Liver transplantation is a preferable alternative to palliative therapy for selected patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond the traditional criteria (advanced HCC) are typically offered palliation, which is associated with a 3-year survival rate lower than 30%. This study aimed to describe the outcomes for a subset of patients with advanced HCC who satisfied the Extended Toronto Criteria (ETC) and were listed for liver transplantation (LT). Materials & Methods: All patients listed in the Toronto liver transplant program with HCC beyond both the Milan and University of California, San Francisco criteria were included in this study. Data were extracted from the prospectively collected electronic database. All radiological images were reviewed by two independent radiologists. The primary endpoint was patient survival. Results: Between January 1999 and August 2014, 96 patients with advanced HCC were listed for LT, and 62 (65%) of these patients received bridging therapy while on the waiting list. Bridging therapy led to a significant reduction in tumor progression (p=0.02) and tumor burden (p <0.001). The majority of those listed underwent LT (n=69, 72%). Both tumor progression on waiting list (HR 4.973 [1.599 – 15.464], p=0.006) and peak AFP ≥400ng/ml (HR 4.604 [1.660 – 12.768], p=0.003) were independently associated with waiting list dropout. Post-LT HCC recurrence occurred in 35% (n=24). Among those with HCC recurrence, survival was significantly better for those who received curative treatment (p=0.004). The overall actuarial survival rates from the listing were 76% at 1 year, 56% at 3 years, and 47% at 5 years, and the corresponding rates from LT were 93%, 71%, and 66%. Conclusion: LT provides significantly better survival rates than palliation for patients with selected advanced HCC

Liver resection and transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

The incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is increasing worldwide. Although several advances have been made in the past decades to better understand this complex malignancy and to develop new treatment strategies, the prognosis of iCCA remains dismal. Liver resection (LR) is the mainstay of treatment but only a minority of patients are amenable to surgery. In most cases, patients with iCCA will require a major hepatectomy for complete resection of the tumour. This may be contraindicated or increase the surgical burden in patients with chronic liver disease and small remnant liver volume. Lymphadenectomy with a minimal harvest of 6 lymph nodes is considered adequate, as microscopic nodal metastases have been shown in more than 40% of patients. Current 5-year overall survival following LR is in the range of 25%\u201340%. For locally advanced disease not amenable to upfront LR, neoadjuvant locoregional therapies may be used with the aim of converting these patients to resectability or even to transplantation in well-selected cases. Recent studies have shown that liver transplantation (LT) might be a treatment option for patients with unresectable very-early iCCA (i.e. 642 cm), with survival outcomes comparable to those of hepatocellular carcinoma. In patients with unresectable, advanced tumours, confined to the liver who achieve sustained response to neoadjuvant treatment, LT may be considered an option within prospective protocols. The role of adjuvant therapies in iCCA is still under debate. Herein, we review the recent advances in the surgical treatment of iCCA and examine its correlation with locoregional therapies, adjuvant and neo-adjuvant strategies

Optimizing Circulating Tumour DNA Use in the Perioperative Setting for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnosis, Screening, Minimal Residual Disease Detection and Treatment Response Monitoring

In this review, we present the current evidence and future perspectives on the use of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in the diagnosis, management and understanding the prognosis of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) undergoing surgery. Liquid biopsies or ctDNA maybe utilized to: (1) determine the molecular profile of the tumour and therefore guide the selection of molecular targeted therapy in the neoadjuvant setting, (2) form a surveillance tool for the detection of minimal residual disease or cancer recurrence after surgery, and (3) diagnose and screen for early iCCA detection in high-risk populations. The potential for ctDNA can be tumour-informed or -uninformed depending on the goals of its use. Future studies will require ctDNA extraction technique validations, with standardizations of both the platforms and the timing of ctDNA collections

Factor V Serves as an Early Biomarker for Graft Loss After Liver Transplant:A Prospective Evaluation

Background: Low post-operative day (POD) 1 Factor V has been retrospectively associated with graft loss after liver transplantation when stratified by a cutoff of 0.36 U/mL. We aimed to validate this prospectively.Methods: Patients transplanted at Toronto General Hospital were recruited (May 2018–March 2021). Factor V measurements were obtained on POD1-3, 5, and 7. Graft and patient survival at 3, 6, and 12 months were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. We identified an optimal cutoff through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and the Youden index. Kaplan–Meier method and Log-rank tests were used to assess/compare survival. Results: One hundred and twenty-nine patients were included. One hundred and eight had Factor V &gt;0.36 and 21 had ≤0.36 U/mL. This cutoff was predictive of 6- and 12-month graft survival and 12-month patient survival. With an optimal cutoff of 0.46 U/mL on POD1, 87 patients had Factor V &gt;0.46 and 42 had ≤0.46 U/mL. Three-, 6-, and 12-month graft survival rates were 100%, 98.8%, and 98.8%, for patients with Factor V &gt;0.46 U/mL, and 92.9%, 87.7%, and 87.7% for Factor V ≤0.46 U/mL. Similarly, 3-, 6-, and 12-month patient survival rates were 98.8%, 96.4%, and 95.0% for patients with Factor V &gt;0.46 U/mL, and 92.9%, 88.0%, and 82.9% for Factor V ≤0.46 U/mL. Stratification below the novel cutoff was associated with decreased graft survival at months 3 (p = 0.012), 6 (p = 0.006), and 12 (p = 0.006), and decreased patient survival at 12 months (p = 0.022). Conclusions: Factor V serves as an early biomarker for graft loss, with an optimal predictive cutoff of 0.46 U/mL in this prospective population. Validation of this new cutoff is necessary.</p

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on liver cancer management (CERO-19)

Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Assaigs clínics; Càncer de fetgeCoronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Ensayos clínicos; Cáncer de hígadoCoronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Clinical trials; Liver cancerBackground & aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems and it may have heavily impacted patients with liver cancer (LC). Herein, we evaluated whether the schedule of LC screening or procedures has been interrupted or delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: An international survey evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice and clinical trials from March 2020 to June 2020, as the first phase of a multicentre, international, and observational project. The focus was on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, cared for around the world during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. Results: Ninety-one centres expressed interest to participate and 76 were included in the analysis, from Europe, South America, North America, Asia, and Africa (73.7%, 17.1%, 5.3%, 2.6%, and 1.3% per continent, respectively). Eighty-seven percent of the centres modified their clinical practice: 40.8% the diagnostic procedures, 80.9% the screening programme, 50% cancelled curative and/or palliative treatments for LC, and 41.7% modified the liver transplantation programme. Forty-five out of 69 (65.2%) centres in which clinical trials were running modified their treatments in that setting, but 58.1% were able to recruit new patients. The phone call service was modified in 51.4% of centres which had this service before the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 19/37). Conclusions: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on the routine care of patients with liver cancer. Modifications in screening, diagnostic, and treatment algorithms may have significantly impaired the outcome of patients. Ongoing data collection and future analyses will report the benefits and disadvantages of the strategies implemented, aiding future decision-making. Lay summary: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems globally. Herein, we assessed the impact of the first wave pandemic on patients with liver cancer and found that routine care for these patients has been majorly disrupted, which could have a significant impact on outcomes.There was no funding for this study

Patient Selection for Downstaging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prior to Liver Transplantation Adjusting the Odds?: Adjusting the Odds?

Background and Aims: Morphometric features such as the Milan criteria serve as standard criteria for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since it has been recognized that these criteria are too restrictive and do not adequately display the tumor biology, additional selection parameters are emerging. Methods: Concise review of the current literature on patient selection for downstaging and LT for HCC outside the Milan criteria. Results: The major task in patients outside the Milan criteria is the need for higher granularity with patient selection, since the benefit through LT is not uniform. The recent literature clearly shows that beneath tumor size and number, additional selection parameters are useful in the process of patient selection for and during downstaging. For initial patient selection, the alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level adds additional information to the size and number of HCC nodules concerning the chance of successful downstaging and LT. This effect is quantifiable using newer selection tools like the WE (West-Eastern) downstaging criteria or the Metroticket 2.0 criteria. Also an initial PET-scan and/or tumor biopsy can be helpful, especially in the high risk group of patients outside the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria. After this entry selection, the clinical course during downstaging procedures concerning the tumor and the AFP response is of paramount importance and serves as an additional final selection tool Conclusion: Selection criteria for liver transplantation in HCC patients are becoming more and more sophisticated, but are still imperfect. The implementation of molecular knowledge will hopefully support a more specific risk prediction for HCC patients in the future, but do not provide a profound basis for clinical decision-making at present

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on liver cancer management (CERO-19)

Background & Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems and it may have heavily impacted patients with liver cancer (LC). Herein, we evaluated whether the schedule of LC screening or procedures has been interrupted or delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: An international survey evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice and clinical trials from March 2020 to June 2020, as the first phase of a multicentre, international, and observational project. The focus was on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, cared for around the world during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. Results: Ninety-one centres expressed interest to participate and 76 were included in the analysis, from Europe, South America, North America, Asia, and Africa (73.7%,17.1%, 5.3%, 2.6%, and 1.3% per continent, respectively). Eighty-seven percent of the centres modified their clinical practice: 40.8% the diagnostic procedures, 80.9% the screening programme, 50% cancelled curative and/or palliative treatments for LC, and 41.7% modified the liver transplantation programme. Forty-five out of 69 (65.2%) centres in which clinical trials were running modified their treatments in that setting, but 58.1% were able to recruit new patients. The phone call service was modified in 51.4% of centres which had this service before the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 19/37). Conclusions: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on the routine care of patients with liver cancer. Modifications in screening, diagnostic, and treatment algorithms may have significantly impaired the outcome of patients. Ongoing data collection and future analyses will report the benefits and disadvantages of the strategies imple mented, aiding future decision-making