs in the highest risk quartile by donor risk (19.2% NMP vs 33.3% SCS). The incidence of acute cardiovascular decompensation at organ reperfusion, “postreperfusion syndrome,” as a secondary outcome was reduced in the NMP arm (5.9% vs 14.6%). Conclusions: NMP did not lower EAD, perhaps related to the inclusion of lower-risk liver donors, as higher-risk donor livers seemed to benefit more. The technology is safe in standard organ recovery and seems to have the greatest benefit for marginal donors.

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.

Objective: To define benchmark values for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) enabling unbiased comparisons. Background: Transplantation for PHC is used with reluctance in many centers and even contraindicated in several countries. Although benchmark values for LT are available, there is a lack of specific data on LT performed for PHC. Methods: PHC patients considered for LT after Mayo-like protocol were analyzed in 17 reference centers in 2 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014–2018). The minimum follow-up was 1 year. Benchmark patients were defined as operated at high-volume centers (≥50 overall LT/year) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with a tumor diameter <3 cm, negative lymph nodes, and with the absence of relevant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th to 25th percentiles of the median values of all benchmark centers. Results: One hundred thirty-four consecutive patients underwent LT after completion of the neoadjuvant treatment. Of those, 89.6% qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs were 90-day mortality ≤5.2%; comprehensive complication index at 1 year of ≤33.7; grade ≥3 complication rates ≤66.7%. These values were better than benchmark values for other indications of LT. Five-year disease-free survival was largely superior compared with a matched group of nodal negative patients undergoing curative liver resection (n=106) (62% vs 32%, P<0.001). Conclusion: This multicenter benchmark study demonstrates that LT offers excellent outcomes with superior oncological results in early stage PHC patients, even in candidates for surgery. This provocative observation should lead to a change in available therapeutic algorithms for PHC.

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.

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.