Background. Liver transplantation cures hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) if within conventional selection criteria. Expanded criteria are elusive. Loco-regional treatments pursue tumor downstaging from outside Milan criteria to within criteria. No trial investigated HCC-downstaging strategy to expand transplant eligibility. Methods. This multi-center trial aimed at comparing successfully downstaged HCC followed by transplantation vs. non-transplant therapies. Eligible patients had good liver function (Child-Pugh A-B7), HCC beyond Milan, 5-year estimated post-transplant survival ≥50%, no macrovascular or extrahepatic spread. Only partial-complete responses according to modified-RECIST were randomized 1:1 after 3 months observation period, during which sorafenib was allowed. Co-endpoints were survival and timeto-tumor event. We used Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, Cox regression for intention-to-treat analysis. Survival benefit was the difference between groups mean survival time. Organ allocation policy changed over time and limited patients' accrual to 4 years. After 4 additional years conditional power calculation estimated the probability that the final results would be statistically significant in the remaining study, given the data observed. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01387503. Findings. 74 patients were enrolled between March 2011 to March 2015: 29 dropped-out pre-randomization. Downstaging median duration was 6 months (1-17). Success-rate was 73%. Progression during observation was 17%. 45 patients were randomized: 23 transplanted vs. 22 controls. Median followup was 71 months (IQR 60-85). 5-year overall survival was 77.5% (95%CI 61.9-97.1%) in transplants vs. 31.2% (95%CI: 16.6-58.5%) in controls (Cox hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, 95%CI: 0.08-0.61; p=0.004). 5-year tumor eventfree survival was 76.8 (95%CI: 60.8-96.9%) vs. 18.3% (95%CI: 7.1-47.0%) in controls (HR: 0.14, 95%CI: 0.05-0.38; p<0001). 5-year survival-benefit favored transplantation by 14.5 months (95%CI: 3.6-25.3; p=0.009). The trial retained a conditional power of 98.6%. Interpretation. After effective and sustained downstaging of eligible HCCs beyond Milan criteria, liver transplantation is superior to nontransplant therapies. Post-downstaging tumor response should contribute to HCC transplant criteria expansion. Funding. Italian Ministry of Health
It is a well-recognized fact that implementing new guidelines in clinical practice may be difficult; therefore the Italian Society for Organ and Tissue Transplantation (SITO) set out to define practical immunosuppression tools for the management of liver transplantation patients. In 2017, an Italian Working Group of liver transplant experts and hepatologists issued a set of consensus statements along with evidence-based recommendations on the use of everolimus after liver transplantation. This article presents the evidence- and consensus-based algorithms developed within the Italian Working Group, which are aimed towards guiding clinicians in the selection of immunosuppressive regimens for the management of adult liver transplant recipients in real-life practice. The liver transplant recipient population, typically managed in clinical practice, was divided into the following categories: (1) standard patients; (2) critically ill patients; (3) patients with a specific etiology; (4) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma; (5) and patients with de novo malignancies. The algorithms are divided into two parts, according to the time from transplantation (0–3 months and > 3 months) and are discussed here along with relevant supporting literature, when available. Ultimately, it is hoped that the evidence- and consensus-based algorithms developed within the Italian Working Group, and presented here, contribute to simplify, personalize, and optimize immunosuppression of liver transplantation recipients in clinical practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.