Evidence-Based Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Liver transplantation

Risk factors and prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of precision medicine

Background: Primary liver cancer, around 90% are hepatocellular carcinoma in China, is the fourth most common malignancy and the second leading cause of tumor-related death, thereby posing a significant threat to the life and health of the Chinese people. Summary: Since the publication of Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer (2017 Edition) in 2018, additional high-quality evidence has emerged with relevance to the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of liver cancer in and outside China that requires the guidelines to be updated. The new edition (2019 Edition) was written by more than 70 experts in the field of liver cancer in China. They reflect the real-world situation in China regarding diagnosing and treating liver cancer in recent years. Key Messages: Most importantly, the new guidelines were endorsed and promulgated by the Bureau of Medical Administration of the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China in December 2019.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-hepatocellular-4npmgt9l96.pdf

Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (2019 Edition).

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the best treatment option for patients with early-stage tumours and accounts for ∼20-40% of all liver transplantations performed at most centres worldwide. The Milan criteria are the most common criteria to select patients with HCC for transplantation but they can be seen as too restrictive. Several proposals have been made for a moderate expansion of the criteria, which result in good outcomes but with an increase in the risk of tumour recurrence. In this Review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the outcomes after liver transplantation for HCC, focusing on tumour recurrence in terms of surveillance, prevention and treatment. Additionally, novel surgical techniques have been developed to increase the available pool of organs for liver transplantation (such as living donor liver transplantation, donation after circulatory death and split livers), but the effect of these techniques on patients with HCC is still under debate. Thus, we will describe these techniques and expose the benefits and disadvantages of each surgical approach. Finally, we will comment on the limitations of the current priority policies for liver transplantation and the need to further refine them to better serve the population.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: outcomes and novel surgical approaches

Background We investigated whether sirolimus-based immunosuppression improves outcomes in liver transplantation (LTx) candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods In a prospective-randomized open-label international trial, 525 LTx recipients with HCC initially receiving mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-free immunosuppression were randomized 4 to 6 weeks after transplantation into a group on mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-free immunosuppression (group A: 264 patients) or a group incorporating sirolimus (group B: 261). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS); intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted after 8 years. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Results Recurrence-free survival was 64.5% in group A and 70.2% in group B at study end, this difference was not significant (P = 0.28; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.62; 1.15). In a planned analysis of RFS rates at yearly intervals, group B showed better outcomes 3 years after transplantation (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.48-1.00). Similarly, OS (P = 0.21; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.58-1.13) was not statistically better in group B at study end, but yearly analyses showed improvement out to 5 years (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00). Interestingly, subgroup (Milan Criteria-based) analyses revealed that low-risk, rather than high-risk, patients benefited most from sirolimus; furthermore, younger recipients (age 60) also benefited, as well sirolimus monotherapy patients. Serious adverse event numbers were alike in groups A (860) and B (874). Conclusions Sirolimus in LTx recipients with HCC does not improve long-term RFS beyond 5 years. However, a RFS and OS benefit is evident in the first 3 to 5 years, especially in low-risk patients. This trial provides the first high-level evidence base for selecting immunosuppression in LTx recipients with HCC.

/pdf/sirolimus-use-in-liver-transplant-recipients-with-51jwfwgtt8.pdf

Angela Schlitt

Papers

Sirolimus Use in Liver Transplant Recipients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Phase 3 Trial