The use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor hepatic allografts is becoming more widespread; however, there have been published reports of increased graft failure from specific complications associated with this type of allograft. The complication of ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) has been reported to occur more frequently after the use of DCD hepatic allografts. We report the results of 52 liver transplants from DCD donors and the factors that influenced the development of IC. We conducted a retrospective review of all DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donor liver recipients from September 2003 through December 2006 at a single institution. Survival and complication rates were compared between the 2 groups. The Cox proportional hazards model was then used to identify recipient and donor factors that predict the development of IC in the DCD group. There was no difference in 1-year patient or graft survival rates between the 2 groups. There was no incidence of primary nonfunction from the DCD allografts. Hepatic artery complications and anastomotic bile duct complications were comparable in the 2 groups. There was, however, an increased risk for the development of IC in the DCD group (13.7% versus 1%, P ϭ 0.001). Donor weight Ͼ100 kg and total ischemia times Ն9 hours, in donors older than 50 years of age, predicted the development of IC in the DCD group. In conclusion, there is a higher incidence of IC in recipients receiving DCD donor livers; however, patient and graft outcomes with DCD donors remain comparable to those with DBD donors. Careful donor selection may improve utilization of these grafts. Liver Transpl 14: 604-610, 2008.

The radiologist has a critical role in recognizing and reporting excipient lung disease because the referring clinician may be unaware of the patient's i.v. drug abuse.

The recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of mortality for patients transplanted with HCC. There currently exists no standard method for identifying those patients with a high risk for recurrence. Identification of factors leading to recurrence is necessary to develop an efficient surveillance protocol and address new potential adjuvant therapies. We Stepwise logistic regression identified 4 independent significant explant factors predictive of recurrence. Size of one tumor (Ͼ4.5 cm), macroinvasion, and bilobar tumor were positive predictors of recurrence, whereas the presence of only well-differentiated HCC was a negative predictor. Designating each significant factor with points in relation to its odds ratio, a Predicting Cancer Recurrence Score (PCRS) with results ranging from Ϫ3 to 6 was developed that accurately determined risk of recurrence. These findings were then applied to the two validation cohorts, which confirmed the high predictive value of this model. The recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a significant cause of mortality after liver transplantation.1,2 Even with the implementation of the Milan criteria, recurrence rates have been shown to be 8%-15% in most studies. [2][3][4] One reason for this is that diagnostic staging prior to transplantation relies on radiographic evaluation, which has been reported to understage tumors in 21%-43% of cases.5-8 Several case series reviews have identified tumor characteristics that may lead to a higher recurrence rate. Most of these reviews identified factors determined through pathological analysis of explanted livers.3,4,9-11 However, patients transplanted for HCC are usually not restaged, and all are still followed post-transplantation with

Acute cellular graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD) following liver transplantation has an incidence of 1 to 2% and a mortality rate of 85%. Our aim was to identify a patient population at high risk for developing GVHD using a large clinical database to study both recipient and donor factors. We compared our liver transplant patients who developed GVHD to those that did not for recipient and donor factors and combinations of factors. For 2003-2004 we had 205 first-time liver transplant patients surviving >30 days. From this group, 4 (1.9%) developed GVHD. Compared to the control group, there were no significant differences in recipient age, recipient gender, donor age, donor gender, total ischemia time, donor-recipient human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch, or donor-recipient age difference. Percentages of liver disease etiologies among the patients who developed GVHD were as follows: 16% (1/6) autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) (P = 0.003), 5.6% (3/54) alcoholic liver disease (ALD) (P = 0.057), and 7.1% (3/42) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (P = 0.026). The incidence of GVHD in patients with glucose intolerance (either Type I or Type II diabetes mellitus [DM]) was significant (P = 0.022). Focusing on patients only with high-risk factors for GVHD during the years 2003-2005, we had 19 such patients. Four of these high-risk patients developed GVHD. Three of these 4 patients had received a donor liver with steatosis of degree >or=mild compared to only 2 of the 15 high-risk patients who did not develop GVHD (P = 0.037). In conclusion, we have identified liver transplant patients with AIH or the combination of ALD, HCC, and glucose intolerance who receive a steatotic donor liver as being at high risk for developing GVHD.

No abstract

Glypican-3 (GPC3) is a proteoglycan thought to play an important role during development. Germline GPC3 mutations are seen in the rare Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome (SGBS), which predisposes patients to Wilms tumor, hepatoblastoma, and neuroblastoma. While numerous adult tumors have been evaluated by immunohistochemistry for GPC3, no comprehensive assessment has been done in pediatric tumors. We therefore investigated GPC3 expression in 143 pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors and 271 non-CNS tumors. Among non-CNS tumors, GPC3 expression was seen in 9/9 (100%) hepatoblastomas, 4/6 (67%) malignant rhabdoid tumors, 5/13 (38%) Wilms tumors, 11/37 (30%) alveolar rhabdomyosarcomas, and 8/45 (18%) embryonal rhabdomyosarcomas. All 136 neuroblastomas, 14 Ewing sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumors, and 11 synovial sarcomas were immunonegative for GPC3. Among CNS tumors, GPC3 had restricted expression, with positivity in 6/6 (100%) atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors and 1/4 (25%) craniopharyngiomas. The remaining 136 CNS tumors-23 medulloblastomas, 21 pilocytic astrocytomas, 13 gangliogliomas, 12 ependymomas, 12 glioblastomas, 11 choroid plexus neoplasms, 10 diffuse astrocytomas (grade II/III), 10 meningiomas, 8 dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumors, 8 oligodendrogliomas, 3 craniopharyngiomas, 3 germinomas, and 2 neurocytomas-were entirely negative for GPC3. These results showed GPC3 positivity in a number of non-CNS tumors, with no consistent discrimination between tumors that were or were not associated with SGBS. Within the CNS, GPC3 positivity was limited to a small subset of CNS neoplasms and may thus serve as a useful positive diagnostic biomarker (P < 0.0001) in addition to negative INI1/BAF47/SMARCB1 staining to differentiate atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors from other high-grade pediatric brain tumors.

Background The diagnostic and prognostic utility of risk factors proposed by the 2012 American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation (AHA/ACCF) Scientific Statement on the cardiac assessment of asymptomatic liver transplantation candidates have not been validated. We investigated whether the sum of risk factors proposed by the AHA/ACCF can identify liver transplant candidates at increased cardiac risk. Methods In a retrospective cohort of consecutive liver transplantation recipients, we calculated, for each subject, the pre-transplantation sum of AHA/ACCF risk factors (age > 60 years, prior cardiovascular disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking, and left ventricular hypertrophy). The primary outcome was the presence of severe coronary artery disease (CAD), defined as ≥70% stenosis or ≥ 50% left main stenosis on pre-transplantation angiography. The secondary outcomes were the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) and the composite of cardiac death, MI, or coronary revascularization. Results Among 220 liver transplant recipients, the sum of AHA/ACCF risk factors had good discriminatory capacity for severe CAD [area under the curve, 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62–0.92; P = 0.007]; having ≥3 risk factors provided 75% sensitivity and 77% specificity for severe CAD. During mean post-transplantation follow-up of 48 ± 31 months, having ≥3 risk factors was associated with increased risk of the secondary composite outcomes of cardiac death or MI [hazard ratio, 2.39; P = 0.044] and cardiac death, MI, or coronary revascularization [hazard ratio, 2.39; P = 0.044]. Conclusions In patients undergoing cardiac assessment prior to liver transplantation, the sum of risk factors proposed by the AHA/ACCF provides significant diagnostic and prognostic utility. Having ≥3 AHA/ACCF risk factors is a reasonable threshold to prompt non-invasive stress testing in asymptomatic liver transplantation candidates.

Background. The PHS increased risk donor (IRD) is underutilized in liver transplantation. We aimed to examine the posttransplant outcomes in recipients of increased-risk organs. Methods. We analyzed 228,040 transplants in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database from 2004 to 2013. Endpoints were graft failure and death. Results were controlled for demographics and comorbidities. Statistical analysis utilized Fisher's test and logistic regression. Results. 58,816 patients were identified (5,534 IRD, 53,282 non-IRD). IRDs were more frequently male (69.2% versus 58.3%, p < 0.001), younger (34 versus 39, p < 0.001), and less likely to have comorbidities (p < 0.001). Waitlist time was longer for IRD graft recipients (254 versus 238 days, p < 0.001). All outcomes were better in the IRD group. Graft failure (23.6 versus 27.3%, p < 0.001) and mortality (20.4 versus 22.3%, p = 0.001) were decreased in IRD graft recipients. However, in multivariate analysis, IRD status was not a significant indicator of outcomes. Conclusion. This is the first study to describe IRD demographics in liver transplantation. Outcomes are improved in IRD organ recipients; however, controlling for donor and recipient comorbidities, ischemia time, and MELD score, the differences lose significance. In multivariate analysis, use of IRD organs is noninferior, with similar graft failure and mortality despite the infectious risk.