Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan 6;6(1):zrab130.
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab130.

Prognostic role of selection criteria for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis

Vladimir J Lozanovski  1   2 , Ali Ramouz  1 , Ehsan Aminizadeh  1 , Sadeq Ali-Hasan Al-Saegh  1 , Elias Khajeh  1 , Heike Probst  1 , Susanne Picardi  3 , Christian Rupp  2   4 , De-Hua Chang  2   5 , Pascal Probst  1   6 , Arianeb Mehrabi  1   2
Affiliations

Prognostic role of selection criteria for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis

Vladimir J Lozanovski et al. BJS Open. .

Abstract

Background: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are selected for transplantation if they have a low tumour burden and low risk of recurrence. The morphometric Milan criteria have been the cornerstone for patient selection, but dynamic morphological and biological tumour characteristics surfaced as an encouraging tool to refine the selection of patients with HCC and to support the expansion of the Milan criteria. The outcomes of the most prevalent models that select patients with HCC for liver transplantation were analysed in this study, which aimed to identify the selection model that offered the best recurrence-free and overall survival after transplantation.

Methods: Studies that compared Milan, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), up-to-seven (UPTS), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), and MetroTicket 2.0 (MT2) models were included. One-year, 3-year, and 5-year recurrence-free and overall survival rates of patients selected for transplantation using different models were analysed.

Results: A total of 60 850 adult patients with HCC selected for liver transplantation using Milan, UCSF, UPTS, AFP, or MT2 criteria were included. Patients selected for transplantation using the MT2 model had the highest 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival. In addition, patients selected for transplantation using MT2 criteria had the best 1- and 3-year overall survival, whereas patients selected for transplantation using the Milan criteria had the best 5-year overall survival rates.

Conclusion: The MT2 model offered the best post-transplant outcomes in patients with HCC, highlighting the importance of considering tumour morphology and biology when selecting patients with HCC for liver transplantation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow chart of enrolled studies LT, liver transplantation.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Network of included studies comparing different selection models for recurrence-free and overall survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma The size of each node is proportional to the sample size of each selection model. The number adjacent to the lines connecting agents indicates the number of pairwise comparisons. AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; MT2, MetroTicket 2.0; UCSF, University of California San Francisco; UPTS, up-to-seven.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plots of recurrence-free and overall survival of different selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver transplantation a One-year recurrence-free survival. b Three-year recurrence-free survival. c Five-year recurrence-free survival. d One-year overall survival. e Three-year overall survival. f Five-year overall survival. Odds ratio (OR) >1 favoured the criteria in means of outcomes. AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; c.i., confidence interval; MT2, MetroTicket 2.0; UCSF, University of California San Francisco; UPTS, Up-to-Seven.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2018;69:182–236. - PubMed
    1. Bruns H, Lozanovski VJ, Schultze D, Hillebrand N, Hinz U, Buchler MW. et al. Prediction of postoperative mortality in liver transplantation in the era of MELD-based liver allocation: a multivariate analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e98782. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rahbari NN, Mehrabi A, Mollberg NM, Müller SA, Koch M, Büchler MW. et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: current management and perspectives for the future. Ann Surg 2011;253:453–469. - PubMed
    1. Villanueva A. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1450–1462. - PubMed
    1. Costentin CE, Bababekov YJ, Zhu AX, Yeh H.. Is it time to reconsider the Milan criteria for selecting patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for deceased-donor liver transplantation? Hepatology 2019;69:1324–1336. - PubMed

Publication types