Liver transplantation for primary and secondary liver tumours. patient-level meta-analyses compared to unos conventional indications.


Journal

Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)
ISSN: 1527-3350
Titre abrégé: Hepatology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8302946

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 09 03 2024
accepted: 26 08 2024
medline: 28 10 2024
pubmed: 28 10 2024
entrez: 28 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Liver transplant (LT) for Transplant Oncology (TO) indications is being slowly adopted worldwide and has been recommended to be incorporated cautiously due to concerns on mid-long term survival and its impact on waiting list. We conducted four systematic reviews of all series on TO indications (intrahepatic (iCC) and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (phCC)), liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumors (NET) and colorectal cancer (CRLM)) and compared them using patient-level meta-analyses to data obtained from UNOS database considering conventional daily-practice indications. Secondary analyses were done for specific selection criteria (Mayo-like protocols for phCC, SECA-2 for CRLM and Milan criteria for NET). A total of 112.014 LT were analyzed from 2005 to 2020 from the UNOS databases and compared with 345, 721, 494 and 103 patients obtained from meta-analyses on iCC and phCC, and liver metastases from NET and CRLM, respectively. Five-years overall survival was 53,3%, 56,4%, 68,6% and 53,8%, respectively. In Mantel-Cox one-to-one comparisons, survival of TO indications was superior to combined LT, second and third LT and and not statistically significant different to LT in recipients>70 years and high BMI. Liver transplantation for TO indications has adequate 5-years survival rates, mostly when performed under the selection criteria available in literature (Mayo-like protocols for phCC, SECA-2 for CRLM and Milan for NET). Despite concerns on its impact on waiting list, some other LT indications are being performed with lower survival. These oncological patients should be given the opportunity to have a definitive curative therapy within validated criteria.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AIMS UNASSIGNED
Liver transplant (LT) for Transplant Oncology (TO) indications is being slowly adopted worldwide and has been recommended to be incorporated cautiously due to concerns on mid-long term survival and its impact on waiting list.
APPROACH RESULTS UNASSIGNED
We conducted four systematic reviews of all series on TO indications (intrahepatic (iCC) and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (phCC)), liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumors (NET) and colorectal cancer (CRLM)) and compared them using patient-level meta-analyses to data obtained from UNOS database considering conventional daily-practice indications. Secondary analyses were done for specific selection criteria (Mayo-like protocols for phCC, SECA-2 for CRLM and Milan criteria for NET). A total of 112.014 LT were analyzed from 2005 to 2020 from the UNOS databases and compared with 345, 721, 494 and 103 patients obtained from meta-analyses on iCC and phCC, and liver metastases from NET and CRLM, respectively. Five-years overall survival was 53,3%, 56,4%, 68,6% and 53,8%, respectively. In Mantel-Cox one-to-one comparisons, survival of TO indications was superior to combined LT, second and third LT and and not statistically significant different to LT in recipients>70 years and high BMI.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Liver transplantation for TO indications has adequate 5-years survival rates, mostly when performed under the selection criteria available in literature (Mayo-like protocols for phCC, SECA-2 for CRLM and Milan for NET). Despite concerns on its impact on waiting list, some other LT indications are being performed with lower survival. These oncological patients should be given the opportunity to have a definitive curative therapy within validated criteria.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39465987
doi: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000001129
pii: 01515467-990000000-01061
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Auteurs

Ruben Ciria (R)

Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation. University Hospital Reina Sofia. University of Cordoba. IMIBIC. Cordoba. Spain.
Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery. Hospital Quiron Salud. Cordoba. Spain.

Tommy Ivanics (T)

Multi-Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Akademiska Sjukhuset, Uppsala, Sweden.

Daniel Aliseda (D)

Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit. Clinica Universidad de Navarra. Pamplona. Spain. Institute of Health Research of Navarra (IdisNA), Pamplona, Spain.

Marco Claasen (M)

Multi-Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Felipe Alconchel (F)

Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation. Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen Arrixaca. University of Medicine. IMIB-Pascual Parrilla. Murcia. Spain.

Felipe Gaviria (F)

Multi-Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Division of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Javier Briceño (J)

Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation. University Hospital Reina Sofia. University of Cordoba. IMIBIC. Cordoba. Spain.

Giammauro Berardi (G)

General Surgery and Organ Transplantation Unit, San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy.

Fernando Rotellar (F)

Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit. Clinica Universidad de Navarra. Pamplona. Spain. Institute of Health Research of Navarra (IdisNA), Pamplona, Spain.

Gonzalo Sapisochin (G)

Multi-Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Division of General Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Classifications MeSH