Search

In Germany, organ allocation is based on the MELD-system and lab-MELD is usually low in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis. Higher medical urgency can be achieved by standard exception for HCC (SE-HCC), if Milan criteria (MC) are met. Noteworthy, UNOS T2 reflects MC, but excludes singular lesions < 2 cm. Thus, SE-HCC is awarded to patients with one lesion between 2 and 5 cm or 2 to 3 lesions between 1 and 3 cm. These criteria are static and do not reflect biological properties of HCC.We present a retrospective cohort of 111 patients, who underwent liver transplantation at UKSH, Campus Kiel between 2007 and 2017. No difference was found in overall survival for patient cohorts using Milan, UCSF, up-to-seven, and French-AFP criteria. However, there was a significantly reduced survival, if microvascular invasion was detected in the explanted organ and in patients with HCC-recurrence. The exclusive use of static selection criteria including MC appear to limit the access to liver transplantation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

The therapeutic spectrum of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis has expanded over the last decade and consists of surgical, interventional and systemic approaches. The tumor stage and liver function are important for the therapeutic strategy. Curation can be achieved by liver resection or transplantation. Access to transplantation is limited by organ shortage and waiting time. Locoregional therapies can be used as a bridge to transplant or for down-sizing in a neoadjuvant setting as well as palliative therapy. Advanced stages might benefit from systemic or immunotherapy. Modern multimodal therapy planning, timing and reevaluation are part of the tasks of tumor boards specialised in the liver, including the option of liver transplantation. Therapies can be used alone or in combination and according to the experience of the center. A curative strategy should always be pursued at initial presentation., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Only a few decades ago, the opinion that colorectal liver metastases were a palliative diagnosis changed. In fact, previously, the prevailing view was strongly resistant against resecting colorectal liver metastases. Constant technical improvement of liver surgery and, much later, effective chemotherapy allowed for a successful wider application of surgery. The clinical use of portal vein embolization was the starting signal of regenerative liver surgery, where insufficient liver volume can be expanded to an extent where safe resection is possible. Today, a number of these techniques including portal vein ligation, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and bi-embolization (portal and hepatic vein) can be successfully used to address an insufficient future liver remnant in staged resections. It turned out that the road to success is embedding surgery in a well-orchestrated oncological concept of controlling systemic disease. This concept was the prerequisite that meant liver transplantation could enter the treatment strategy for colorectal liver metastases, ending up with a 5-year overall survival of 80% in highly selected cases. In particular, techniques combining principles of 2-stage hepatectomy and liver transplantation, such as "resection and partial liver segment 2-3 transplantation with delayed total hepatectomy" (RAPID) are on the rise. These techniques enable the use of partial liver grafts with primarily insufficient liver volume. All this progress also prompted a number of innovative local therapies to address recurrences ultimately transferring colorectal liver metastases from instantly deadly into a chronic disease in some cases., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Liver surgery and transplantation currently represent the only curative treatment options for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. Despite the ability of the liver to regenerate after tissue loss, 25-30% future liver remnant is considered the minimum requirement to prevent serious risk for post-hepatectomy liver failure., Purpose: The aim of this review is to depict the various interventions for liver parenchyma augmentation-assisting surgery enabling extended liver resections. The article summarizes one- and two-stage procedures with a focus on hypertrophy- and corresponding resection rates., Conclusions: To induce liver parenchymal augmentation prior to hepatectomy, most techniques rely on portal vein occlusion, but more recently inclusion of parenchymal splitting, hepatic vein occlusion, and partial liver transplantation has extended the technical armamentarium. Safely accomplishing major and ultimately total hepatectomy by these techniques requires integration into a meaningful oncological concept. The advent of highly effective chemotherapeutic regimen in the neo-adjuvant, interstage, and adjuvant setting has underlined an aggressive surgical approach in the given setting to convert formerly "palliative" disease into a curative and sometimes in a "chronic" disease., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Liver transplantation has emerged as a highly efficient treatment for a variety of acute and chronic liver diseases. However, organ shortage is becoming an increasing problem globally, limiting the applicability of liver transplantation. In addition, potential recipients are becoming sicker, thereby increasing the risk of losing the graft during transplantation or in the initial postoperative period after liver transplantation (three months). This trend is challenging the model for end-stage liver disease allocation system, where the sickest candidates are prioritised and no delisting criteria are given. The weighting of the deontological demand for "equity", trying to save every patient, regardless of the overall utility; and "efficiency", rooted in utilitarianism, trying to save as many patients as possible and increase the overall quality of life of patients facing the same problem, has to be reconsidered. In this article we are aiming to overcome the widespread concept of futility in liver transplantation, providing a definition of potentially inappropriate liver transplantation and giving guidance on situations where it is best not to proceed with liver transplantation, to decrease the mortality rate in the first three months after transplantation. We propose "absolute" and "relative" conditions, where early post-transplant mortality is highly probable, which are not usually captured in risk scores predicting post-transplant survival. Withholding liver transplantation for listed patients in cases where liver transplant is not deemed clearly futile, but is potentially inappropriate, is a far-reaching decision. Until now, this decision had to be discussed extensively on an individual basis, applying explicit communication and conflict resolution processes, since the model for end-stage liver disease score and most international allocation systems do not include explicit delisting criteria to support a fair delisting process. More work is needed to better identify cases where transplantation is potentially inappropriate and to integrate and discuss these delisting criteria in allocation systems, following a societal debate on what we owe to all liver transplant candidates., (Copyright © 2017 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Liver transplantation (LT) is a highly successful treatment for many patients with nonmalignant and malignant liver diseases. However, there is a worldwide shortage of available organs; many patients deteriorate or die while on waiting lists. We review the important clinical challenges to LT and the best use of the scarce organs. We focus on changes in indications for LT and discuss scoring systems to best match donors with recipients and optimize outcomes, particularly for the sickest patients. We also cover controversial guidelines for the use of LT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Strategies to increase the number of functional donor organs involve techniques to perfuse the organs before implantation. Partial LT (living donor and split liver transplantation) techniques might help to overcome organ shortages, and we discuss small-for-size syndrome. Many new developments could increase the success of this procedure, which is already one of the major achievements in medicine during the second part of the 20th century., (Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Copyright of Der Chirurg is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Simple Summary: Liver transplantation (LT) is the only definitive treatment to cure hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis. Unfortunately, the shortage of donor livers limits access to the best available therapy. As a consequence, transplant candidates undergo selection for transparent waiting list acceptance and priority using the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). Allocation of standard exception (SE) points for HCC inside the Milan-criteria balances the underrepresented urgency by labMELD in these patients who are exposed to tumor progression. Moreover, patients with HCC outside Milan can undergo LT without SE and might benefit from extended criteria donor (ECD)-grafts. We hypothesized that LT for Milan-out patients is associated with a more complicated postoperative course, reflecting higher costs. Interestingly, we found that LT for patients with Milan-in and Milan-out had comparable donor risk index, clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness. In conclusion, LT with ECD-grafts can have the maximum benefit for selected patients and bear limited financial risk. Liver transplantation (LT) is the only definitive treatment to cure hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis. Waiting-list candidates are selected by the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). However, many indications are not sufficiently represented by labMELD. For HCC, patients are selected by Milan-criteria: Milan-in qualifies for standard exception (SE) and better organ access on the waiting list; while Milan-out patients are restricted to labMELD and might benefit from extended criteria donor (ECD)-grafts. We analyzed a cohort of 102 patients (2011–2020). Patients with labMELD (no SE, Milan-out, n = 56) and matchMELD (SE-HCC, Milan-in, n = 46) were compared. The median overall survival was not significantly different (p = 0.759). No difference was found in time on the waiting list (p = 0.881), donor risk index (p = 0.697) or median costs (p = 0.204, EUR 43,500 (EUR 17,800–185,000) for labMELD and EUR 30,300 (EUR 17,200–395,900) for matchMELD). Costs were triggered by a cut-off labMELD of 12 points. Overall, the deficit increased by EUR 580 per labMELD point. Cost drivers were re-operation (p < 0.001), infection with multiresistant germs (p = 0.020), dialysis (p = 0.017), operation time (p = 0.012) and transfusions (p < 0.001). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that LT for HCC is successful and cost-effective in low labMELD patients independent of Milan-criteria. Therefore, ECD-grafts are favorized in Milan-out HCC patients with low labMELD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]