Expanding Selection Criteria in Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Long-term Follow-up of a National Registry and 2 Transplant Centers
Chase J. Wehrle, Jiro Kusakabe, Miho Akabane, Marianna Maspero, Bobby Zervos, Jamak Modaresi Esfeh, Maureen Whitsett Linganna, Yuki Imaoka, Mazhar Khalil, Alejandro Pita, Jaekeun Kim, Teresa Diago‐Uso, Masato Fujiki, Bijan Eghtesad, Cristiano Quintini, Choon Hyuck David Kwon, Antonio Pinna, Federico Aucejo, Charles C. Miller, Vincenzo Mazzaferro, Andrea Schlegel, Kazunari Sasaki, Koji Hashimoto
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compares selection criteria for liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for inclusivity and predictive ability to identify the most permissive criteria that maintain patient outcomes. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database was queried for deceased donor LT's for HCC (2003-2020) with 3-y follow-up; these data were compared with a 2-center experience. Milan, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 5-5-500, Up-to-seven (U7), HALT-HCC, and Metroticket 2.0 scores were calculated. RESULTS: Nationally, 26 409 patients were included, and 547 at the 2 institutions. Median SRTR-follow-up was 6.8 y (interquartile range 3.9-10.1). Three criteria allowed the expansion of candidacy versus Milan: UCSF (7.7%, n = 1898), Metroticket 2.0 (4.2%, n = 1037), and U7 (3.5%, n = 828). The absolute difference in 3-y overall survival (OS) between scores was 1.5%. HALT-HCC (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.559, 0.551-0.567) best predicted 3-y OS although AUC was notably similar between criteria (0.506 < AUC < 0.527, Mila n = 0.513, UCSF = 0.506, 5-5-500 = 0.522, U7 = 0.511, HALT-HCC = 0.559, and Metroticket 2.0 = 0.520), as was Harrall's c-statistic (0.507 < c-statistic < 0.532). All scores predicted survival to P < 0.001 on competing risk analysis. Median follow-up in our enterprise was 9.8 y (interquartile range 7.1-13.3). U7 (13.0%, n = 58), UCSF (11.1%, n = 50), HALT-HCC (6.4%, n = 29), and Metroticket 2.0 (6.3%, n = 28) allowed candidate expansion. HALT-HCC (AUC = 0.768, 0.713-0.823) and Metroticket 2.0 (AUC = 0.739, 0.677-0.801) were the most predictive of recurrence. All scores predicted recurrence and survival to P < 0.001 using competing risk analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Less restrictive criteria such as Metroticket 2.0, UCSF, or U7 allow broader application of transplants for HCC without sacrificing outcomes. Thus, the criteria for Model for End-stage Liver Disease-exception points for HCC should be expanded to allow more patients to receive life-saving transplantation.