Search

Although the diagnostic value of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) protocol is well recognized in clinical practice, its role in liver transplant (LT) setting is under-explored. We sought to evaluate the oncological impact of LI-RADS classification applied to Metroticket 2.0 calculator in a single-centre retrospective cohort of transplanted hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, exploring which LI-RADS subclasses need to be considered in order to grant the best Metroticket 2.0 performance. The most recent pre-LT imaging of 245 patients undergoing LT for HCC between 2005 and 2015 was retrospectively and blindly reviewed, classifying all nodules according to LI-RADS protocol. Metroticket 2.0 accuracy was subsequently tested incorporating all vital nodules identified during multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings attended before LI-RADS reclassification of the latest pre-LT imaging, LR-5 and LR-treatment-viable (LR-TR-V), LR-4/5 and LR-TR-V, and LR-3/4/5 and LR-TR-V nodules respectively. Considering their extremely low probability for harbouring HCC, LR-1 and LR-2 nodules were not considered in this analysis. Incorporation of all HCCs identified during MDT meetings attended before LI-RADS reclassification of the latest pre-LT imaging resulted in a Metroticket 2.0 c-index of 0.72, [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64–0.80]. Metroticket 2.0 c-index dropped to 0.60 [95% CI: 0.48–0.72] when LI-RADS-5 and LI-RADS-TR-V (P=0.0089) or LI-RADS-5, LI-RADS-4 and LI-RADS-TR-V (P=0.0068) nodules were entered in the calculator. Conversely, addition of LI-RADS-3 HCCs raised the Metroticket 2.0 c-index to 0.65 [95% CI: 0.54–0.86], resulting in a not statistically significant diversion from the original performance (0.72 vs. 0.65; P=0.08). Exclusion of LR-3 and LR-4 nodules from Metroticket 2.0 calculator resulted in a significant drop in its accuracy. Every nodule with an intermediate-to-high probability of harbouring HCC according to LI-RADS protocol seems to contribute to tumour burden and should be entered in the Metroticket 2.0 calculator in order to grant appropriate performance.

The treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) relies on liver resection, which is, however, burdened by a high rate of recurrence after surgery, up to 60% at 5 years. No pre-operative tools are currently available to assess the recurrence risk tailored to every single patient. Recently liquid biopsy has shown interesting results in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment allocation strategies in other types of cancers, since its ability to identify circulating tumor cells (CTCs) derived from the primary tumor. Those cells were advocated to be responsible for the majority of cases of recurrence and cancer-related deaths for HCC. In fact, after being modified by the epithelial-mesenchymal transition, CTCs circulate as "seeds " in peripheral blood, then reach the target organ as dormant cells which could be subsequently "awakened " and activated, and then initiate metastasis. Their presence may justify the disagreement registered in terms of efficacy of anatomic vs non-anatomic resections, particularly in the case of microvascular invasion, which has been recently pointed as a histological sign of the spread of those cells. Thus, their presence, also in the early stages, may justify the recurrence event also in the contest of liver transplant. Understanding the mechanism behind the tumor progression may allow improving the treatment selection according to the biological patient-based characteristics. Moreover, it may drive the development of novel biological tailored tests which could address a specific patient to neoadjuvant or adjuvant strategies, and in perspective, it could also become a new method to allocate organs for transplantation, according to the risk of relapse after liver transplant. The present paper will describe the most recent evidence on the role of CTCs in determining the relapse of HCC, highlighting their potential clinical implication as novel tumor behavior biomarkers able to influence the surgical choice.

Background Management of recurrence after surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) is still a debate. The aim was to compare the Survival after Recurrence (SAR) of curative (surgery or thermoablation) versus palliative (TACE or Sorafenib) treatments for patients with rHCC. Methods This is a multicentric Italian study, which collected data between 2007 and 2018 from 16 centers. Selected patients were then divided according to treatment allocation in Curative (CUR) or Palliative (PAL) Group. Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) was used to weight the groups. Results 1,560 patients were evaluated, of which 421 experienced recurrence and were then eligible: 156 in CUR group and 256 in PAL group. Tumor burden and liver function were weighted by IPW, and two pseudo-population were obtained (CUR = 397.5 and PAL = 415.38). SAR rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were respectively 98.3%, 76.7%, 63.8% for CUR and 91.7%, 64.2% and 48.9% for PAL (p = 0.007). Median DFS was 43 months (95%CI = 32-74) for CUR group, while it was 23 months (95%CI = 18-27) for PAL (p = 0.017). Being treated by palliative approach (HR = 1.75; 95%CI = 1.14–2.67; p = 0.01) and having a median size of the recurrent nodule>5 cm (HR = 1.875; 95%CI = 1.22–2.86; p = 0.004) were the only predictors of mortality after recurrence, while time to recurrence was the only protective factor (HR = 0.616; 95%CI = 0.54–0.69; p Conclusion Curative approaches may guarantee long-term survival in case of recurrence.

Background: We aimed to assess the ability of comprehensive complication index (CCI) and Clavien-Dindo complication (CDC) scale to predict excessive length of hospital stay (e-LOS) in patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: Patients were identified from an Italian multi-institutional database and randomly selected to be included in either a derivation or validation set. Multivariate logistic regression models and ROC curve analysis including either CCI or CDC as predictors of e-LOS were fitted to compare predictive performance. E-LOS was defined as a LOS longer than the 75th percentile among patients with at least one complication. Results: A total of 2669 patients were analyzed (1345 for derivation and 1324 for validation). The odds ratio (OR) was 5.590 (95%CI 4.201, 7.438) for CCI and 5.507 (4.152, 7.304) for CDC. The AUC was 0.964 for CCI and 0.893 for CDC in the derivation set and 0.962 vs. 0.890 in the validation set, respectively. In patients with at least two complications, the OR was 2.793 (1.896, 4.115) for CCI and 2.439 (1.666, 3.570) for CDC with an AUC of 0.850 and 0.673, respectively in the derivation cohort. The AUC was 0.806 for CCI and 0.658 for CDC in the validation set. Conclusions: When reporting postoperative morbidity in liver surgery, CCI is a preferable scale.

Background: The benefit of anatomic (AR) versus parenchyma-sparing resection (PSR) in hepatocarcinoma (HCC) is still debated. The aim of the study was to compare AR vs. PSR in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Methods: A systematic review was conducted using Medline and Google Scholar. To reduce intra- and inter-study heterogeneity, only propensity-matched studies and randomized clinical trials (RCT) were evaluated and a generic inverse variance meta-analysis was run. A sub-analysis was performed in case of tumor microvascular invasion (MVI). Results: Eleven propensity-matched and one RCT were evaluated, with a total of 3445 patients (AR = 1776 and PSR = 1669). Tumor burden and liver function were comparable among studies (I2< 50%, p > 0.5). OS was similar between AR and PSR (HR 0.93; 95%CI, 0.75–1.15; p = 0.50, I2= 41%). DFS was improved in AR at 1year (RR 0.84; 95%CI, 0.72–0.97; p = 0.02; I2= 36%) and 3years (RR 0.90; 95%CI, 0.83–0.98; p= 0.02; I2= 40%) but not at 5years (RR 0.94; 95%CI, 0.87–1.01; p = 0.07; I2= 41%). Furthermore, in the presence of MVI, no difference in OS and DFS was observed between AR and PSR. Conclusion: When liver function and tumor burden are comparable, AR and PSR achieved similar overall survival. AR improved local control in the early period after surgery. Furthermore, in the presence of MVI, the extension of surgery was not associated with better OS and DFS.

Background: Optimal treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond the Milan criteria (MC) is debated. The aim of the study was to assess overall-survival (OS) and disease-free-survival (DFS) for HCC beyond MC when treated by trans-arterial-chemoembolization (TACE) or surgical resection (SR). Method: between 2005 and 2015, all patients with a first diagnosis of HCC beyond MC(1 nodule>5 cm, or 3 nodules>3 cm without macrovascular invasion) were evaluated. Analyses were carried out through Kaplan–Meier, Cox models and the inverse probability weighting (IPW) method to reduce allocation bias. Sub-analyses have been performed for multinodular and single large tumors compared with a MC-IN cohort. Results: 226 consecutive patients were evaluated: 118 in SR group and 108 in TACE group. After IPW, the two pseudo-populations were comparable for tumor burden and liver function. In the SR group, 1–5 years OS rates were 72.3% and 35% respectively and 92.7% and 39.3% for TACE (p = 0.500). The median DFS was 8 months (95%CI:8–9) for TACE, and 11 months (95%CI:9–12) for SR (p < 0.001). TACE was an independent predictor for recurrence (HR 1.5; 95%CI: 1.1–2.1; p = 0.015). Solitary tumors > 5 cm and multinodular disease had comparable OS and DFS as Milan-IN group (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Surgery allowed a better control than TACE in patient bearing HCC beyond MC. This translated into a significant benefit in terms of DFS but not OS.