Clinical outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after living-donor liver transplantation

AIM: To investigate risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and efficacy of various criteria. METHODS: From October 2000 to November 2011, 233 adult patients underwent LDLT for HCC at our institution. After excluding nine postoperative mortality cases, we analyzed retrospectively 224 patients. To identify risk factors for recurrence, we evaluated recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS) rate, survival rate, and various other factors which are based on the characteristics of both the patient and tumor. Additionally, we developed our own criteria based on our data. Next, we compared our selection criteria with various tumor-grading scales, such as the Milan criteria, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, TNM stage, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage and Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) scoring system. The median follow up was 68 (6-139) mo.RESULTS: In 224 patients who received LDLT for HCC, 37 (16.5%) experienced tumor recurrence during the follow-up period. The 5-year DFS and overall survival rates after LDLT in all patients with HCC were 80.9% and 76.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, the tumor diameter {5 cm; P < 0.001; exponentiation of the B coefficient [Exp(B)], 11.89; 95%CI: 3.784-37.368} and alpha fetoprotein level [AFP, 100 ng/mL; P = 0.021; Exp(B), 2.892; 95%CI: 1.172-7.132] had significant influences on HCC recurrence after LDLT. Therefore, these two factors were included in our criteria. Based on these data, we set our selection criteria as a tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm and AFP ≤ 100 ng/mL. Within our new criteria (140/214, 65.4%), the 5-year DFS and overall survival rates were 88.6% and 81.8%, respectively. Our criteria (P = 0.001), Milan criteria (P = 0.009), and UCSF criteria (P = 0.001) showed a significant difference in DFS rate. And our criteria (P = 0.006) and UCSF criteria (P = 0.009) showed a significant difference in overall survival rate. But Milan criteria did not show significant difference in overall survival rate (P = 0.137). Among stages 0, A, B and C of BCLC, stage C had a significantly higher recurrence rate (P = 0.001), lower DFS (P = 0.001), and overall survival rate (P = 0.005) compared with the other stages. Using the CLIP scoring system, the group with a score of 4 to 5 showed a high recurrence rate (P = 0.023) and lower DFS (P = 0.011); however, the overall survival rate did not differ from that of the lower scoring group. The TNM system showed a trend of increased recurrence rate, decreased DFS, or survival rate according to T stage, albeit without statistical significance. CONCLUSION: LDLT is considered the preferred therapeutic option in patients with an AFP level less than 100 ng/mL and a tumor diameter of less than 5 cm.

不同肝癌肝移植标准受者预后分析

目的分析不同肝癌肝移植标准受者预后情况,评价不同标准之间的差异。方法回顾性分析2013年1月至2017年12月首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院原发性肝癌肝移植受者的临床资料,比较不同肝癌肝移植标准受者的预后情况。采用单因素方差分析比较不同肝癌肝移植标准受者年龄、手术时间、无肝期时间和肿瘤最大直径,采用秩和检验比较AFP、终末期肝病模型评分和出血量。采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制生存曲线,采用Log-Rank检验比较生存率。采用卡方检验比较Child分级、肿瘤分化程度等指标。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果根据肝移植术后病理结果,115例肝癌肝移植受者中符合米兰标准43例;符合美国加州大学旧金山分校(UCSF)标准49例,较米兰标准扩大14.0%;符合杭州标准91例,较米兰标准扩大111.6%,较UCSF标准扩大85.7%。截至2017年12月,115例受者平均随访(19±17)个月,中位生存时间41.5个月(1.0~57.0个月)。除肿瘤最大直径和肿瘤数目外,3组不同肝癌肝移植标准受者均具有可比性(P均>0.05)。不同肝癌肝移植受者术后1~4年总体和和无瘤生存曲线差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。结论相较于米兰标准和UCSF标准而言,杭州标准安全地扩大了肝癌肝移植适用范围,使更多的原发性肝癌患者受益。

不同移植标准下挽救性肝移植的疗效对比分析

目的:分析比较符合米兰标准、UCSF标准、杭州标准的肝细胞肝癌(hepatocellular carcinoma,HCC)切除术后肿瘤复发患者肝移植术后的预后情况。方法:回顾性分析2015年1月至2019年10月在复旦大学附属华山医院行公民逝世后器官捐献(donation after citizen death,DCD)肝移植的256例HCC患者的临床资料。其中,行初期肝移植175例(PLT组),挽救性肝移植81例(SLT组)。采用t检验、秩和检验或χ^(2)检验比较两组受者的一般资料、肿瘤病理特征、术后并发症等,用Kaplan-Meier法和Log-rank检验比较两组受者的术后总生存率(overall survival rate,OS)和无复发生存率(recurrence-free survival rate,RFS)。SLT组符合米兰标准者31例(米兰标准组)、符合加州大学旧金山分校(UCSF)标准者45例(UCSF标准组)、符合杭州标准者69例(杭州标准组),比较三组受者的OS和RFS。按肝移植术前是否接受降期/桥接治疗,将SLT组受者再分为降期治疗组(32例)和未降期治疗组(49例),比较两组受者的OS和RFS。按RESCIT 1.1标准,将接受降期治疗的32例SLT组受者分为缓解组(14例)和未缓解组(18例),比较两组术后的OS和RFS。结果:PLT组与SLT组的手术时间分别为(439.5±74.9)min和(475.1±83.4)min,组间比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);但两组术中出血量、输血量、术后住院时间及术后并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。PLT组和SLT组OS和RFS比较,差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。米兰标准、UCSF标准、杭州标准三组SLT受者术后1、3、5年OS比较,差异亦无统计学意义P均>0.05)。米兰标准组受者术后1、3、5年RFS分别为93.5%、81.7%、81.7%,显著优于UCSF标准组的68.9%、59.7%、59.7%及杭州标准组的78.3%、58.8%、55.5%,且差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。接受术前降期治疗的SLT组受者中,缓解组术后1、3、5年OS(100%、73%、73%)和RFS(100%、62.5%、46.9%)均优于未缓解组1、3、5年OS(83.3%、49.4%、0)和RFS(52.9%、0、0),组间差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。结论:肝癌肝切除术后复发患者行挽救性肝移植可获得与初期肝移植受者相近的生存预后。符合米兰、UCSF、杭州标准的挽救性肝移植受者总生存时间相近。符合米兰标准的肝移植受者无复发生存时间最长。SLT受者术前降期治疗后缓解者的预后优于未缓解者。