Search

Background & Aims: In Italy, since August 2014, liver transplant (LT) candidates with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores ≥30 receive national allocation priority. This multicenter cohort study aims to evaluate time on the waiting list, dropout rate, and graft survival before and after introducing the macro-area sharing policy. Methods: A total of 4,238 patients registered from 2010 to 2018 were enrolled and categorized into an ERA-1 Group (n = 2,013; before August 2014) and an ERA-2 Group (n = 2,225; during and after August 2014). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of receiving a LT or death between the two eras. The Fine-Gray model was used to estimate the HR for dropout from the waiting list and graft loss, considering death as a competing risk event. A Fine-Gray model was also used to estimate risk factors of graft loss. Results: Patients with MELD ≥30 had a lower median time on the waiting list (4 vs.12 days, p <0.001) and a higher probability of being transplanted (HR 2.27; 95% CI 1.78–2.90; p = 0.001) in ERA-2 compared to ERA-1. The subgroup analysis on 3,515 LTs confirmed ERA-2 (odds ratio 0.56; 95% CI 0.46–0.68; p = 0.001) as a protective factor for better graft survival rate. The protective variables for lower dropouts on the waiting list were: ERA-2, high-volume centers, no competition centers, male recipients, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The protective variables for graft loss were high-volume center and ERA-2, while MELD ≥30 remained related to a higher risk of graft loss. Conclusions: The national MELD ≥30 priority allocation was associated with improved patient outcomes, although MELD ≥30 was associated with a higher risk of graft loss. Transplant center volumes and competition among centers may have a role in recipient prioritization and outcomes. Clinical trial number: NCT04530240 Lay summary: Italy introduced a new policy in 2014 to give national allocation priority to patients with a mo

In the original publication of this article, after the name of the last author, the wording on behalf of the Italian Liver Transplant Working Group is missing.

Several studies have explored the risk of graft dysfunction after liver transplantation (LT) in recent years. Conversely, risk factors for graft discard before or at procurement have poorly been investigated. The study aimed at identifying a score to predict the risk of liver-related graft discard before transplantation. Secondary aims were to test the score for prediction of biopsy-related negative features and post-LT early graft loss. A total of 4207 donors evaluated during the period January 2004–Decemeber 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The group was split into a training set (n = 3,156; 75.0%) and a validation set (n = 1,051; 25.0%). The Donor Rejected Organ Pre-transplantation (DROP) Score was proposed: − 2.68 + (2.14 if Regional Share) + (0.03*age) + (0.04*weight)-(0.03*height) + (0.29 if diabetes) + (1.65 if anti-HCV-positive) + (0.27 if HBV core) − (0.69 if hypotension) + (0.09*creatinine) + (0.38*log10AST) + (0.34*log10ALT) + (0.06*total bilirubin). At validation, the DROP Score showed the best AUCs for the prediction of liver-related graft discard (0.82; p < 0.001) and macrovesicular steatosis ≥ 30% (0.71; p < 0.001). Patients exceeding the DROP 90th centile had the worse post-LT results (3-month graft loss: 82.8%; log-rank P = 0.024).The DROP score represents a valuable tool to predict the risk of liver function-related graft discard, steatosis, and early post-LT graft survival rates. Studies focused on the validation of this score in other geographical settings are required.

Introduction: Liver transplantation (LT) is burdened by the risk of post-operative morbidity. Identifying patients at higher risk of developing complications can help allocate resources in the perioperative phase. Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score, based on lymphocyte count, serum albumin, and cholesterol levels, has been applied to various surgical specialties, proving reliable in predicting complications and prognosis. Our study aims to investigate the role of the CONUT score in predicting the development of early complications (within 90 days) after LT. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 209 patients with a calculable CONUT score within 2 months before LT. The ability of the CONUT score to predict severe complications, defined as a Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) ≥42.1, was examined. Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting was used to balance the study population against potential confounders. Results: Patients with a CCI ≥42.1 had higher CONUT score values (median: 7 vs. 5, P-value < 0.0001). The CONUT score showed a good diagnostic ability regarding post-LT morbidity, with an AUC = 0.72 (95.0%CI = 0.64–0.79; P-value < 0.0001). The CONUT score was the only independent risk factor identified for a complicated post-LT course, with an odds ratio = 1.39 (P-value < 0.0001). The 90-day survival rate was 98.8% and 87.5% for patients with a CONUT score <8 and ≥8, respectively. Conclusions: Pre-operative CONUT score is a helpful tool to identify patients at increased post-LT morbidity risk. Further refinements in the score composition, specific to the LT population, could be obtained with prospective studies.

Background: In southern Europe, the risk of cancer in patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving dialysis has not been well quantified. The aim of this study was to assess the overall pattern of risk for de novo malignancies (DNMs) among dialysis patients in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region, north-eastern Italy. Methods: A population-based cohort study among 3407 dialysis patients was conducted through a record linkage between local healthcare databases and the cancer registry (1998-2013). Person-years (PYs) were calculated from 30 days after the date of first dialysis to the date of DNM diagnosis, kidney transplant, death, last follow-up or December 31, 2013, whichever came first. The risk of DNM, as compared to the general population, was estimated using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: During 10,798 PYs, 357 DNMs were diagnosed in 330 dialysis patients. A higher than expected risk of 1.3-fold was found for all DNMs combined (95% CI: 1.15-1.43). The risk was particularly high in younger dialysis patients (SIR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.42-2.45 for age 40-59 years), and it decreased with age. Moreover, significantly increased DNM risks emerged during the first 3 years since dialysis initiation, especially within the first year (SIR = 8.52, 95% CI: 6.89-10.41). Elevated excess risks were observed for kidney (SIR = 3.18; 95% CI: 2.06-4.69), skin non-melanoma (SIR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.46-2.22), oral cavity (SIR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.36-4.00), and Kaposi's sarcoma (SIR = 10.29, 95% CI: 1.25-37.16). Conclusions: The elevated risk for DNM herein documented suggest the need to implement a targeted approach to cancer prevention and control in dialysis patients.

In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the Milan criteria (MC), the benefit of locoregional therapies (LRTs) in the context of liver transplantation (LT) is still debated. Initial biases in the selection between treated and untreated patients have yielded conflicting reported results. The study aimed to identify, using a competing risk analysis, risk factors for HCC-dependent LT failure, defined as pretransplant tumor-related delisting or posttransplant recurrence. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identification number NCT03723304). In order to offset the initial limitations of the investigated population, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was used: 1083 MC-in patients (no LRT = 182; LRT = 901) were balanced using 8 variables: age, sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) value, hepatitis C virus status, hepatitis B virus status, largest lesion diameter, number of nodules, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). All the covariates were available at the first referral. After the IPTW, a pseudo-population of 2019 patients listed for LT was analyzed, comparing 2 homogeneous groups of untreated (n = 1077) and LRT-treated (n = 942) patients. Tumor progression after LRT was the most important independent risk factor for HCC-dependent failure (subhazard ratio [SHR], 5.62; P < 0.001). Other independent risk factors were major tumor diameter, AFP, MELD, patient age, male sex, and period of wait-list registration. One single LRT was protective compared with no treatment (SHR, 0.51; P < 0.001). The positive effect was still observed when 2-3 treatments were performed (SHR, 0.66; P = 0.02), but it was lost in the case of ≥4 LRTs (SHR, 0.80; P = 0.27). In conclusion, for MC-in patients, up to 3 LRTs are beneficial for success in intention-to-treat LT patients, with a 49% to 34% reduction in failure risk compared with untreated patients. This benefit is lost if more LRTs are required. A poor response to LRT is associ

In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the Milan criteria (MC), the benefit of locoregional therapies (LRTs) in the context of liver transplantation (LT) is still debated. Initial biases in the selection between treated and untreated patients have yielded conflicting reported results. The study aimed to identify, using a competing risk analysis, risk factors for HCC-dependent LT failure, defined as pretransplant tumor-related delisting or posttransplant recurrence. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identification number NCT03723304). In order to offset the initial limitations of the investigated population, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was used: 1083 MC-in patients (no LRT = 182; LRT = 901) were balanced using 8 variables: age, sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) value, hepatitis C virus status, hepatitis B virus status, largest lesion diameter, number of nodules, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). All the covariates were available at the first referral. After the IPTW, a pseudo-population of 2019 patients listed for LT was analyzed, comparing 2 homogeneous groups of untreated (n = 1077) and LRT-treated (n = 942) patients. Tumor progression after LRT was the most important independent risk factor for HCC-dependent failure (subhazard ratio [SHR], 5.62; P < 0.001). Other independent risk factors were major tumor diameter, AFP, MELD, patient age, male sex, and period of wait-list registration. One single LRT was protective compared with no treatment (SHR, 0.51; P < 0.001). The positive effect was still observed when 2-3 treatments were performed (SHR, 0.66; P = 0.02), but it was lost in the case of ≥4 LRTs (SHR, 0.80; P = 0.27). In conclusion, for MC-in patients, up to 3 LRTs are beneficial for success in intention-to-treat LT patients, with a 49% to 34% reduction in failure risk compared with untreated patients.

Prognosticating outcomes in liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to challenge the field. Although Milan Criteria (MC) generalized the practice of LT for HCC and improved outcomes, its predictive character has degraded with increasing candidate and oncological heterogeneity. We sought to validate and recalibrate a previously developed, preoperatively calculated, continuous risk score, the Hazard Associated with Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HALTHCC), in an international cohort. From 2002 to 2014, 4,089 patients (both MC in and out [25.2%]) across 16 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia were included. A continuous risk score using pre-LT levels of alpha-fetoprotein, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium score, and tumor burden score was recalibrated among a randomly selected cohort (n = 1,021) and validated in the remainder (n = 3,068). This study demonstrated significant heterogeneity by site and year, reflecting practice trends over the last decade. On explant pathology, both vascular invasion (VI) and poorly differentiated component (PDC) increased with increasing HALTHCC score. The lowest-risk patients (HALTHCC 0-5) had lower rates of VI and PDC than the highest-risk patients (HALTHCC > 35) (VI, 7.7%[ 1.2-14.2] vs. 70.6% [48.3-92.9] and PDC:4.6% [0.1%-9.8%] vs. 47.1% [22.6-71.5]; P < 0.0001 for both). This trend was robust to MC status. This international study was used to adjust the coefficients in the HALTHCC score. Before recalibration, HALTHCC had the greatest discriminatory ability for overall survival (OS; C-index = 0.61) compared to all previously reported scores. Following recalibration, the prognostic utility increased for both recurrence (C-index = 0.71) and OS (C-index = 0.63). Conclusion: This large international trial validated and refined the role for the continuous risk metric, HALTHCC, in establishing pre-LT risk among candidates with HCC worldwide. Prospective trials introducing HA