Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Hepatol. 2021 Jan 13;74(6):1398–1406. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.12.021

Table 3:

Comparison of predicted post-transplant survival for 5 sample patients transplanted for HCC within Milan criteria

graphic file with name nihms-1662689-ig0011.jpg graphic file with name nihms-1662689-ig0012.jpg graphic file with name nihms-1662689-ig0013.jpg graphic file with name nihms-1662689-ig0014.jpg graphic file with name nihms-1662689-ig0015.jpg
Age at transplant 71 70 65 67 54
Pre-transplant CKD Yes No No No No
Total bilirubin 0.6 2.6 3.3 0.5 0.5
INR 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.1
eGFR, mL/min/1.73m2 55 47.5 115 76 76.0
Diabetes Yes Yes No No No
Location Home Home Home Home Home
Etiology of liver disease NASH NASH HCV HBV HBV
Ventilated No No No No No
AFP at listing 91 19 39 4 11
AFP at transplant 224 20 11 7 14
Total tumor diameter at listing 4.5 4.3 2.9 2.1 2.9
Total tumor diameter at transplant 3.7 4.9 1.5 2.1 2.9
LiTES Score 14.2 19.7 27.9 38.2 52.7
Predicted post-transplant survival time based on LiTES
5-year time horizon 4.07 4.17 4.34 4.50 4.66
10-year time horizon 6.80 7.14 7.63 8.16 8.72

Abbreviations: eGFR=estimate glomerular filtration rate

*

Tumor size based on center to OPTN/UNOS and decreased sizes reflect changes from loco-regional therapy

LiTES score calculated based on coefficients from Table 1, with predicted survival time based on based on the survival curves developed in the validation cohort.