Search

Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.

As with any other intervention in health, liver transplantation (LT) entails a variety of risks, including donor-transmitted cancers (DTCs). At present, 2%-4% of used deceased organ donors are known to have a current or past history of malignancy. The frequency of DTCs is consistently reported at 3-6 cases per 10 000 solid organ transplants, with a similar frequency in the LT setting. A majority of DTCs are occult cancers unknown in the donor at the time of transplantation. Most DTCs are diagnosed within 2 y after LT and are associated with a 51% probability of survival at 2 y following diagnosis. The probability of death is greatest for DTCs that have already metastasized at the time of diagnosis. The International Liver Transplantation Society-Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático working group on DTC has provided guidance on how to minimize the occurrence of DTCs while avoiding the unnecessary loss of livers for transplantation both in deceased and living donor LT. The group endorses the Council of Europe classification of risk of transmission of cancer from donor to recipient (minimal, low to intermediate, high, and unacceptable), classifies a range of malignancies in the liver donor into these 4 categories, and recommends when to consider LT, mindful of the risk of DTCs, and the clinical condition of patients on the waiting list. We further provide recommendations to professionals who identify DTC events, stressing the need to immediately alert all stakeholders concerned, so a coordinated investigation and management can be initiated; decisions on retransplantation should be made on a case-by-case basis with a multidisciplinary approach., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of elderly donors (≥60 y) in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety of surgery for elderly donors and the impact of donor age on LDLT outcomes., Methods: We, retrospectively, reviewed 470 cases of LDLT at Kumamoto University Hospital from December 1998 to March 2017., Results: Donors were divided into 5 groups according to age: 20-29 (n = 109), 30-39 (n = 157), 40-49 (n = 87), 50-59 (n = 81), and ≥60 (n = 36). At our institution, elderly donor candidates required additional preoperative work-up. There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications and duration of postoperative hospital stay among the 5 donor groups. Regardless of graft type, elderly donors were comparable to younger donor groups (<30 y) in postoperative recovery of liver function. Risk-adjusted overall survival rates of recipients among donor groups were not significantly different. Additionally, donor age was not significantly associated with 6-month graft survival of adult and pediatric recipients., Conclusions: Elderly candidates ≥60 years of age can safely be selected as LDLT donors after meticulous preoperative work-up., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Liver transplantation (LT) offers excellent long-term outcome for certain patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with a push to not simply rely on tumor size and number. Selection criteria should also consider tumor biology (including alpha-fetoprotein), probability of waitlist and post-LT survival (ie, transplant benefit), organ availability, and waitlist composition. These criteria may be expanded for live donor LT (LDLT) compared to deceased donor LT though this should not adversely affect the double equipoise in LDLT, namely ensuring both acceptable recipient outcomes and donor safety. HCC patients with compensated liver disease and minimal tumor burden have low urgency for LT, especially after local-regional therapy with complete response, and do not appear to derive the same benefit from LT as other waitlist candidates. These guidelines were developed to assist in selecting appropriate HCC patients for both deceased donor LT and LDLT.

Liver transplantation (LT) for unresectable colorectal liver metastases has long been abandoned because of dismal prognoses. After the dark ages, advances in chemotherapy and diagnostic imaging have enabled strict patient selection, and the pioneering study from the Oslo group has contributed to the substantial progress in this field. For unresectable neuroendocrine liver metastases, LT for patients who met the Milan criteria was able to achieve excellent long-term outcomes. The guidelines further adopted in the United States and Europe were based on these criteria. For hepatoblastoma, patients with unresectable and borderline-resectable disease are considered good candidates for LT; however, the indications are yet to be defined. In the budding era of transplant oncology, it is critically important to recognize the current status and unsolved questions for each disease entity. These guidelines were developed to serve as a beacon of light for optimal patient selection for LT and set the stage for future basic and clinical studies.

Although liver transplantation (LT) is the best treatment for patients with localized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), recurrence occurs in 6%-18% of patients. Several factors, particularly morphological criteria combined with dynamic parameters, known before LT modify this risk and combined in prediction models may be used to stratify patients at need of variable surveillance strategies. Additional variables though likely explain differences in recurrence rates in patients with the same pre-LT HCC status. One of these variables is possibly immunosuppression (IS). Once recurrence takes place, management is highly heterogenous. Within the International Liver Transplantation Society Consensus Conference on Liver Transplant Oncology, working group 4 aim was to analyze the data regarding posttransplant management of recipients undergoing LT for HCC. Three areas of research were considered: (1) cancer prediction models and surveillance strategies; (2) tailored IS for cancer recipients; and (3) new adjuvant therapies for HCC recurrence. Following formulation of several questions, a literature search was undertaken with abstract review followed by article retrieval and full-data extraction. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system was used for evidence rating incorporating strength of recommendation and quality of evidence.

Liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma has been an absolute contraindication worldwide due to poor results. However, in recent years and thanks to improvements of patient management and treatments of this cancer, this indication has been revisited. This consensus paper, approved by the International Liver Transplant Society, aims to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma.

Background: Liver transplantation is the most suitable treatment option available for end-stage liver disease. However, some patients require retransplantation, despite medical advances that have led to improved survival. We aimed to compile a definitive, nationwide resource of liver retransplantation data in Japan, seeking to identify the predictors of patient survival posttransplantation., Methods: Questionnaires were sent to 32 institutions that had conducted 281 retransplantations before 2015., Results: Among the 265 patients included in this study (142 pediatric cases), the average age at primary transplantation was 23 years, and retransplantation was performed after an average of 1468 days. The main indication for retransplantation was graft rejection (95 patients). Living-donor liver transplantation accounted for 94.7% of primary transplantations and 73.2% of retransplantations. Patient survival at 1, 3, or 5 years did not differ by type of transplantation but was better for pediatric (70.8%, 68.3%, and 60.1%, respectively) than for adult (57.2%, 50.4%, and 45.2%, respectively) recipients (P = 0.0003). Small-for-size syndrome, retransplantation within 365 days, and inpatient status at retransplantation were significant predictors of poor survival in pediatric cases. Retransplantation within 365 days and conditions warranting retransplantation were significant predictors of poor survival in adult patients., Conclusions: In Japan, where >70% of retransplantations are performed using living donors, the indications and timing are different from those in previous reports from other countries, while maintaining comparable survival rates. Considering technical challenges, graft failure within 365 days should be thoroughly restricted to justify the use of living donor.

Background: ABO-incompatible (ABOi) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been performed to compensate for donor shortage. To date, few studies have reported detailed B-cell desensitization protocols and long-term outcomes of ABOi pediatric LDLT., Methods: Twenty-nine pediatric ABOi LDLT recipients were retrospectively analyzed. We compared the clinical outcomes between ABOi (n = 29) and non-ABOi (n = 131) pediatric LDLT recipients. Furthermore, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of our rituximab-based regimen for ABOi pediatric LDLT (2 ≤ age < 18; n = 10)., Results: There were no significant differences in the incidence of infection, vascular complications, biliary complications, and acute cellular rejection between ABOi and non-ABOi groups. The cumulative graft survival rate at 1, 3, and 5 years for non-ABOi group were 92.1%, 87.0%, and 86.1%, and those for ABOi group were 82.8%, 82.8%, and 78.2%, respectively. Rituximab-based desensitization protocol could be performed safely, and reduced CD19+ lymphocyte counts effectively. Although rituximab-treated ABOi group showed comparable clinical outcomes and graft survival rate, 2 patients developed antibody-mediated rejection., Conclusions: ABOi LDLT is a feasible option for pediatric end-stage liver disease patients. However, it should be noted that current desensitization protocol does not completely prevent the onset of antibody-mediated rejection in several cases.

Background: A paucity of data exists for evaluating therapeutic drug monitoring in association with clinical outcomes of cyclosporine A (CYA) treatment in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT)., Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 50 consecutive adult patients who underwent LDLT between 2001 and 2009 to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of 4-hr continuous intravenous infusion of CYA-based immunotherapy (4-hr CYA-IV, n=27) and compare the pharmacokinetic profile and short-term prognoses with an oral microemulsion formulation of CYA (CYA-ME, n=23)., Results: All patients in the 4-hr CYA-IV group reached target CYA peak by day 3 compared with only 22% in the CYA-ME group (P<0.001). Adjustability to achieve the target range was easier in the 4-hr CYA-IV group compared with the CYA-ME group (P=0.017). Acute cellular rejection rate was lower in the 4-hr CYA-IV group (0%) compared with the CYA-ME group (17%, P=0.038). A subset analysis of the CYA-ME group revealed that CYA exposure was affected by external bile output (P=0.006). Patients in the CYA-ME group showed increased risk of switch to tacrolimus (35%) compared with the 4-hr CYA-IV group (7%, P=0.030). Toxicities and mortality rates were equivalent. The optimal initial dose of oral CYA at conversion from the 4-hr CYA-IV was considered to be 3-fold greater than that of the intravenous dose., Conclusions: In LDLT, our 4-hr CYA-IV immunosuppression protocol was superior to CYA-ME oral dosing and allowed accurate therapeutic drug monitoring with excellent patient compliance.