In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the Milan criteria (MC), the benefit of locoregional therapies (LRTs) in the context of liver transplantation (LT) is still debated. Initial biases in the selection between treated and untreated patients have yielded conflicting reported results. The study aimed to identify, using a competing risk analysis, risk factors for HCC-dependent LT failure, defined as pretransplant tumor-related delisting or posttransplant recurrence. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identification number NCT03723304). In order to offset the initial limitations of the investigated population, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was used: 1083 MC-in patients (no LRT = 182; LRT = 901) were balanced using 8 variables: age, sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) value, hepatitis C virus status, hepatitis B virus status, largest lesion diameter, number of nodules, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). All the covariates were available at the first referral. After the IPTW, a pseudo-population of 2019 patients listed for LT was analyzed, comparing 2 homogeneous groups of untreated (n = 1077) and LRT-treated (n = 942) patients. Tumor progression after LRT was the most important independent risk factor for HCC-dependent failure (subhazard ratio [SHR], 5.62; P < 0.001). Other independent risk factors were major tumor diameter, AFP, MELD, patient age, male sex, and period of wait-list registration. One single LRT was protective compared with no treatment (SHR, 0.51; P < 0.001). The positive effect was still observed when 2-3 treatments were performed (SHR, 0.66; P = 0.02), but it was lost in the case of ≥4 LRTs (SHR, 0.80; P = 0.27). In conclusion, for MC-in patients, up to 3 LRTs are beneficial for success in intention-to-treat LT patients, with a 49% to 34% reduction in failure risk compared with untreated patients. This benefit is lost if more LRTs are required. A poor response to LRT is associated with a higher risk for HCC-dependent transplant failure.

The intention-to-treat effect of bridging treatments in the setting of Milan criteria-in patients waiting for liver transplantation / Lai, Quirino; Vitale, Alessandro; Iesari, Samuele; Finkenstedt, Armin; Mennini, Gianluca; Onali, Simona; Hoppe-Lotichius, Maria; Manzia, Tommaso M; Nicolini, Daniele; Avolio, Alfonso W; Mrzljak, Anna; Kocman, Branislav; Agnes, Salvatore; Vivarelli, Marco; Tisone, Giuseppe; Otto, Gerd; Tsochatzis, Emmanuel; Rossi, Massimo; Viveiros, Andre; Ciccarelli, Olga; Cillo, Umberto; Lerut, Jan. - In: LIVER TRANSPLANTATION. - ISSN 1527-6465. - 25:7(2019), pp. 1023-1033. [10.1002/lt.25492]

The intention-to-treat effect of bridging treatments in the setting of Milan criteria-in patients waiting for liver transplantation

Lai, Quirino;Mennini, Gianluca;Rossi, Massimo;
2019

Abstract

In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the Milan criteria (MC), the benefit of locoregional therapies (LRTs) in the context of liver transplantation (LT) is still debated. Initial biases in the selection between treated and untreated patients have yielded conflicting reported results. The study aimed to identify, using a competing risk analysis, risk factors for HCC-dependent LT failure, defined as pretransplant tumor-related delisting or posttransplant recurrence. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identification number NCT03723304). In order to offset the initial limitations of the investigated population, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was used: 1083 MC-in patients (no LRT = 182; LRT = 901) were balanced using 8 variables: age, sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) value, hepatitis C virus status, hepatitis B virus status, largest lesion diameter, number of nodules, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). All the covariates were available at the first referral. After the IPTW, a pseudo-population of 2019 patients listed for LT was analyzed, comparing 2 homogeneous groups of untreated (n = 1077) and LRT-treated (n = 942) patients. Tumor progression after LRT was the most important independent risk factor for HCC-dependent failure (subhazard ratio [SHR], 5.62; P < 0.001). Other independent risk factors were major tumor diameter, AFP, MELD, patient age, male sex, and period of wait-list registration. One single LRT was protective compared with no treatment (SHR, 0.51; P < 0.001). The positive effect was still observed when 2-3 treatments were performed (SHR, 0.66; P = 0.02), but it was lost in the case of ≥4 LRTs (SHR, 0.80; P = 0.27). In conclusion, for MC-in patients, up to 3 LRTs are beneficial for success in intention-to-treat LT patients, with a 49% to 34% reduction in failure risk compared with untreated patients. This benefit is lost if more LRTs are required. A poor response to LRT is associated with a higher risk for HCC-dependent transplant failure.
2019
Hepatology; gastroenterology; hepatocelluar cancer; locoregional therapies
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
The intention-to-treat effect of bridging treatments in the setting of Milan criteria-in patients waiting for liver transplantation / Lai, Quirino; Vitale, Alessandro; Iesari, Samuele; Finkenstedt, Armin; Mennini, Gianluca; Onali, Simona; Hoppe-Lotichius, Maria; Manzia, Tommaso M; Nicolini, Daniele; Avolio, Alfonso W; Mrzljak, Anna; Kocman, Branislav; Agnes, Salvatore; Vivarelli, Marco; Tisone, Giuseppe; Otto, Gerd; Tsochatzis, Emmanuel; Rossi, Massimo; Viveiros, Andre; Ciccarelli, Olga; Cillo, Umberto; Lerut, Jan. - In: LIVER TRANSPLANTATION. - ISSN 1527-6465. - 25:7(2019), pp. 1023-1033. [10.1002/lt.25492]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Lai_Bridging-treatments_2019.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 338.82 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
338.82 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1291770
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 26
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 22
social impact