Abstract An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists met on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of hilar ...cholangiocarcinoma in order to establish practice guidelines and to agree consensus statements. It was established that the treatment of patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to optimize the chances for both durable survival and effective palliation. An adequate diagnostic and staging work-up includes high-quality cross-sectional imaging; however, pathologic confirmation is not required prior to resection or initiation of a liver transplant trimodal treatment protocol. The ideal treatment for suitable patients with resectable hilar malignancy is resection of the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts, as well as resection of the involved ipsilateral liver. Preoperative biliary drainage is best achieved with percutaneous transhepatic approaches and may be indicated for patients with cholangitis, malnutrition or hepatic insufficiency. Portal vein embolization is a safe and effective strategy for increasing the future liver remnant (FLR) and is particularly useful for patients with an FLR of <30%. Selected patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma should be evaluated for a standard trimodal protocol incorporating external beam and endoluminal radiation therapy, systemic chemotherapy and liver transplantation. Post-resection chemoradiation should be offered to patients who show high-risk features on surgical pathology. Chemoradiation is also recommended for patients with locally advanced, unresectable hilar cancers. For patients with locally recurrent or metastatic hilar cholangiocarcinoma, first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin is recommended based on multiple Phase II trials and a large randomized controlled trial including a heterogeneous population of patients with biliary cancers.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Frailty is a decline in functional reserve across multiple physiological systems. A key component of frailty is sarcopenia, which denotes a loss of skeletal muscle mass and impaired contractile ...function that ultimately result in physical frailty. Physical frailty/sarcopenia are frequent and contribute to adverse clinical outcomes before and after liver transplantation. Frailty indices, including the liver frailty index, focus on contractile dysfunction (physical frailty), while cross-sectional image analysis of muscle area is the most accepted and reproducible measure to define sarcopenia. Thus, physical frailty and sarcopenia are interrelated. The prevalence of physical frailty/sarcopenia is high in liver transplant candidates and these conditions have been shown to adversely impact clinical outcomes including mortality, hospitalisations, infections, and cost of care both before and after transplantation. Data on the prevalence of frailty/sarcopenia and their sex- and age-dependent impact on outcomes are not consistent in patients on the liver transplant waitlist. Physical frailty and sarcopenic obesity are frequent in the obese patient with cirrhosis, and adversely affect outcomes after liver transplantation. Nutritional interventions and physical activity remain the mainstay of management before and after transplantation, despite limited data from large scale trials. In addition to physical frailty, there is recognition that a global evaluation including a multidisciplinary approach to other components of frailty (e.g., cognition, emotional, psychosocial) also need to be addressed in patients on the transplant waitlist. Recent advances in our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of sarcopenia and contractile dysfunction have helped identify novel therapeutic targets.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are listed for liver transplantation (LT) are often treated while on the waiting list with locoregional therapy (LRT), which is aimed at either ...preventing progression of HCC or reducing the measurable disease burden of HCC in order to receive increased allocation priority. We aimed to synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of LRT in the management of patients with HCC who were on the LT waitlist. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases from 1996 to April 25, 2016, for studies that enrolled adults with cirrhosis awaiting LT and treated with bridging or down‐staging therapies before LT. Therapies included transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, transarterial radioembolization, ablation, and radiotherapy. We included both comparative and noncomparative studies. There were no randomized controlled trials identified. For adults with T1 HCC and waiting for LT, there were only two nonrandomized comparative studies, both with a high risk of bias, which reported the outcome of interest. In one series, the rate of dropout from all causes at 6 months in T1 HCC patients who underwent LRT was 5.3%, while in the other series of T1 HCC patients who did not receive LRT, the dropout rate at median follow‐up of 2.4 years and the progression rate to T2 HCC were 30% and 88%, respectively. For adults with T2 HCC awaiting LT, transplant with any bridging therapy showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of waitlist dropout due to progression (relative risk RR, 0.32; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.06‐1.85; I2 = 0%) and of waitlist dropout from all causes (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.060‐2.370; I2 = 85.7%) compared to no therapy based on three comparative studies. The quality of evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. There were five comparative studies which reported on posttransplant survival rates and 10 comparative studies which reported on posttransplant recurrence, and there was no significant difference seen in either of these endpoints. For adults initially with stage T3 HCC who received LRT, there were three studies reporting on transplant with any down‐staging therapy versus no downstaging, and this showed a significant increase in 1‐year (two studies, RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01‐1.23) and 5‐year (1 study, RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.32) post‐LT survival rates for patients who received LRT. The quality of evidence is very low due to serious risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusion: In patients with HCC listed for LT, the use of LRT is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward improved waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, though there is a high risk of selection bias in the available evidence. (Hepatology 2018;67:381‐400).
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
15.
United States liver allocation Heimbach, Julie K
Current opinion in organ transplantation,
04/2020, Volume:
25, Issue:
2
Journal Article
The current review discusses the system of liver allocation in the United States, the adoption of the national liver review board (NLRB), and the pending major change to the system of distribution ...(acuity circle model).
The system of liver allocation in the United States is based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, a formula which uses commonly available tests (international normalized ratio, bilirubin, creatinine, and recently, sodium) prioritizes candidates on the waitlist according to likelihood of death without access to transplant. This review provides an overview of modifications to MELD allocation and well as a summary of the benefits and weaknesses. The review also details the pending major revision to the distribution of liver allografts, which attempts to reduce the geographic disparity in access by sharing across a broader geographic area. Finally, the review describes the implementation of the NLRB, which replaced the previous system in May 2019.
The system of liver allocation and distribution in the United States has been subject to ongoing optimization, though the recent adoption of the NLRB, and pending change to distribution will significantly impact the system with the goal of reducing geographic disparity.
Summary Pulmonary concerns in liver transplant candidates have intraoperative and outcome implications. Evolving MELD exception policies address transplant priority for problems such as ...hepatopulmonary syndrome, portopulmonary hypertension, and hemorrhagic hereditary telangiectasia. Other pulmonary issues such as refractory hepatic hydrothorax, advanced chronic obstructive lung disease (including alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency) and indeterminate pulmonary nodules may affect liver transplant consideration. Herein, we discuss current pulmonary-related contraindications, indications and MELD exception policies for liver transplantation, suggesting future considerations.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background & Aims Excellent single-center outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplantation for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma caused the United Network of Organ Sharing to ...offer a standardized model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception for this disease. We analyzed data from multiple centers to determine the effectiveness of this treatment and the appropriateness of the MELD exception. Methods We collected and analyzed data from 12 large-volume transplant centers in the United States. These centers met the inclusion criteria of treating 3 or more patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma using neoadjuvant therapy, followed by liver transplantation, from 1993 to 2010 (n = 287 total patients). Center-specific protocols and medical charts were reviewed on-site. Results The patients completed external radiation (99%), brachytherapy (75%), radiosensitizing therapy (98%), and/or maintenance chemotherapy (65%). Seventy-one patients dropped out before liver transplantation (rate, 11.5% in 3 months). Intent-to-treat survival rates were 68% and 53%, 2 and 5 years after therapy, respectively; post-transplant, recurrence-free survival rates were 78% and 65%, respectively. Patients outside the United Network of Organ Sharing criteria (those with tumor mass >3 cm, transperitoneal tumor biopsy, or metastatic disease) or with a prior malignancy had significantly shorter survival times ( P < .001). There were no differences in outcomes among patients based on differences in surgical staging or brachytherapy. Although most patients came from 1 center (n = 193), the other 11 centers had similar survival times after therapy. Conclusions Patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who were treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed up by liver transplantation at 12 US centers had a 65% rate of recurrence-free survival after 5 years, showing this therapy to be highly effective. An 11.5% drop-out rate after 3.5 months of therapy indicates the appropriateness of the MELD exception. Rigorous selection is important for the continued success of this treatment.
PDF
