Dataset Information

Evaluation of the Intention-to-Treat Benefit of Living Donation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Awaiting a Liver Transplant.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) offers advantages over deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) of improved intention-to-treat outcomes and management of the shortage of deceased-donor allografts. However, conflicting data still exist on the outcomes of LDLT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Objective

To investigate the potential survival benefit of an LDLT in patients with HCC from the time of waiting list inscription.

Design, setting, and participants

This multicenter cohort study with an intention-to-treat design analyzed the data of patients aged 18 years or older who had an HCC diagnosis and were on a waiting list for a first transplant. Patients from 12 collaborative centers in Europe, Asia, and the US who were on a transplant waiting list between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2017, composed the international cohort. The Toronto cohort comprised patients from 1 transplant center in Toronto, Ontario, Canada who were on a waiting list between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015. The international cohort centers performed either an LDLT or a DDLT, whereas the Toronto cohort center was selected for its capability to perform both LDLT and DDLT. The benefit of LDLT was tested in the 2 cohorts before and after undergoing an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. Data were analyzed from February 1 to May 31, 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

Intention-to-treat death was defined as a patient death that occurred for any reason and was calculated from the time of waiting list inscription for liver transplant to the last follow-up date (December 31, 2019). Four multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models for intention-to-treat death were created.

Results

A total of 3052 patients were analyzed in the international cohort, of whom 2447 were men (80.2%) and the median (IQR) age at first referral was 58 (53-63) years. The Toronto cohort comprised 906 patients, of whom 743 were men (82.0%) and the median (IQR) age at first referral was 59 (53-63) years. In all the settings, LDLT was an independent protective factor, reducing the risk of overall death by 49% in the pre-IPTW analysis for the international cohort (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P < .001), 33% in the post-IPTW analysis for the international cohort (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.85; P = .001), 43% in the pre-IPTW analysis for the Toronto cohort (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73; P < .001), and 48% in the post-IPTW analysis for the Toronto cohort (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .001). The discriminatory ability of the mathematical models further improved in all of the cases in which LDLT was incorporated.

Conclusions and relevance

This study suggests that having a potential live donor could decrease the intention-to-treat risk of death in patients with HCC who are on a waiting list for a liver transplant. This benefit is associated with the elimination of the dropout risk and has been reported in centers in which both LDLT and DDLT options are equally available.

SUBMITTER: Lai Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8281041 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite the acceptance of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) as a lifesaving procedure for end-stage liver disease, it remains underused in the United States. Quantification of lifetime survival benefit and the Model for End-stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score range at which benefit outweighs risk in LDLT is necessary to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness.ObjectiveTo assess the survival benefit, life-years saved, and the MELD-Na score at which that survival benefit was obtained for individuals who received an LDLT compared with that for individuals who remained on the wait list.Design, setting, and participantsThis case-control study was a retrospective, secondary analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database of 119 275 US liver transplant candidates and recipients from January 1, 2012, to September 2, 2021. Liver transplant candidates aged 18 years or older who were assigned to the wait list (N = 116 455) or received LDLT (N = 2820) were included. Patients listed for retransplant or multiorgan transplant and those with prior kidney or liver transplants were excluded.ExposuresLiving-donor liver transplant vs remaining on the wait list.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome of this study was life-years saved from receiving an LDLT. Secondary outcomes included 1-year relative mortality and risk, time to equal risk, time to equal survival, and the MELD-Na score at which that survival benefit was obtained for individuals who received an LDLT compared with that for individuals who remained on the wait list. MELD-Na score ranges from 6 to 40 and is well correlated with short-term survival. Higher MELD-Na scores (>20) are associated with an increased risk of death.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the 119 275 study participants was 55.1 (11.2) years, 63% were male, 0.9% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 4.3% were Asian, 8.2% were Black or African American, 15.8% were Hispanic or Latino, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 70.2% were White. Mortality risk and survival models confirmed a significant survival benefit for patients receiving an LDLT who had a MELD-Na score of 11 or higher (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.47-0.88]; P = .006). Living-donor liver transplant recipients gained an additional 13 to 17 life-years compared with patients who never received an LDLT.Conclusions and relevanceAn LDLT is associated with a substantial survival benefit to patients with end-stage liver disease even at MELD-Na scores as low as 11. The findings of this study suggest that the life-years gained are comparable to or greater than those conferred by any other lifesaving procedure or by a deceased-donor liver transplant. This study's findings challenge current perceptions regarding when LDLT survival benefit occurs.

Project description:For recipients of liver transplantations (LTs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), HCC recurrence after transplantation remains a major concern. Sirolimus (SRL), an immunosuppressant with anticarcinogenic properties, may reduce HCC recurrence and improve survival. In our study, the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was linked to pharmacy claims. For liver recipients transplanted for HCC, Cox regression was used to estimate associations of early SRL use with recurrence, cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality, adjusting for recipient ethnicity, calendar year of transplant, total tumor volume, alpha-fetoprotein, transplant center size, use of interleukin 2 induction therapy, and allocated and calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. We performed stratified analyses among recipients who met Milan criteria, among those without renal failure, among those with deceased liver donors, by age at transplantation, and by tumor size. Among the 3936 included HCC LTs, 234 (6%) were SRL users. In total, there were 242 recurrences and 879 deaths, including 261 cancer-related deaths. All-cause mortality was similar in SRL users and nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.39). HCC recurrence and cancer-specific mortality rates appeared lower in SRL users, but associations were not statistically significant (recurrence aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.45-1.65; cancer-specific mortality aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.43-1.50). Among recipients >55 years old, associations were suggestive of better outcomes for SRL users (all-cause mortality aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.01; recurrence aHR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19-1.44; cancer-specific mortality aHR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.11-1.09), whereas among recipients ?55 years old, SRL users had worse outcomes (all-cause mortality aHR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.12-2.75; recurrence aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.62-3.61; cancer-specific mortality aHR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.71-3.32). In conclusion, among HCC liver recipients overall, SRL did not appear beneficial in reducing all-cause mortality. However, there were suggestions of reductions in recurrence and cancer-specific mortality, and effects appeared to be modified by age at transplantation. Liver Transplantation 22 627-634 2016 AASLD.