Comparison Between Living Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients Who Met the Milan and UCSF Criteria After Successful Downstaging Therapies
- First Online:
- 404 Downloads
Background and Aims
Various downstaging therapies were introduced to liver recipients who could not meet the relative criteria for liver transplantation, and many endpoints were reported. The most common criteria used were the Milan criteria and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria. However, no comparison was made between them, and we attempted to find possible differences between the living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) patients who met the Milan criteria and those who met the UCSF criteria after accepting preoperative downstaging therapies.
Materials and Methods
We performed a retrospective study of all 72 patients at our center from January 2003 to March 2009 who were diagnosed with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma but accepted various downstaging therapies. Some patients met the Milan criteria (group 1), and some met the UCSF criteria (group 2) but not the Milan criteria. We collected the data from the two groups and then compared the preoperative demographic data, downstaging therapies, intraoperative data from LDLT, and the recovery and complications after LDLT. Survival rates were compared using Kaplan–Meier analysis.
Only 44 patients (61.1 %) met the criteria for liver transplantation, 21 cases met the Milan criteria (group 1), and 23 cases met the UCSF criteria (group 2) but not the Milan criteria. All of the 44 patients accepted right lobe living liver donor liver transplantation in our center. The difference in the baseline characteristics between the two groups did not reach statistical significance. The mean number of downstaging treatments per patient was 1.81 ± 0.35 in group 1 and 1.83 ± 0.41 in group 2 (P = 0.928). Most of the patients received only one downstaging treatment, and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) was the most common downstaging therapy. Four patients suffered complications after downstaging therapies: intra-abdominal hemorrhage after right hepatectomy, upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage after TACE, biliary fistula after resection, and hand–foot syndrome after taking sorafenib. All complications after LDLT, classified according to the Clavien–Dindo system, were compared within the two groups, and the calculated score of the complications in group 1 was 1.48 ± 1.63, which was greater than that of group 2 (1.39 ± 1.64), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.865). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 90.4, 76.2, and 71.4 % in group 1 and 91.3, 73.9, and 69.6 % in group 2, respectively (P > 0.05). Seven patients (three in group 1 and four in group 2) had tumor recurrence after a median follow-up period of 72 months. The pathology findings were not different between the two groups.
Recipients who meet the Milan or UCSF criteria after accepting successful preoperative downstaging therapy in LDLT can achieve the same result.
KeywordsDonor Liver Transplantation Downstaging
University of California, San Francisco
Living donor liver transplantation
Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization
United Network for Organ Sharing
Body mass index
Intensive care unit
Graft-to-recipient weight ratio
Orthotopic liver transplantation
- 2.EI- Serag HB. Hepatocelluar carcinoma: an epidemiologic view. ClinGastroenterol 2002; 35:S72-S78Google Scholar
- 9.United Network for Organ Sharing. Liver transplant candidate with hepatocelluar carcinoma. Policy 18.104.22.168, September 18, 2007. http://www.unos.org/policiesandbylaws/ policies. asp. Accessed February 2009
- 11.Barbier L, Muscari F, Le Guellec S, Pariente A, Otal P, Suc B. Live resection after downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma with sorafenib. Int J Hepato.2011;2011:791013. Epub 2011 Mar 20Google Scholar
- 12.Lewandowski RJ, Kulik LM, Riaz A, Senthilnathan S, Mulcahy MF, RyuRK, Ibrahim SM, Sato KT, Baker T, Miller FH, Omary R, Abecassis M, Salem R. A comparative analysis of transarterial downstaging for hepatocelluar carcinoma: chemoembolization versus radioembolization. Am J Transplant 2009 Aug;9(8):1920-8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Nguyen MH, KeeffeEB. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. In: Rustagi AK, Crawford J, eds. Gastrointestinal cancer: A companion to Sleisenger&Fordtran’s GI and liver diseases. Philadelphia: Saunders,2003;605-622Google Scholar
- 15.Barakat O, Wood RP, Ozaki CF, Ankoma-Sey V, Galati J, Skolkin M, Toombs B, Round M, Moore W, Mieles L. Morphological feature of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma as a predictor of downstaging and liver transplantation: an intention-to-treat analysis. Liver Transpl. 2010 Mar;16(3):289-299 PMID: 20209588PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Chapman WC, Majella Doyle MB, Stuart JE, Vachharajani N, CrippinJS, Anderson CD, Lowell JA, Shenoy S, Darcy MD, Brown DB. Outcomes of neoadjuvant transarterial chemoemblization to downstage hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation. Ann Surg.2008Oct;248(4):617-25 PMID: 18936575PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Yao FY, KerlanRK Jr, Hirose R, DavernTJ, Bass NM, Feng S, Peters M, Terrault N, Freise CE, Ascher NL, Roberts JP. Excellent outcome following down-staging of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation: an intention-to-treat analysis. Hepatology 2008;48:819-827 PMID: 18688876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Kudo M. Current status of molecularly targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical practice. Int J ClinOncol. 2010 Jun;15(3):242-55Google Scholar