Skip to main content
World Journal of Gastroenterology logoLink to World Journal of Gastroenterology
. 2016 Mar 28;22(12):3325–3334. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i12.3325

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: A review

Dong-Wei Xu 1, Ping Wan 1, Qiang Xia 1
PMCID: PMC4806190  PMID: 27022214

Abstract

Liver transplantation (LT) has been accepted as an effective therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The Milan criteria (MC) are widely used across the world to select LT candidates in HCC patients. However, the MC may be too strict because a substantial subset of patients who have HCC exceed the MC and who would benefit from LT may be unnecessarily excluded from the waiting list. In recent years, many extended criteria beyond the MC were raised, which were proved to be able to yield similar outcomes compared with those patients meeting the MC. Because the simple use of tumor size and number was insufficient to indicate HCC biological features and to predict the risk of tumor recurrence, some biological markers such as Alpha-fetoprotein, Des-Gamma-carboxy prothrombin and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were useful in selecting LT candidates in HCC patients beyond the MC. For patients with advanced HCC, downstaging therapy is an effective way to reduce the tumor stage to fulfill the MC by using liver-directed therapy such as transarterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation and percutaneous ethanol injection. This article reviews the recent advances in LT for HCC beyond the MC.

Keywords: Liver transplantation, Biological marker, Milan criteria, Hepatocellular carcinoma, Downstaging therapy, Adjuvant treatment


Core tip: The Milan criteria (MC) were widely used in selecting liver transplantation (LT) candidates in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. Because a substantial subset of HCC patients exceeding the MC and who would benefit from LT may be unnecessarily excluded from the waiting list, many extended criteria beyond the MC were raised. To predict the risk of tumor recurrence, some biological markers were also useful in HCC patients beyond the MC. Downstaging and adjuvant therapies are effective ways to reduce the tumor stage and the risk of recurrence. This article reviews the recent advances in LT for HCC beyond the MC.

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer and the second cause of cancer-related death all over the world. Liver transplantation (LT) has been accepted as an effective therapy for HCC with decompensated liver cirrhosis. In the early stage of HCC treatment, however, the high tumor recurrence rate and poor survival outcomes after LT aroused attention[1-4]. Mazzaferro et al[5] in 1996 reported that patients with a single tumor ≤ 5 cm in diameter, or no more than three tumors ≤ 3 cm, displayed a favorable long-term prognosis. The 4-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates were 85% and 92%, respectively, which were comparable to LT recipients with benign diseases. The MC have been verified by several centers around the world since then and adopted by the United Network for Organ Sharing as the main basis for selecting patients with early-stage HCC for LT. However, many extended criteria beyond the MC were proposed recently because only a fraction of HCC patients are suitable for LT according to the MC. Because the simple use of tumor size and number were insufficient to precisely represent HCC biological features, some biological markers were used in many studies to evaluate the risk of tumor recurrence after LT for patients with HCC beyond the MC. Moreover, downstaging therapy to bring tumors to fulfill the MC has also become an alternative to treatment for patients with advanced HCC.

EXTENDED CRITERIA OF LT FOR HCC

Because the use of MC unnecessarily exclude a substantial subset of patients with HCC exceeding the MC who might benefit from LT from the transplant waiting list, several extended criteria beyond the MC have been reported recently, such as the Pittsburgh criteria, the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, the up-to-7 criteria, among other criteria. Although these criteria greatly expanded the indication of LT for HCC, most studies showed that the newly added patients using extended criteria could achieve similar outcomes compared with patients within the MC[6-16].

The Pittsburgh criteria

To establish a more precise system to predict the prognosis of HCC patients undergoing LT, Marsh et al[15] investigated 307 transplant recipients with HCC and found that the depth of vascular invasion, tumor size, lobar distribution and lymph node status were independent predictors of tumor free survival, while tumor number did not affect the prognosis. On the basis of these results, they proposed the modified TNM criteria (also known as the Pittsburgh criteria), which significantly expanded the indication of LT for HCC. Chen’s study[17] showed that the Pittsburgh Modified TNM Criteria were more reliable for prognostic prediction in HCC patients undergoing LT than the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) pTNM staging system. However, lymph node metastasis and tumor vascular invasion is difficult to diagnose before surgery in many cases, which limited its application.

The UCSF criteria

Yao et al[7] retrospectively analyzed 70 consecutive transplant recipients and proposed the UCSF criteria: solitary tumor ≤ 6.5 cm or ≤ 3 nodules with the largest lesion ≤ 4.5 cm and a total tumor diameter ≤ 8 cm (Table 1). The 1- and 5-year survival rates of the patients meeting the UCSF criteria were 90% and 75.2%, respectively, which is similar to the patients fulfilling the MC. Patients meeting UCSF criteria but exceeding the MC had a 2-year survival rate of 86%, and the UCSF criteria added the LT candidates by 51.5% without compromising the survival.

Table 1.

Selection criteria in different centers for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria

Criteria Year Country Sample size
Contents of criteria Survival (5-yr)
DDLT LDLT OS RFS
UCSF[7] 2001 America 70 0 Tumor ≤ 6.5 cm, or ≤ 3 nodules with the largest ≤ 4.5 cm and a total tumor ≤ 8 cm 75.2% None
Up-to-7[8] 2009 Italy 1404 121 The sum of the tumor number and the size of the largest tumor no larger than 7 cm 71.2% None
Tokyo[9] 2007 Japan 0 78 Tumors no larger than 5 cm and no more than 5 nodules 75.0% 94% (3-yr)
Hangzhou[12] 2008 China 195 0 Tumor ≤ 8 cm, or tumor > 8 cm, histopathologic grade I or II and preoperative AFP ≤ 400 ng/mL 78.3% 62.4%
Kyoto[6] 2007 Japan 0 125 Tumor ≤ 10 nodules, all ≤ 5 cm and a serum DCP level ≤ 400 mAU/mL 86.7% None
Shanghai[14] 2009 China 1074 4 Tumor ≤ 9 cm, or ≤ 3 lesions with the largest ≤ 5 cm, tumor ≤ 9 cm without macrovascular and lymph node invasion and extrahepatic metastasis 78.1% 52.6%
Asan[11] 2008 South Korea 0 221 Tumor ≤ 5 cm in diameter, ≤ 6 in nodule number, and free of gross vascular invasion 81.6% None

UCSF: University Of California San Francisco; LDLT: Living donor liver transplantation; DDLT: Deceased donor liver transplantation; OS: Overall survival; RFS: Relapse free survival.

In recent years, many centers have testified to the value of the UCSF criteria. The University of California at Los Angeles Transplant Center[18] in 2007 reported 467 cases of transplant recipients and 5-year survival rates of patients meeting the MC and UCSF criteria were 79% and 64%, respectively, with no significant difference found between the use of the MC and UCSF criteria. However, in this series, the 5-year survival rate of patients exceeding UCSF criteria was less than 50%.

The up-to-7 criteria

In another attempt to expand the MC, Mazzaferro et al[8] proposed the up-to-7 criteria [the sum of the tumor number and the size of the largest tumor (in cm) was not larger than 7] on the basis of 1556 patients from 36 centers (Table 1). In this study, 283 patients without microvascular invasion but met the up-to-7 criteria achieved a 5-year overall survival of 71.2%. The model established in this study firstly stratified HCC patients in a continuum of outcome probabilities, and offered consistent data to estimate the outcome of LT recipients for HCC. However, the up-to-7 criteria did not apply tumor grading, etiology of cirrhosis, cause of death, response to pretransplant treatments or some genomic markers that may predict the outcomes of HCC patients. Moreover, the size and the number of tumors may be inaccurate when using imaging techniques, which may cause understaging or overstaging.

The Tokyo criteria

The 5-5 rule (tumors no larger than 5 cm and no more than 5 nodules), the first well-defined criteria for potential candidates for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), was proposed by University of Tokyo in 2007[9] (Table 1). In the study, 78 adult patients underwent LDLT were investigated, and the 3-year recurrence-free survival rate of patients fulfilling and exceeding the criteria was 94% and 50%, respectively. Compared with patients fulfilling the MC, patients within the 5-5 rule showed equivalent recurrence-free survival rates. Due to the short median follow-up period and the small patient number, however, a further large-scale study is necessary to verify the general application of the 5-5 rule.

The Hangzhou criteria

Nearly half of HCC cases in the world are from China. Data from the China Liver Transplant Registry (CLTR) showed that more than 23000 patients with HCC underwent LT before 2012[19]. The Hangzhou center, established by Chinese researchers, adopted the histopathologic grade and biological marker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) for selection of LT candidates. The Hangzhou criteria included a total tumor diameter less than or equal to 8 cm or a total tumor diameter more than 8 cm, with a histopathologic grade I or II and a preoperative AFP level less than or equal to 400 ng/mL (Table 1). Notably, a 5-year survival rate of 72.3% was achieved in HCC patients within the Hangzhou criteria. A recent study that reviewed 6012 HCC patients based on the CLTR data reported that the Hangzhou criteria added to the LT candidates by 51.5% compared with the use of the MC[19].

Other criteria from Asian countries

Kyushu University reported that patients with an HCC ≤ 5 cm and a serum Des-Gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) level ≤ 300 mAU/mL could achieve a 5-year survival rate of 82.7%[13] (Table 2). At Kyoto University, a 5-year survival rate of 86.7% was achieved in patients with an HCC ≤ 10 nodules; all nodules were ≤ 5 cm in diameter and had a serum DCP level lower than 400 mAU/mL[6] (Table 2). The study from the Asan Medical Center in South Korea showed that the 5-year survival rate of patients with an HCC ≤ 5 cm in diameter, ≤ 6 in nodule number, and free of gross vascular invasion was 81.6%[11].

Table 2.

Tumor markers and the cut-off of different selection criteria

Markers Authors Cut-off Other content Survival (5-yr)
OS RFS
AFP Zheng et al[12] AFP ≤ 400 Hangzhou criteria 78.3% 62.4%
Toso et al[27] AFP ≤ 400 Total tumor volume ≤ 115 cm3 None None
Wan et al[20] AFP ≤ 400 Tumor ≤ 10 cm, no vascular and extrahepatic invasions 73.7% 74.4%
DCP Ito et al[6] DCP ≤ 400 Tumor size ≤ 10 cm 86.7% None
Soejima et al[13] DCP ≤ 300 Tumor size ≤ 5 cm None 93.8% (3-yr)
NLR Xiao et al[43] NLR < 4 None 61.5% 60.7%
AFP/CA199 Wan et al[30] AFP ≤ 400, CA199 ≤ 400 None 74.6% 78.5%
NLR/CRP Na et al[47] NLR < 6.0 or CRP < 1.0 None None None
DCP/AFP Todo et al[35] DCP ≤ 100, AFP ≤ 200 Milan criteria None 96.4%
Shindoh et al[36] AFP ≤ 250, DCP ≤ 450 Tokyo criteria 84.0% 96.8%

AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; DCP: Des-Gamma-carboxy prothrombin; NLR: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; OS: Overall survival; RFS: Relapse free survival.

Furthermore, the Shanghai criteria include a solitary lesion ≤ 9 cm in diameter or no more than three lesions with the largest being ≤ 5 cm with a total tumor diameter ≤ 9 cm without macrovascular invasion, lymph node invasion and extrahepatic metastasis, and this criteria achieved a 5-year overall survival of 78.1%[14]. In another study conducted in Shanghai, a new promising grading system for HCC exceeding the MC was established by Wan et al[20]. Patients with grade I (maximum tumor size ≤ 10 cm, preoperative AFP ≤ 400 ng/mL and no vascular and extrahepatic invasions) could achieve similar survival outcomes compared with patients fulfilling the MC (Table 2).

BIOMARKERS USED TO PREDICT HCC RECURRENCE AFTER LT

Most of the extended criteria above are established based on tumor size and number, which are more objective and convenient for clinical application, but insufficient to precisely indicate HCC biological features and to predict the risk of tumor recurrence. Many centers have demonstrated that vascular invasion and poor tumor differentiation are the most important factors affecting HCC recurrence[18,21,22]. Large or multiple HCCs were not always associated with poor biological behavior, indicating that tumor size and number could not completely predict vascular invasion and tumor grade. Although some studies have added the histopathologic characteristics of the tumor when evaluating the risk of tumor recurrence[7,12,14,15], the histopathologic results are usually difficult to obtain before LT. However, many biomarkers and their dynamic changes were demonstrated to be promising predictors for the prognosis of HCC patients after LT.

AFP

AFP is the most common prognostic maker that has been studied extensively in HCC. Several centers have identified the value of preoperative AFP concentrations in predicting prognosis after LT for HCC patients[10,12,23-25]. A recent study by Berry et al[26] also showed that preoperative AFP level could independently predict the prognosis of HCC patients after LT. In 2009, Toso et al[27] investigated 6478 recipients of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and proposed that the total tumor volume (TTV) and preoperative AFP level could independently predict patient survival. Recently, they reconfirmed the previously proposed viewpoint and expanded the criteria to HCC patients with TTV (≤ 115 cm3)/AFP (≤ 400 ng/mL)[28]. A systematic review conducted by Hakeem et al[29] has shown that a preoperative AFP level > 1000 ng/mL was associated with poorer outcomes of recipients with HCC. A study by Wan et al[30] showed that the use of serum AFP and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) level will greatly improve the prognostic prediction of HCC patients after LT. Xu et al[31] investigated the AFP data before and after LT in 97 patients and reported that post-transplant AFP levels that did not decrease to ≤ 20 ng/mL within 2 mo were indicative of higher risk of recurrence. Another study conducted by Hanouneh et al[32] confirmed patients beyond the MC with tumor growth < 1.61 cm3/mo experienced less recurrence than those beyond the MC with tumor growth > 1.61 cm3/mo.

DCP

DCP, also known as protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II (PIVKA-II), has also been used as an important HCC biological marker. Correlations between DCP levels and HCC microvascular invasion and metastasis have been reported in several studies[33,34]. In the transplantation field, centers from Japan first used the DCP levels in LT candidate selection[6,13]. Todo et al[35] conducted a study involving 49 centers of 653 patients and reported that recipients beyond the MC but with serum AFP levels ≤ 200 ng/mL and serum PIVKA-II levels ≤ 100 mAU/mL had a 5-year disease-free survival rate of 84.3%. Recently, Shindoh et al[36] also confirmed the predictive value of pre-transplant AFP and DCP levels for post-transplant HCC recurrence. After investigating 124 patients who underwent LDLT for HCC, they proposed a new scoring system that was composed of AFP (≤ 250 ng/mL), DCP (≤ 450 mAU/mL) and the Tokyo criteria (≤ 5 tumors with each tumor ≤ 5 cm). Patients fulfilling all or two of the three factors (AFP, DCP and the Tokyo criteria) had better 5-year disease-free survival rates than patients fulfilling only one, or none of the three factors.

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), also known as an index of systemic inflammation, has been reported to be associated with the prognosis of HCC patients[37]. Several studies have highlighted the value of preoperative NLR in predicting outcome after LT for HCC[38-41]. A study conducted by Harimoto et al[42] showed that the 3-year survival rate after recurrence in patients with NLR < 4 (43.6%) was higher than patients with NLR ≥ 4 (0%). Xiao et al[43] determined that NLR ≥ 4 was the main predictor of tumor recurrence in HCC patients after LT. A recent study, however, reported that NLR was not significantly associated with post-LT HCC recurrence. Another study also showed that increased NLR was associated with worse overall survival and recurrence-free survival[44].

C-reactive protein

Serum C-reactive protein (CRP), another inflammation maker, has also been shown to be related to the prognosis of HCC patients. Both An et al[45] and Kim et al[46] determined that, the high CRP level was an independent factor in predicting poor outcomes in HCC patients beyond the MC, but not in patients within the criteria. Na et al[47] investigated 224 patients and reported that the disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with NLR levels ≥ 6.0 or CRP levels ≥ 1.0 were significantly worse than those of patients with NLR levels < 6.0 or CRP levels < 1.0. Chung et al[48] also confirmed that the intra-operative decline of CRP was related to the occurrence of gross post-transplant outcomes. However, another study reported that the pre-transplant CRP level was not significantly associated with disease-free survival[36]. The clinical relevance and prognostic value of these inflammatory markers are still being debated, and further studies are needed to confirm their role in LT.

Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose

Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has been verified to be effective in predicting the outcome of HCC patients after liver resection and detecting extrahepatic metastases and recurrent HCC[49-52]. In the transplantation field, Yang et al[53] first reported that the recurrence-free survival rate of PET (-) recipients was significantly higher than that of PET (+) recipients. Several centers successively highlighted the value of preoperative FDG-PET in the assessment of tumor aggressiveness and in the prediction of tumor recurrence after LT[54-57]. A recent study conducted by Kornberg et al[58] showed the 5-year recurrence-free survival rate of recipients exceeding the MC with PET (-) was comparable to that of recipients within MC (81% vs 86.2%), but it was significantly higher than that of recipients exceeding MC with PET (+) (n = 14, 21%, P = 0.002).

HCC DOWNSTAGING ADJUVANT THERAPY BEFORE LT

Downstaging has been proved to be an effective way for patients with advanced HCC to reduce the tumor stage to fulfill the MC and achieve a complete pathologic response (cPR) by undergoing neoadjuvant therapies such as transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and percutaneous ethanol injection. A recent systemic review including 950 patients reported that more than 40% of patients successfully reduced HCC to within the MC[59]. Lei et al[60] investigated 72 patients with advanced HCC and reported that recipients fulfilling the MC or UCSF criteria after accepting successful preoperative downstaging therapy in LDLT can achieve similar outcomes. Yao et al[61] also confirmed that after successfully downstaging to within the MC, HCC recipients could achieve low HCC recurrence rates and excellent post-transplant survival which was comparable to those fulfilling the MC without downstaging therapy. Agopian et al[62] performed a retrospective review of 501 patients who received neoadjuvant therapies and found that compared with recipients without cPR, patients with cPR had significantly lower MELD scores and significantly superior 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free and disease-specific survival.

TACE has been widely used as an optional treatment for patients with unresectable HCC. The initial experience showed conflicting outcomes in treating HCC patients awaiting LT with TACE[63,64]. Recently more studies highlighted the importance of TACE in downstaging therapy and cPR[65-69]. In a retrospective report by Chapman et al[65], patients successfully downstaged by TACE alone achieved excellent midterm disease-free rates and overall survival. In another study, 77% T3N0M0 HCC patients successfully reduced their tumor stage to fulfill the MC by TACE[67]. Several studies regarded that TACE mediates its effect by inducing complete histological necrosis, with reported rates of cPR in 27% to 57% of patients with TACE[68,69].

RFA has also been verified as an effective treatment for HCC by many studies[70]. In the transplantation field, RFA was used as a bridge treatment to LT in many centers[71-73]. Yao et al[71] reported HCC patients exceeding the conventional criteria achieved an excellent survival rate after LT when combining RFA with other loco-regional therapies. Tsuchiya et al[74] recently reported that recurrence within 1 year after initial locally curative RFA therapy and AFP levels > 100 ng/mL were independently associated with earlier recurrence in patients exceeding the MC.

Although more and more centers have highlighted the value of various downstaging therapies, the post-transplant HCC recurrence rates are higher than patients fulfilling MC without pre-transplant therapies[59]. To further study the role of these downstaging therapies in patients with advanced HCC, more randomized data comparing these therapies are also necessary.

LDLT VS DDLT FOR HCC BEYOND THE MC

Currently, approximately 70% of LDLT recipients are from Asian countries due to the shortage of deceased donation, which was caused by many social and cultural reasons. There are several advantages including reducing the pretransplantation waiting time of patients with HCC, alleviating the ischemia-reperfusion injury because of shortened ischemic time, providing a an optimal donor graft for those with end-stage liver disease and even a timely graft for patients with fulminant hepatic failure promote the development of the approach. Although LDLT is criticized for its higher rate of surgical complications post-transplantation(biliary complications, vascular complications) than DDLT[75,76], it has been generally recognized by most studies that LDLT could achieve a comparable long-term survival rate in adult patients compared with DDLT[77-79].

The criteria from western countries were mainly based on a single-center experience with DDLT. Centers from Japan[6,9,13] and South Korea[11], however, proposed appropriate criteria for patients undergoing LDLT. Shirabe et al[80] recently investigated 109 consecutive HCC recipients undergoing LDLT and reported that compared with the other expanded criteria (UCSF, Tokyo, Kyoto University and Up-to-seven criteria), the Kyushu University criteria were the most powerful predictive criteria for HCC recurrence after LT.

For patients with HCC exceeding the MC, whether recurrence and survival rate in LDLT are different from those in DDLT remains controversial. Woo et al[81] reviewed 37 patients exceeding the MC and reported that a tumor size > 6 cm, progressive disease after pre-transplant treatment and a tumor exposed to the liver surface may be useful for identifying those with high HCC recurrence potential after LDLT. A study from Bhangui et al[82] confirmed the advantage of shorter waiting time in LDLT; they also verified that patients exceeding the MC and UCSF criteria showed a trend toward worse outcomes with LDLT compared with those of DDLT. Recently, a study conducted in Hangzhou, however, showed that outcomes after LDLT are better than those after DDLT for HCC patients who did not meet the Hangzhou criteria[83].

For patients within the MC, the long-term survival rate was comparable between DDLT and LDLT. However, to further verify the value of LDLT in HCC recipients exceeding the MC, further case-controlled research with larger patient number needs to be conducted to propose more appropriate selection criteria.

POSTTRANSPLANT ADJUVANT TREATMENT FOR HCC

Sorafenib (SFN), an oral multi kinase inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of unresectable HCC for years. Recently, many studies verified its value in reducing the risk of recurrence and treatment for recurrent HCC after LT. Huang et al[84] conducted a prospective randomized study for recipients with HCC exceeding the MC and reported that compared with capecitabine, SFN could reduce or delay tumor recurrence after LT and improve patient survival. In a case-control study designed in Taiwan, HCC patients exceeding the MC after OLT treated with adjuvant sorafenib had better disease-free and overall survival rate than those in the control group[85]. Other studies[86-88] also confirmed the role of SFN in the treatment of HCC recurrence.

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) were widely used in LT. However, the short and long term adverse effects including renal dysfunction and a dose-dependent increase in the post-transplant risk of HCC recurrence drew attention[89-91]. The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi), such as everolimus or sirolimus, might represent an alternative immunosuppressive agent; the antineoplastic effect of mTORi has also been confirmed by several studies[92]. Two meta-analyses have reported that compared with CNIs or SRL-free regimens, sirolimus is associated with significantly lower HCC recurrence rates after LT[93,94]. A more recent meta-analysis including 42 studies of 3666 patients confirmed that compared with CNIs, mTORi was associated with lower rates of HCC recurrence after LT[95]. Moreover, the rates of HCC recurrence in HCC patients within the MC were lower in mTORi (3.8% vs 9.2%, P = 0.03), but no difference was observed among patients who had HCC exceeding the MC (29.5% vs 29.2%, P = 1.0)[95].

CONCLUSION

As various therapies mature, the treatment of HCC has progressed greatly. Because a large number of patients who exceeded the MC were unnecessarily excluded according to the MC, several extended criteria beyond the MC were proposed to benefit these recipients. Moreover, many biological markers such as AFP, DCP, NLR and CRP have been verified to be closely associated with HCC patients’ prognosis and the risk of post-transplant recurrence. Although downstaging tumors to fulfill the MC allows patients with advanced HCC to potentially have an opportunity for LT, the high tumor recurrence rate after LT reported in some studies has raised attention. Moreover, SFN and mTORi may be useful to reduce the risk of HCC recurrence and to treat recurrent HCC after LT. As for the selection of graft type, the outcomes of LDLT for patients beyond the MC remains controversial.

Footnotes

Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 81472243.

Conflict-of-interest statement: Authors declare no conflict of interest for this article.

Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Peer-review started: September 28, 2015

First decision: October 14, 2015

Article in press: January 30, 2016

P- Reviewer: Detry O, Grat M, Makisalo H S- Editor: Gong ZM L- Editor: A E- Editor: Ma S

References

  • 1.O’Grady JG, Polson RJ, Rolles K, Calne RY, Williams R. Liver transplantation for malignant disease. Results in 93 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 1988;207:373–379. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198804000-00002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ringe B, Wittekind C, Bechstein WO, Bunzendahl H, Pichlmayr R. The role of liver transplantation in hepatobiliary malignancy. A retrospective analysis of 95 patients with particular regard to tumor stage and recurrence. Ann Surg. 1989;209:88–98. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198901000-00013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ismail T, Angrisani L, Gunson BK, Hübscher SG, Buckels JA, Neuberger JM, Elias E, McMaster P. Primary hepatic malignancy: the role of liver transplantation. Br J Surg. 1990;77:983–987. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800770908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Haug CE, Jenkins RL, Rohrer RJ, Auchincloss H, Delmonico FL, Freeman RB, Lewis WD, Cosimi AB. Liver transplantation for primary hepatic cancer. Transplantation. 1992;53:376–382. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199202010-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, Montalto F, Ammatuna M, Morabito A, Gennari L. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:693–699. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603143341104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ito T, Takada Y, Ueda M, Haga H, Maetani Y, Oike F, Ogawa K, Sakamoto S, Ogura Y, Egawa H, et al. Expansion of selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2007;13:1637–1644. doi: 10.1002/lt.21281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yao FY, Ferrell L, Bass NM, Watson JJ, Bacchetti P, Venook A, Ascher NL, Roberts JP. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: expansion of the tumor size limits does not adversely impact survival. Hepatology. 2001;33:1394–1403. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2001.24563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mazzaferro V, Llovet JM, Miceli R, Bhoori S, Schiavo M, Mariani L, Camerini T, Roayaie S, Schwartz ME, Grazi GL, et al. Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:35–43. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70284-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sugawara Y, Tamura S, Makuuchi M. Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Tokyo University series. Dig Dis. 2007;25:310–312. doi: 10.1159/000106910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Duvoux C, Roudot-Thoraval F, Decaens T, Pessione F, Badran H, Piardi T, Francoz C, Compagnon P, Vanlemmens C, Dumortier J, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a model including α-fetoprotein improves the performance of Milan criteria. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:986–94.e3; quiz e14-5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lee SG, Hwang S, Moon DB, Ahn CS, Kim KH, Sung KB, Ko GY, Park KM, Ha TY, Song GW. Expanded indication criteria of living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma at one large-volume center. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:935–945. doi: 10.1002/lt.21445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zheng SS, Xu X, Wu J, Chen J, Wang WL, Zhang M, Liang TB, Wu LM. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Hangzhou experiences. Transplantation. 2008;85:1726–1732. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31816b67e4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Soejima Y, Taketomi A, Yoshizumi T, Uchiyama H, Aishima S, Terashi T, Shimada M, Maehara Y. Extended indication for living donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Transplantation. 2007;83:893–899. doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000259015.46798.ec. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fan J, Yang GS, Fu ZR, Peng ZH, Xia Q, Peng CH, Qian JM, Zhou J, Xu Y, Qiu SJ, et al. Liver transplantation outcomes in 1,078 hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a multi-center experience in Shanghai, China. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2009;135:1403–1412. doi: 10.1007/s00432-009-0584-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Marsh JW, Dvorchik I, Bonham CA, Iwatsuki S. Is the pathologic TNM staging system for patients with hepatoma predictive of outcome? Cancer. 2000;88:538–543. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000201)88:3<538::aid-cncr7>3.0.co;2-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Li J, Yan LN, Yang J, Chen ZY, Li B, Zeng Y, Wen TF, Zhao JC, Wang WT, Yang JY, et al. Indicators of prognosis after liver transplantation in Chinese hepatocellular carcinoma patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:4170–4176. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.4170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chen J, Xu X, Ling Q, Wu J, Zheng SS. Role of Pittsburgh modified TNM criteria in prognosis prediction of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Chin Med J (Engl) 2007;120:2200–2203. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Duffy JP, Vardanian A, Benjamin E, Watson M, Farmer DG, Ghobrial RM, Lipshutz G, Yersiz H, Lu DS, Lassman C, et al. Liver transplantation criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma should be expanded: a 22-year experience with 467 patients at UCLA. Ann Surg. 2007;246:502–509; discussion 509-511. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318148c704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Xu X, Lu D, Ling Q, Wei X, Wu J, Zhou L, Yan S, Wu L, Geng L, Ke Q, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria. Gut. 2015:Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wan P, Xia Q, Zhang JJ, Li QG, Xu N, Zhang M, Chen XS, Han LZ. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding the Milan criteria: a single-center experience. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140:341–348. doi: 10.1007/s00432-013-1576-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jonas S, Bechstein WO, Steinmüller T, Herrmann M, Radke C, Berg T, Settmacher U, Neuhaus P. Vascular invasion and histopathologic grading determine outcome after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2001;33:1080–1086. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2001.23561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hemming AW, Cattral MS, Reed AI, Van Der Werf WJ, Greig PD, Howard RJ. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2001;233:652–659. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200105000-00009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yang SH, Suh KS, Lee HW, Cho EH, Cho JY, Cho YB, Kim IH, Yi NJ, Lee KU. A revised scoring system utilizing serum alphafetoprotein levels to expand candidates for living donor transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma. Surgery. 2007;141:598–609. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Merani S, Majno P, Kneteman NM, Berney T, Morel P, Mentha G, Toso C. The impact of waiting list alpha-fetoprotein changes on the outcome of liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2011;55:814–819. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2010.12.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wang ZX, Song SH, Teng F, Wang GH, Guo WY, Shi XM, Ma J, Wu YM, Ding GS, Fu ZR. A single-center retrospective analysis of liver transplantation on 255 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Transplant. 2010;24:752–757. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2009.01172.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Berry K, Ioannou GN. Serum alpha-fetoprotein level independently predicts posttransplant survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2013;19:634–645. doi: 10.1002/lt.23652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Toso C, Asthana S, Bigam DL, Shapiro AM, Kneteman NM. Reassessing selection criteria prior to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma utilizing the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. Hepatology. 2009;49:832–838. doi: 10.1002/hep.22693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Toso C, Meeberg G, Hernandez-Alejandro R, Dufour JF, Marotta P, Majno P, Kneteman NM. Total tumor volume and alpha-fetoprotein for selection of transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma: A prospective validation. Hepatology. 2015;62:158–165. doi: 10.1002/hep.27787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hakeem AR, Young RS, Marangoni G, Lodge JP, Prasad KR. Systematic review: the prognostic role of alpha-fetoprotein following liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:987–999. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2012.05060.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wan P, Zhang J, Long X, Li Q, Xu N, Zhang M, Chen X, Han L, Xia Q. Serum levels of preoperative α-fetoprotein and CA19-9 predict survival of hepatic carcinoma patients after liver transplantation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;26:553–561. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Xu X, Ke QH, Shao ZX, Wu J, Chen J, Zhou L, Zheng SS. The value of serum alpha-fetoprotein in predicting tumor recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54:385–388. doi: 10.1007/s10620-008-0349-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hanouneh IA, Macaron C, Lopez R, Aucejo F, Zein NN. Rate of tumor growth predicts recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation in patients beyond Milan or UCSF criteria. Transplant Proc. 2011;43:3813–3818. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.09.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Carr BI, Kanke F, Wise M, Satomura S. Clinical evaluation of lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive alpha-fetoprotein and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin in histologically proven hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52:776–782. doi: 10.1007/s10620-006-9541-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shirabe K, Itoh S, Yoshizumi T, Soejima Y, Taketomi A, Aishima S, Maehara Y. The predictors of microvascular invasion in candidates for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma-with special reference to the serum levels of des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin. J Surg Oncol. 2007;95:235–240. doi: 10.1002/jso.20655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Todo S, Furukawa H, Tada M. Extending indication: role of living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2007;13:S48–S54. doi: 10.1002/lt.21334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shindoh J, Sugawara Y, Nagata R, Kaneko J, Tamura S, Aoki T, Sakamoto Y, Hasegawa K, Tanaka T, Kokudo N. Evaluation methods for pretransplant oncologic markers and their prognostic impacts in patient undergoing living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Transpl Int. 2014;27:391–398. doi: 10.1111/tri.12274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gomez D, Farid S, Malik HZ, Young AL, Toogood GJ, Lodge JP, Prasad KR. Preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic predictor after curative resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg. 2008;32:1757–1762. doi: 10.1007/s00268-008-9552-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Halazun KJ, Hardy MA, Rana AA, Woodland DC, Luyten EJ, Mahadev S, Witkowski P, Siegel AB, Brown RS, Emond JC. Negative impact of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio on outcome after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2009;250:141–151. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a77e59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Limaye AR, Clark V, Soldevila-Pico C, Morelli G, Suman A, Firpi R, Nelson DR, Cabrera R. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio predicts overall and recurrence-free survival after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res. 2013;43:757–764. doi: 10.1111/hepr.12019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kayadibi H, Sertoglu E, Uyanik M, Tapan S. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio is useful for the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:9631–9632. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i28.9631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lai Q, Castro Santa E, Rico Juri JM, Pinheiro RS, Lerut J. Neutrophil and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as new predictors of dropout and recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer. Transpl Int. 2014;27:32–41. doi: 10.1111/tri.12191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Harimoto N, Shirabe K, Nakagawara H, Toshima T, Yamashita Y, Ikegami T, Yoshizumi T, Soejima Y, Ikeda T, Maehara Y. Prognostic factors affecting survival at recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after living-donor liver transplantation: with special reference to neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio. Transplantation. 2013;96:1008–1012. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182a53f2b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Xiao GQ, Liu C, Liu DL, Yang JY, Yan LN. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio predicts the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8398–8407. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i45.8398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Peng W, Li C, Wen TF, Yan LN, Li B, Wang WT, Yang JY, Xu MQ. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio changes predict small hepatocellular carcinoma survival. J Surg Res. 2014;192:402–408. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.05.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.An HJ, Jang JW, Bae SH, Choi JY, Yoon SK, Lee MA, You YK, Kim DG, Jung ES. Serum C-reactive protein is a useful biomarker for predicting outcomes after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2012;18:1406–1414. doi: 10.1002/lt.23512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kim YK, Kim SH, Lee SD, Hong SK, Park SJ. Pretransplant serum levels of C-reactive protein predict prognoses in patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Transplant Proc. 2015;47:686–693. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2014.11.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Na GH, Kim DG, Han JH, Kim EY, Lee SH, Hong TH, You YK. Inflammatory markers as selection criteria of hepatocellular carcinoma in living-donor liver transplantation. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:6594–6601. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i21.6594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chung HS, Kim ES, Park JH, Park CS. Prediction of gross post-transplant outcomes based on the intra-operative decline in C-reactive protein in living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2015;47:431–437. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2015.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hatano E, Ikai I, Higashi T, Teramukai S, Torizuka T, Saga T, Fujii H, Shimahara Y. Preoperative positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose is predictive of prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after resection. World J Surg. 2006;30:1736–1741. doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-0791-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Seo S, Hatano E, Higashi T, Hara T, Tada M, Tamaki N, Iwaisako K, Ikai I, Uemoto S. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts tumor differentiation, P-glycoprotein expression, and outcome after resection in hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:427–433. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Yoon KT, Kim JK, Kim do Y, Ahn SH, Lee JD, Yun M, Rha SY, Chon CY, Han KH. Role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in detecting extrahepatic metastasis in pretreatment staging of hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncology. 2007;72 Suppl 1:104–110. doi: 10.1159/000111715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lin CY, Chen JH, Liang JA, Lin CC, Jeng LB, Kao CH. 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for detecting extrahepatic metastases or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:2417–2422. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Yang SH, Suh KS, Lee HW, Cho EH, Cho JY, Cho YB, Yi NJ, Lee KU. The role of (18)F-FDG-PET imaging for the selection of liver transplantation candidates among hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Liver Transpl. 2006;12:1655–1660. doi: 10.1002/lt.20861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kornberg A, Küpper B, Thrum K, Katenkamp K, Steenbeck J, Sappler A, Habrecht O, Gottschild D. Increased 18F-FDG uptake of hepatocellular carcinoma on positron emission tomography independently predicts tumor recurrence in liver transplant patients. Transplant Proc. 2009;41:2561–2563. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.06.115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lee JW, Paeng JC, Kang KW, Kwon HW, Suh KS, Chung JK, Lee MC, Lee DS. Prediction of tumor recurrence by 18F-FDG PET in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:682–687. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.060574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lee SD, Kim SH, Kim YK, Kim C, Kim SK, Han SS, Park SJ. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT predicts early tumor recurrence in living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Transpl Int. 2013;26:50–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2012.01572.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Detry O, Govaerts L, Deroover A, Vandermeulen M, Meurisse N, Malenga S, Bletard N, Mbendi C, Lamproye A, Honoré P, et al. Prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in liver transplantation for hepatocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:3049–3054. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i10.3049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kornberg A, Küpper B, Tannapfel A, Büchler P, Krause B, Witt U, Gottschild D, Friess H. Patients with non-[18 F]fludeoxyglucose-avid advanced hepatocellular carcinoma on clinical staging may achieve long-term recurrence-free survival after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2012;18:53–61. doi: 10.1002/lt.22416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Parikh ND, Waljee AK, Singal AG. Downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Liver Transpl. 2015;21:1142–1152. doi: 10.1002/lt.24169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lei J, Yan L. Comparison between living donor liver transplantation recipients who met the Milan and UCSF criteria after successful downstaging therapies. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:2120–2125. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-2019-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Yao FY, Mehta N, Flemming J, Dodge J, Hameed B, Fix O, Hirose R, Fidelman N, Kerlan RK, Roberts JP. Downstaging of hepatocellular cancer before liver transplant: long-term outcome compared to tumors within Milan criteria. Hepatology. 2015;61:1968–1977. doi: 10.1002/hep.27752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Agopian VG, Morshedi MM, McWilliams J, Harlander-Locke MP, Markovic D, Zarrinpar A, Kaldas FM, Farmer DG, Yersiz H, Hiatt JR, et al. Complete pathologic response to pretransplant locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma defines cancer cure after liver transplantation: analysis of 501 consecutively treated patients. Ann Surg. 2015;262:536–545; discussion 543-545. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Oldhafer KJ, Chavan A, Frühauf NR, Flemming P, Schlitt HJ, Kubicka S, Nashan B, Weimann A, Raab R, Manns MP, et al. Arterial chemoembolization before liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: marked tumor necrosis, but no survival benefit? J Hepatol. 1998;29:953–959. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(98)80123-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Majno PE, Adam R, Bismuth H, Castaing D, Ariche A, Krissat J, Perrin H, Azoulay D. Influence of preoperative transarterial lipiodol chemoembolization on resection and transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Ann Surg. 1997;226:688–701; discussion 701-703. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199712000-00006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Chapman WC, Majella Doyle MB, Stuart JE, Vachharajani N, Crippin JS, Anderson CD, Lowell JA, Shenoy S, Darcy MD, Brown DB. Outcomes of neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization to downstage hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation. Ann Surg. 2008;248:617–625. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818a07d4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.De Luna W, Sze DY, Ahmed A, Ha BY, Ayoub W, Keeffe EB, Cooper A, Esquivel C, Nguyen MH. Transarterial chemoinfusion for hepatocellular carcinoma as downstaging therapy and a bridge toward liver transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:1158–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02576.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Green TJ, Rochon PJ, Chang S, Ray CE, Winston H, Ruef R, Kreidler SM, Glueck DH, Shulman BC, Brown AC, et al. Downstaging disease in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma outside of Milan criteria: strategies using drug-eluting bead chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24:1613–1622. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.07.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Golfieri R, Cappelli A, Cucchetti A, Piscaglia F, Carpenzano M, Peri E, Ravaioli M, D’Errico-Grigioni A, Pinna AD, Bolondi L. Efficacy of selective transarterial chemoembolization in inducing tumor necrosis in small (<5 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas. Hepatology. 2011;53:1580–1589. doi: 10.1002/hep.24246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kwan SW, Fidelman N, Ma E, Kerlan RK, Yao FY. Imaging predictors of the response to transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a radiological-pathological correlation. Liver Transpl. 2012;18:727–736. doi: 10.1002/lt.23413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Feng K, Ma KS. Value of radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:5987–5998. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i20.5987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Yao FY, Kinkhabwala M, LaBerge JM, Bass NM, Brown R, Kerlan R, Venook A, Ascher NL, Emond JC, Roberts JP. The impact of pre-operative loco-regional therapy on outcome after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Transplant. 2005;5:795–804. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.00750.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Mazzaferro V, Battiston C, Perrone S, Pulvirenti A, Regalia E, Romito R, Sarli D, Schiavo M, Garbagnati F, Marchianò A, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients awaiting liver transplantation: a prospective study. Ann Surg. 2004;240:900–909. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000143301.56154.95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Fontana RJ, Hamidullah H, Nghiem H, Greenson JK, Hussain H, Marrero J, Rudich S, McClure LA, Arenas J. Percutaneous radiofrequency thermal ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a safe and effective bridge to liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2002;8:1165–1174. doi: 10.1053/jlts.2002.36394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Tsuchiya K, Asahina Y, Tamaki N, Yasui Y, Hosokawa T, Ueda K, Nakanishi H, Itakura J, Kurosaki M, Enomoto N, et al. Risk factors for exceeding the Milan criteria after successful radiofrequency ablation in patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2014;20:291–297. doi: 10.1002/lt.23798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Zimmerman MA, Baker T, Goodrich NP, Freise C, Hong JC, Kumer S, Abt P, Cotterell AH, Samstein B, Everhart JE, et al. Development, management, and resolution of biliary complications after living and deceased donor liver transplantation: a report from the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study consortium. Liver Transpl. 2013;19:259–267. doi: 10.1002/lt.23595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wan P, Yu X, Xia Q. Operative outcomes of adult living donor liver transplantation and deceased donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Liver Transpl. 2014;20:425–436. doi: 10.1002/lt.23836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Liang W, Wu L, Ling X, Schroder PM, Ju W, Wang D, Shang Y, Kong Y, Guo Z, He X. Living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Liver Transpl. 2012;18:1226–1236. doi: 10.1002/lt.23490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Reichman TW, Katchman H, Tanaka T, Greig PD, McGilvray ID, Cattral MS, Renner EL, Selzner M, Ghanekar A, Levy G, et al. Living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: a surgeon-matched comparison of recipient morbidity and outcomes. Transpl Int. 2013;26:780–787. doi: 10.1111/tri.12127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Hoehn RS, Wilson GC, Wima K, Hohmann SF, Midura EF, Woodle ES, Abbott DE, Singhal A, Shah SA. Comparing living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation: A matched national analysis from 2007 to 2012. Liver Transpl. 2014;20:1347–1355. doi: 10.1002/lt.23956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Shirabe K, Taketomi A, Morita K, Soejima Y, Uchiyama H, Kayashima H, Ninomiya M, Toshima T, Maehara Y. Comparative evaluation of expanded criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria undergoing living-related donor liver transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2011;25:E491–E498. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2011.01463.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Woo HY, Jang JW, Choi JY, You CR, Jeong SW, Bae SH, Yoon SK, Lee YS, Kim DG. Living donor liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria. Liver Int. 2008;28:1120–1128. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2008.01785.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Bhangui P, Vibert E, Majno P, Salloum C, Andreani P, Zocrato J, Ichai P, Saliba F, Adam R, Castaing D, et al. Intention-to-treat analysis of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: living versus deceased donor transplantation. Hepatology. 2011;53:1570–1579. doi: 10.1002/hep.24231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Chen J, Xu X, Wu J, Ling Q, Wang K, Wang W, Zhang M, Shen Y, Zhou L, Xie H, et al. The stratifying value of Hangzhou criteria in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS One. 2014;9:e93128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Huang L, Li GM, Zhu JY, Li Z, Li T, Leng XS. Efficacy of sorafenib after liver transplantation in patients with primary hepatic carcinoma exceeding the Milan criteria: a preliminary study. Onco Targets Ther. 2012;5:457–462. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S31387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Teng CL, Hwang WL, Chen YJ, Chang KH, Cheng SB. Sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma patients beyond Milan criteria after orthotopic liver transplantation: a case control study. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:41. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Sotiropoulos GC, Nowak KW, Fouzas I, Vernadakis S, Kykalos S, Klein CG, Paul A. Sorafenib treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2012;44:2754–2756. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.09.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Waghray A, Balci B, El-Gazzaz G, Kim R, Pelley R, Narayanan Menon KV, Estfan B, Romero-Marrero C, Aucejo F. Safety and efficacy of sorafenib for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2013;27:555–561. doi: 10.1111/ctr.12150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Sposito C, Mariani L, Germini A, Flores Reyes M, Bongini M, Grossi G, Bhoori S, Mazzaferro V. Comparative efficacy of sorafenib versus best supportive care in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation: a case-control study. J Hepatol. 2013;59:59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.02.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Gonwa TA. Hypertension and renal dysfunction in long-term liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl. 2001;7:S22–S26. doi: 10.1053/jlts.2001.28511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Gonwa TA, Mai ML, Klintmalm GB. Chronic renal failure after transplantation of a nonrenal organ. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2563–2565; author reply 2563-2565. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200312253492617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Vivarelli M, Cucchetti A, Piscaglia F, La Barba G, Bolondi L, Cavallari A, Pinna AD. Analysis of risk factors for tumor recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: key role of immunosuppression. Liver Transpl. 2005;11:497–503. doi: 10.1002/lt.20391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Toso C, Merani S, Bigam DL, Shapiro AM, Kneteman NM. Sirolimus-based immunosuppression is associated with increased survival after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2010;51:1237–1243. doi: 10.1002/hep.23437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Liang W, Wang D, Ling X, Kao AA, Kong Y, Shang Y, Guo Z, He X. Sirolimus-based immunosuppression in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Liver Transpl. 2012;18:62–69. doi: 10.1002/lt.22441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Menon KV, Hakeem AR, Heaton ND. Meta-analysis: recurrence and survival following the use of sirolimus in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;37:411–419. doi: 10.1111/apt.12185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Cholongitas E, Mamou C, Rodríguez-Castro KI, Burra P. Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors are associated with lower rates of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: a systematic review. Transpl Int. 2014;27:1039–1049. doi: 10.1111/tri.12372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from World Journal of Gastroenterology are provided here courtesy of Baishideng Publishing Group Inc

RESOURCES