
==== Front
Curr Treat Options Oncol
Curr Treat Options Oncol
Current Treatment Options in Oncology
1527-2729
1534-6277
Springer US New York

39085572
1247
10.1007/s11864-024-01247-8
Article
Recent Advances in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Li P. Jonathan po-yi.li@ucsf.edu

1
Shah Sachin 2
Mehta Neil 3
1 grid.266102.1 0000 0001 2297 6811 University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, 533 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
2 https://ror.org/043mz5j54 grid.266102.1 0000 0001 2297 6811 Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA
3 https://ror.org/043mz5j54 grid.266102.1 0000 0001 2297 6811 Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA
1 8 2024
1 8 2024
2024
25 9 11531162
8 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Opinion Statement

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains an evolving field. Major challenges HCC transplant patients face today include liver organ donor shortages and the need for both better pre-transplant bridging/downstaging therapies and post-transplant HCC recurrence treatment options. The advent of immunotherapy and the demonstrated efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in multiple solid tumors including advanced/unresectable HCC hold promise in expanding both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant HCC transplant treatment regimen, though caution is needed with these immune modulating agents leading up to and following transplant. New options for pre-transplant HCC management will expand access to this curative option as well as ensure patients have adequate control of their HCC prior to transplant to maximize the utility of a liver donor. Machine perfusion has been an active area of investigation in recent years and could expand the organ donor pool, helping address current liver donor shortages. Finally, additional HCC biomarkers such as AFP-L3 and DCP have shown promise in improving risk stratification of HCC patients. Together, these three recent advancements will likely alter HCC transplant guidelines in the coming years.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma
Immunotherapy
Downstaging
Machine perfusion
Liver transplantation
Biomarkers
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Liver cancer is a significant public health burden worldwide: it ranks fourth in cancer related deaths and is projected to cause > 1 million deaths each year by 2030 [1]. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for the majority (~ 90%) of primary liver cancer cases [2]. Liver transplantation is the only curative treatment for patients with early stage, unresectable HCC [3]. While liver transplantation was first attempted for HCC as early as the 1960’s, it wasn’t until Mazzaferro et al.’s landmark study in 1996 proposing the Milan Criteria that outcomes dramatically improved [4]. The Milan Criteria remains the basis for HCC liver transplant candidate selection in the US, but there have been notable additions to the Milan Criteria in US HCC transplant policy. For example, expansion criteria have been proposed as the Milan Criteria is now considered too restrictive [5, 6]. Additionally, alpha fetoprotein’s (AFP) prognostic value in HCC outcomes has led to multiple risk stratification tools and guided pre-transplant HCC management, HCC transplant candidate selection, and post-transplant surveillance [7–9].

Today, US HCC patients qualify for liver transplant if they meet Milan Criteria or are able to be successfully downstaged, with some initial tumor burden restraints, into Milan Criteria via locoregional therapies or neoadjuvant systemic therapies. Prioritization of all liver transplant candidates is based on MELD-Na score, but HCC liver transplant candidates meeting or successfully downstaged into the Milan Criteria qualify for MELD exception points after 6 months on the waitlist. Currently, MELD exception points are calculated based on the MMAT-3 system, and those with an AFP > 1000 ng/mL need to demonstrate a sustained drop in AFP levels to < 500 ng/mL to qualify for MELD exception points.

Despite current detailed practice guidelines, the management of HCC remains a dynamic and actively evolving area. Here, we aim to review recent developments in transplant for HCC, from pre-transplant treatment options and transplant candidate selection to post-transplant surveillance and adjuvant therapy options.

Pre-Transplant HCC Management

Downstaging Options in HCC

Liver transplant is the preferred treatment option for patients with HCC who fall within the Milan criteria because it removes both tumor(s) and underlying liver disease [10]. There has been an effort to expand selection criteria based on tumor size, number, and biology to offer liver transplant to more HCC patients. Downstaging is an option for patients to reduce tumor burden typically using local–regional therapy (LRT) to meet criteria for liver transplant [11]. Common options for downstaging have included transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), ablation either radiofrequency (RFA) or microwave (MWA), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) [12]. Downstaging carefully selected patients with HCC has been associated with excellent post-transplant outcomes [13]. For example, one recent study evaluating 209 consecutive downstaged (UNOS-DS Criteria) HCC transplant patients from 7 transplant centers spanning 4 UNOS regions reported a post-transplant 2-year 95% survival rate and 7.9% recurrence rate [14].

The use of systemic treatment options as targeted therapies has also now extended beyond those with just advanced HCC. In 2007, the oral multikinase inhibitor sorafenib was proven to extend overall survival (OS) and used as first-line treatment in HCC. Lenvatinib, another oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, was later found to be non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival in untreated advanced HCC in a phase 3 trial while cabozantinib, regorafenib, and VEGFR2-targeted monoclonal antibody, ramucirumab, have been effective as second-line therapy [10, 15]. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) immunotherapy is an exciting advancement in the treatment of solid tumors including HCC. The next few sections will focus on immunotherapy in HCC, its use in the neoadjuvant setting, its use in combination with LRT as well as ongoing clinical trials looking at its use in downstaging and/or bridging prior to liver transplantation.

Immunotherapy in Advanced HCC

Immunotherapy has played a pivotal role in the treatment of individuals with advanced HCC. Nivolumab, a PD1 ICI, was one of the first to be studied for the treatment of advanced HCC. The Checkmate 040 was an open-label, noncomparative, dose escalation and expansion trial that included 262 patients (48 in the dose-escalation phase and 214 in the dose-expansion phase) and found an objective response rate (ORR) of 20% in the dose-expansion phase and 15% in dose-escalation phase, which was considered durable ORR and demonstrated nivolumab’s utility as a treatment option [16]. Pembrolizumab is another PD1 ICI that was assessed in the KEYNOTE 224 trial for treatment of HCC. This was a non-randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2 trial that included 104 patients with an ORR of 17% in those who had previously been treated with sorafenib [17]. In an additional study on pembrolizumab, the KEYNOTE-394 trial, a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study found that pembrolizumab significantly improved OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and ORR compared to placebo in a primarily Asian population [18]. Similarly, tislelizumab. an anti-PD-1 ICI and was studied in an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 randomized control trial and was noninferior for OS compared to sorafenib as first-line treatment [19].

The IMbrave150 trial was a hallmark trial in the management of HCC. This was an open-label phase III randomized control trial that compared the PDL1 ICI atezolizumab and VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab with sorafenib in the treatment of advanced HCC. This study totaled 501 patients (336 assigned to receive atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 165 assigned to receive sorafenib) with median OS significantly higher at 19.2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group compared to 13.4 months with sorafenib (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.52–0.85; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the median PFS was significantly higher in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group at 6.9 months compared to 4.3 months in the sorafenib group. This led to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab becoming first-line treatment in advanced HCC [20, 21].

Other forms of combination therapy have also been effective in the management of patients with advanced HCC. The use of tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4) in combination with durvalumab (anti-PDL1) was studied in an open-label, phase 3 trial that investigated OS in patients randomly assigned to receive tremelimumab plus durvalumab or durvalumab or sorafenib in those with unresectable HCC. The combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab had significantly higher median OS of 16.4 months compared to sorafenib 13.8 months (survival HR 0.78 96.02% CI, 0.65 to 0.93; p = 0.0035) [22].

Neoadjuvant use of Immunotherapy in HCC

With immunotherapy’s growing role in advanced HCC management, researchers have examined whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes in the neoadjuvant setting in those with resectable disease. In one single arm phase 1B study, the use of neoadjuvant cabozantinib and nivolumab was examined in patients with HCC who did not meet traditional resection criteria. The study included 15 patients, of which 12 had negative margins on resection and 5 of those 12 had major pathologic responses [23]. In another single center, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial that investigated neoadjuvant nivolumab compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) for one dose prior to surgery in patients with resectable HCC. Of the 27 patients enrolled in the study, 7 had surgical cancellations but importantly not related to treatment related adverse events. Median PFS was 9.4 months with nivolumab group and 19.5 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. Of the 20 patients who underwent resection, 3 of the 9 patients in the nivolumab group had major pathologic response compared with 3 of 11 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group [24]. These studies provide promising evidence for potential use of ICI in the neoadjuvant setting.

Combination Immunotherapy with LRT

The use of ablative therapies in combination with ICI is based on the premise that ablative therapies can induce a peripheral immune response and therefore enhance the effect of ICI. TACE remains one of the most widely used LRT in patients with intermediate stage HCC. EMERALD-1 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase 3 trial investigating the efficacy and safety of durvalumab when given with either DEB-TACE or TACE followed by durvalumab with or without bevacizumab in patients with locoregional HCC. Initial results have demonstrated durvalumab in combination with TACE and bevacizumab had a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in their primary endpoint (PFS) with the clinical trial still ongoing examining secondary endpoints [25, 26]. There are several other ongoing phase 2 and 3 clinical trials investigating LRT with TACE and systemic ICI therapy in intermediate stage HCC [11].

Other trials looking at different forms of LRT in combination with ICI are also being investigated. The ROWAN study is a global, open-label, prospective, multicenter randomized control trial looking at the possibility of TARE with yttrium-90 (Y-90) glass microspheres followed by durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab compared to TARE alone in HCC. The primary objective is assessing ORR and durability of local tumor control with estimated timeline of completion of the study December 2027 [27].

Use of Immunotherapy in Downstaging/Bridging HCC Prior to Liver Transplantation

An emerging ICI application is in downstaging and/or bridging therapy to increase the number of patients eligible for liver transplantation. Certainly, there are safety considerations to weigh to prevent liver transplant graft rejection as well as other associated adverse events.

One of the first clinical trials, PLENTY202001, (NCT04425226) is an unblinded randomized control trial that is investigating the use of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib as a downstaging and/or bridging therapy prior to liver transplant in patients with HCC. The primary outcome is RFS and ORR and secondary outcomes include disease control rate, percentage of participants who experience adverse events, and percentage of participants who discontinue treatment due to adverse events. Results of this study are expected in December 2024 [28]. Table 1 summarizes several other ongoing clinical trials using ICI as a method of downstaging and/or bridging HCC prior to liver transplantation. Table 1 Ongoing clinical trials examining systemic immunotherapy as a method of downstaging and/or bridging prior to liver transplant

NCT/Trial ID	Systemic ICI Therapy Arms	Design	Primary Endpoint	
NCT05027425	Durvalumab and Tremelimumab	Single-arm, phase II	Post-transplant rejection	
NCT05475613	Anti-PD-1 inhibitor (tislelizumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab et al.)	Single-arm, phase II	2-year relapse-free survival rate	
NCT04425226/PLENTY 202001	Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib	Randomized, parallel assignment	RFS, ORR	
NCT04035876	Camrelizumab plus apatinib	Single-arm phase I/II	RFS, ORR	

Biomarkers for Liver Transplantion Candidate Selection

AFP is the primary biomarker used for liver transplant candidate selection today. Despite AFP’s strong prognostic value, additional biomarkers for HCC liver transplant candidate selection are needed. Most HCC patients on the liver transplant waitlist today are well below the AFP threshold for MELD exception points and have low to normal AFP levels by the time they receive a liver transplant. However, post-liver transplant HCC recurrence still occurs in 10–15% of patients. Given that treatment options for post-LT recurrences are limited and survival after recurrence is poor, selection of candidates who would derive the most benefit from liver transplantation, particularly given the current organ donor shortage, becomes even more critical today. As the pre-transplant treatment arsenal expands with emerging combination locoregional therapy and immunotherapy/systemic therapy options, additional metrics that assess treatment response in greater resolution and better predict important HCC outcomes (i.e. post-liver transplantation HCC recurrence and tumor progression on the liver transplant waitlist) will help improve risk assessment and liver transplant candidate selection.

AFP-L3 and des gamma carboxyprothrombin (DCP) are emerging biomarkers that could supplement AFP in risk stratifying HCC patients being considered for liver transplant. The role of AFP-L3 and DCP is well established in the context of HCC surveillance and diagnosis. For example, the GALAD score, which incorporates age, gender, AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP to assess probability of HCC in patients with chronic liver disease, has been validated in multiple patient populations [29–31]. However, the evidence for AFP-L3 and DCP’s value in predicting other HCC transplant outcomes, particularly in the US patient population, has been limited until recent years.

A recent prospective single center study demonstrated the prognostic value of AFP-L3 and DCP in predicting high risk explant pathology [32]. This study included 153 patients and defined high risk explant pathology as presence of microvascular invasion, poor tumor differentiation, and/or viable tumor burden beyond Milan Criteria. On multivariable logistic regression, elevated AFP-L3 (≥ 15%) and DCP (≥ 7.5 ng/mL) were associated with high-risk explant pathology whereas elevated AFP (≥ 100 ng/mL) was not. The findings of this study were expanded upon in a follow up single center prospective study comprising of 285 patients that evaluated the ability of AFP-L3 and DCP to predict post-liver transplant HCC recurrence [33]. There, patients with elevated AFP-L3 (≥ 15%) and DCP (≥ 7.5 ng/mL) had a 3-year recurrence free survival of 43.7% compared to 97% in patients with normal AFP-L3 and DCP. Given these findings, AFP-L3 and DCP may also play a role in liver transplant candidate selection since patients with high likelihood of recurrence may not derive the most benefit from liver transplant and better identify aggressive tumor biology that results in cancer progression despite LRT or other neoadjuvant therapies while on the transplant waitlist.

Currently, all HCC patients who qualify for MELD Exception receive equal priority on the transplant waitlist. However, there remains a spectrum of HCC tumor biology and prognosis among those who qualify for liver transplantation with MELD Exception. Studies have demonstrated the range of waitlist dropout probability due to tumor progression and that increased likelihood of waitlist dropout correlates with worse post-liver transplant outcomes. For example, one study utilized UNOS data from before the 6-month MELD exception points delay policy was implemented to develop a waitlist dropout risk score using patients from long waitlist regions and validate the risk score using patients from short and medium waitlist regions [34]. Among patients who made it to liver transplantation in the short and medium waitlist regions, the study also demonstrated that higher waitlist dropout risk was associated with worse post-liver transplant recurrence free survival. The association of waitlist dropout risk with post-liver transplant outcomes supports the idea to prioritize HCC liver transplant candidates and/or tailor HCC pre-transplant management based on waitlist dropout risk. A follow up study using machine learning models to develop a more accurate waitlist dropout risk score was completed, but the performance of the final machine learning model was similar likely given the absence of any novel prediction variables utilized for model development [35].

More recently, AFP-L3 and DCP have also been shown to be important for predicting waitlist dropout in a prospective single center study [36]. Among the study’s 267 HCC patients listed for liver transplantation, those with elevated AFP-L3 (≥ 35%) or elevated DCP (≥ 7.5 ng/mL) had 60% chance of waitlist dropout due to tumor progression, clinical deterioration, or death within 2 years of listing and those with both biomarkers elevated had a 100% chance of waitlist dropout within the same time period. Notably, AFP was not a significant predictor of waitlist dropout in univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Thus, AFP-L3 and DCP appear to play important roles in HCC prognosis in the pre-transplant setting, especially in an era where limited range of AFP levels in most HCC patients undergoing liver transplant is beginning to diminish AFP’s prognostic value. Select studies examining AFP-L3 and DCP’s prognostic value in HCC outcomes are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Recent AFP-L3 and DCP Studies

Primary Outcome	Score/Biomarker Cutoffs	Performance/Results	Clinical Application	
Post-LT Time to HCC Recurrence in LDLT Patients [45]	MoRAL score = 11 × √PIVKA + 2 × √AFP	Concordance Index = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76–0.91)	LDLT HCC Transplant Candidate Selection	
High Risk Explant Pathology [32]	AFP-L3 at LT ≥ 15%

DCP at LT ≥ 7.5 ng/mL

	Multivariate Odds Ratio for High Risk Explant:

- Elevated AFP-L3 4.47** (95% CI 1.45 – 13.73)

- Elevated DCP 9.30*** (95% CI 2.97 – 29.11)

	Transplant Candidate Selection + Post-LT Risk Stratification	
Post-LT Time to HCC Recurrence [33]	AFP-L3 at LT ≥ 15%

DCP at LT ≥ 7.5 ng/mL

	3-year Post-LT RFS:

- Elevated AFP-L3 & DCP 43.7% (95% CI 20.3–65.2)

- Normal AFP-L3 and DCP 97.0% (93.8–98.6)

	Transplant Candidate Selection + Post-LT Risk Stratification	
Post-Listing Time to Waitlist Dropout (Tumor Progression, Clinical Deterioration, Death) [36]	AFP-L3 at LT ≥ 35%

DCP at LT ≥ 7.5 ng/mL

	Multivariate Hazards Ratio for Time to WL Dropout:

- Elevated AFP-L3 2.25* (95% CI 1.04 – 4.88)

- Elevated DCP 2.20* (95% CI 1.15 – 4.20)

	Pre-Transplant HCC Management, Transplant Candidate Selection, ECD Organ Allocation	
p-value: * < 0.05 ** < 0.01 *** < 0.001

Expanding Options for Liver Transplantation

Liver transplant for both HCC patients and patients with end stage liver disease is currently limited by a shortage of organ donors. Moreover, one study projected that the aging population and increasing prevalence of obesity and diabetes will continue to negatively affect donor liver quality, increase discard rates, and possibly decrease access to liver transplantation in the coming decade [37]. Use of extended criteria donors, living donors, and machine perfusion techniques could expand access to liver donors.

Extended Criteria Donors for HCC Recipients

Extended criteria donors generally include donors with advanced age, significant liver steatosis and/or transmissible infections (i.e. Hepatitis B/C, HIV, etc.) as well as donation after circulatory death donors (DCD). The primary concern with extended criteria donors is with allograft function after transplantation but inflammatory sequelae from adverse events such as ischemia–reperfusion injury have been hypothesized to impact oncologic outcomes as well. One study utilized the UNOS database to compare recurrence free survival and overall survival after liver transplantation among HCC patients transplanted with MELD exception between 2012 and 2016 [38]. While the study noted no overall difference in recurrence free survival between patients who received a donor after brain death (DBD) donor and patients who received a DCD donor, subset analysis of patients at higher risk of post-LT recurrence based on RETREAT score favored DBD donors. It is unclear why patients at increased risk of post liver transplantation recurrence, without identified recurrence, have worse survival with DCD donors than DBD donors. Recurrence reporting is not mandated by UNOS, so underestimation of recurrence rates could have had an impact on the results of the study. However, two cited previous single center studies also observed no difference in recurrence free survival between DBD and DCD donors. Although the association warrants further exploration, the observed difference in a large national database could inform donor allocation policies for HCC liver transplant candidates specifically. For example, those with less HCC tumor burden and/or well-treated lesions pre-transplant may opt to wait longer for a DBD donors as the risks associated with DCD donors at this time may not outweigh the risk of tumor progression.

Living Donor Liver Transplantion for HCC

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) remains a viable option for HCC transplant patients. While historically more utilized in Asian countries, LDLT volume has increased in the US in recent years for both end stage liver disease and HCC with up trending graft survival rates [39]. Previous studies observed increased post liver transplantation recurrence rates with LDLT, possibly attributed to the shorter waitlist time [40, 41]. It has been shown that both prolonged waitlist time and shortened waitlist time (< 6 months) is associated with slightly worse post liver transplantation outcomes and current policies specify a 6 month waiting period before MELD exception points are awarded for HCC patients awaiting DDLT [7, 42]. Notably, a more recent analysis of patients who were transplanted between 1998 and 2018 using the UNOS dataset did not identify a difference in recurrence rate between LDLT and DDLT [43]. Given the increasing shortage of liver donors today, LDLT remains a good alternative for carefully selected HCC patients who may be at high risk of waitlist dropout or who may be beyond conventional transplant criteria. However, selection criteria, such as those identified by Bhangui et al. (AFP < 100 ng/mL, within UCSF expanded criteria, PET Avid HCC), or risk threshold defined by scores such as the MoRAL Score (11 × √PIVKA + 2 × √AFP) proposed by Lee et al. are still needed to optimize utility of a LDLT [44, 45].

Machine Perfusion

Normothermic and hypothermic machine perfusion for liver transplant is currently an active area of investigation with numerous ongoing clinical trials. The potential for machine perfusion to not only reduce post-transplant complications but also expand the liver donor pools comes at an opportune time [46–48]. For example, a recent trial comparing Hypothermic Perfusion to Static Cold Storage in DCD liver transplant recipients demonstrated a reduction in non-anastomotic biliary stricture as well as early allograft dysfunction [48]. Given the increased risk of ischemic cholangiopathy and early allograft dysfunction associated with DCD donors, the ability to reduce these complications via machine perfusion could have implications for expanding liver transplant access. Additionally, machine perfusion is thought to modulate the early immune response following liver transplantation by decreasing oxidative stress and subsequent inflammation. These impacts on the immune system have unique implications for HCC patients and post-transplant oncologic outcomes.

One recent European retrospective study examined the impact of hypothermic oxygenated liver perfusion (HOPE) on post-liver transplant HCC recurrence in DCD liver donor recipients [49]. The study was conducted at two centers and designed as follows: at the first center, post-liver transplant HCC recurrence rate was compared between HOPE DCD liver donor recipients and propensity score matched non-perfused DBD recipients whereas the second center compared recurrence rates between non-perfused DCD liver donor recipients and propensity score matched non-perfused DBD recipients. There was a significant difference in 5-year recurrence free survival (92% vs 73%; p = 0.027) between the HOPE DCD liver donor recipients and non-perfused DBD recipients at the first center whereas no difference was observed at the second center. The results demonstrate a benefit of HOPE DCD over non-perfused DBD liver donor recipients and suggest a benefit of HOPE DCD over non-perfused DCD. A follow up prospective study or randomized controlled trial with a larger patient population is certainly warranted to further investigate the benefits of HOPE DCD and other machine perfusion techniques, such as normothermic machine perfusion, in HCC patients.

Post-Liver Transplantation Management

Post-Transplant Recurrence Risk Prediction/Scores

Numerous post-transplantation recurrence risk prediction scores have been proposed in the last decade. One widely used recurrence risk score is the RETREAT (Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence After Transplant) Score, which was originally developed and validated in a multicenter North American patient cohort and has since been subsequently validated in the UNOS dataset and multiple European cohorts [9, 50–52]. The RETREAT Score awards points based on AFP at time of transplant, presence of microvascular invasion on explant pathology, and explant tumor burden, and its accuracy and simplicity has resulted in wide adoption. With the recognition of inflammatory indices as a potential prognostic variable for HCC outcomes, a few additional risk scores have incorporated neutrophil–lymphocyte-ratio (NLR) in addition to the variables included in RETREAT. For example, the MORAL (Model of Recurrence After Liver Transplantation) includes NLR, maximum pre-transplant AFP, largest pre-transplant tumor size, vascular invasion on explant, tumor grade on explant, and tumor size and number on explant [53]. While the MORAL score demonstrated strong discrimination, the development of the score from single center patient data spanning the course of over a decade during which numerous UNOS policy changes have occurred puts into question generalizability and applicability to HCC patients undergoing transplantation today, and external validation of the MORAL score is pending. More recently, the RELAPSE Score was developed using the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium dataset and validated on an external European cohort [54]. The RELAPSE Score factors in pre-transplant NLR, pre-transplant maximum AFP, micro- and macro-vascular invasion on explant pathology, maximum tumor diameter on explant, and explant tumor grade, and demonstrated good discrimination (0.75 – 0.77) upon external validation.

Machine learning may further improve recurrence prediction models. To date, only a few studies have examined the utility of machine learning algorithms in predicting post-liver transplantation. One single center study evaluated multiple machine learning algorithms (CoxNet, Random Survival Forest, Support Vector Machines, and DeepSurv) and found that a model based on CoxNet performed best (C-Index 0.75) [55]. Importantly, their CoxNet machine learning model outperformed existing scores including the MORAL score. Further evaluation of the role of machine learning in improving HCC risk prediction models is warranted, but it is likely that the combination of machine learning models with more predictive biomarkers such as AFP-L3 and DCP will provide the next significant improvement in prediction model performance.

Despite the development and availability of numerous prediction models that perform reasonably well, there currently lacks a consensus risk stratification tool and, subsequently, a standardized post-liver transplantation recurrence surveillance protocol and adjuvant therapy guideline [7, 56]. Further validation and cost–benefit analysis of risk-score based surveillance or adjuvant therapy protocols is needed to realize the clinical utility of the currently available risk stratification tools.

Adjuvant Therapy/Recurrence Management

Post-transplant HCC recurrence portends poor prognosis, and immunosuppression is one area researchers have considered optimizing to decrease risk of recurrence. Calcineurin inhibitors are common after liver transplant but have been hypothesized to promote tumor growth. The SiLVER-trial sought to determine whether the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor sirolimus improved post-liver transplant RFS and OS. While there was no difference in RFS or OS identified at the study endpoint, there was an improvement in RFS and OS observed in the first 3 and 5 years of post-liver transplantation follow up, respectively, and a subsequent analysis suggested that patients with pre-liver transplant AFP ≥ 10 ng/mL may derive a significant survival benefit from sirolimus [57, 58]. Thus, those with elevated AFP prior to liver transplant or at high risk of post-liver transplant recurrence based on risk scores such as RETREAT may benefit from mTOR based immunosuppression.

Post-liver transplant HCC recurrence remains challenging to manage. While prognosis is generally unfavorable, certain HCC recurrence features can indicate better post-liver transplant recurrence survival. For example, one study identified elevated AFP levels at the time of recurrence (≥ 100 ng/mL), early recurrence (within 1 year post-liver transplant), presence of microvascular invasion on explant pathology, and not being amenable to curative surgical or locoregional therapies portends worse survival after recurrence [59]. Adjuvant therapy may improve post-liver transplant survival in this subset of high-risk of patients, but there is no current guideline for selecting patients who would benefit from adjuvant therapy. Sorafenib has been the mainstay for post-liver transplant HCC recurrence treatment much of this past decade and has been proposed as adjuvant therapy in patients at high risk of post-liver transplant recurrence [60]. The efficacy of ICI in other cancers has sparked studies evaluating the role of immunotherapy as a pre-transplant bridging and/or down-staging systemic therapy. While recent trials discussed above have demonstrated increased efficacy of immunotherapy compared to sorafenib in patients with advanced/unresectable HCC, the results cannot be directly extrapolated to the liver transplant population, and the evidence supporting use of ICI for post-transplantation adjuvant therapy or recurrence management remains limited to case series at this time, though trials are pending [61]. Overall, the potential role of ICI as adjuvant therapy remains an active area of investigation given the balance that must be struck between suppressing allograft rejection and reinvigorating the tumor immune response. More precise manipulation of the immune system, through dendritic cell therapy and vaccines for example, could allow this balance to be better struck in the future [62, 63].

Conclusions

The recent advancements in immunotherapy, biomarkers, and machine perfusion will continue to push the field of HCC liver transplantation care to evolve and adapt. While the evidence for the role of immunotherapy in HCC liver transplant patients remains to be firmly established, trials demonstrating their efficacy in advanced HCC patients and case reports highlighting the safety and efficacy of immunotherapy as bridging and post-liver transplantation HCC recurrence therapies show promise. Machine perfusion represents a tool that could safely expand the liver donor pool for HCC patients without compromising oncologic outcomes. Finally, the strength of AFP-L3 and DCP in predicting multiple HCC outcomes in studies thus far could eventually lead to updated guidelines for HCC liver transplant candidate selection, allocation of extended criteria liver donors, and post-transplant surveillance and adjuvant therapy protocols.

Key References

Imfinzi plus bevacizumab met primary endpoint for progression-free survival in liver cancer eligible for embolisation in EMERALD-1 Phase III trial. 2023. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2023/imfinzi-combination-improves-pfs-in-liver-cancer.html. Accessed 6 Feb 2024.This reference is of major importance as it reports the primary endpoint of a Phase III randomized control trial and shows efficacy of combined ICI + Bevacizumab + TACE for HCC over TACE alone in earlier stage HCC. Once published, the full findings of this trial may have important implications for HCC transplant patients as TACE is a common LRT used in the pre-transplant for downstaging/bridging therapy.

Norman JS, Li PJ, Kotwani P, Shui AM, Yao F, Mehta N (2023) AFP-L3 and DCP strongly predict early hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation. J Hepatol 79:1469–1477.This reference is of importance because it shows in a prospective cohort that the additional HCC biomarkers AFP-L3 and DCP significantly improve post-transplant HCC recurrence risk stratification.

Mehta N, Kotwani P, Norman J, Shui A, Li P-Y, Saxena V, Chan W, Yao FY AFP-L3 and DCP are superior to AFP in predicting waitlist dropout in HCC patients: Results of a prospective study. Liver Transplantation 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000149.This reference is of importance because it shows in a prospective cohort that the additional HCC biomarkers AFP-L3 and DCP may play an important role in identifying HCC patients on the liver transplant waitlist at high risk of experiencing tumor progression and dropping out.

Silverstein J, Roll G, Dodge JL, Grab JD, Yao FY, Mehta N (2020) Donation After Circulatory Death Is Associated With Similar Posttransplant Survival in All but the Highest-Risk Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients. Liver Transpl 26:1100–1111.This reference is of importance because it shows in a large, US patient cohort that donation after circulatory death for HCC patients may be a viable alternative.

Mueller M, Kalisvaart M, O‘Rourke J, et al (2020) Hypothermic Oxygenated Liver Perfusion (HOPE) Prevents Tumor Recurrence in Liver Transplantation From Donation After Circulatory Death. Annals of Surgery 272:759.This reference is of importance because it demonstrates that machine perfusion may make donation after circulatory death donors a strong alternative for HCC patients without compromising oncologic outcomes.

Author Contributions

P.J.L., S.S, N.M wrote the main manuscript text and prepared Tables 1 and 2. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Neil Mehta has has received institutional research funding from WAKO Fujifilm Diagnostics.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References and Recommended Reading

1. Villanueva A Hepatocellular carcinoma N Engl J Med 2019 380 1450 1462 10.1056/NEJMra1713263 30970190
Villanueva A. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1450–62.30970190
2. Llovet JM Kelley RK Villanueva A Singal AG Pikarsky E Roayaie S Lencioni R Koike K Zucman-Rossi J Finn RS Hepatocellular carcinoma Nat Rev Dis Primers 2021 7 1 28 10.1038/s41572-020-00240-3 33414454
Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A, Singal AG, Pikarsky E, Roayaie S, Lencioni R, Koike K, Zucman-Rossi J, Finn RS. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7:1–28.33414454
3. Marrero JA Kulik LM Sirlin CB Zhu AX Finn RS Abecassis MM Roberts LR Heimbach JK Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Hepatology 2018 68 723 750 10.1002/hep.29913 29624699
Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, Zhu AX, Finn RS, Abecassis MM, Roberts LR, Heimbach JK. Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;68:723–50.29624699
4. 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 334 693 700 10.1056/NEJM199603143341104 8594428
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;334:693–700.8594428
5. Yao FY Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: beyond the Milan criteria Am J Transplant 2008 8 1982 1989 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02351.x 18727702
Yao FY. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: beyond the Milan criteria. Am J Transplant. 2008;8:1982–9.18727702
6. 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 10.1053/jhep.2001.24563 11391528
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;33:1394–403.11391528
7. Singal AG Llovet JM Yarchoan M AASLD practice guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma Hepatol. 2023 78 6 1922 1965
Singal AG, Llovet JM, Yarchoan M, et al. AASLD practice guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol. 2023;78(6):1922–65.
8. Duvoux C Roudot-Thoraval F Decaens T Liver Transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a model including α-fetoprotein improves the performance of Milan criteria Gastroenterology 2012 143 986 994.e3 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.052 22750200
Duvoux C, Roudot-Thoraval F, Decaens T, et al. Liver Transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a model including α-fetoprotein improves the performance of Milan criteria. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:986-994.e3.22750200
9. Mehta N Dodge JL Roberts JP Yao FY Validation of the prognostic power of the RETREAT score for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence using the UNOS database Am J Transplant 2018 18 1206 1213 10.1111/ajt.14549 29068145
Mehta N, Dodge JL, Roberts JP, Yao FY. Validation of the prognostic power of the RETREAT score for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence using the UNOS database. Am J Transplant. 2018;18:1206–13.29068145
10. Tran NH Muñoz S Thompson S Hallemeier CL Bruix J Hepatocellular carcinoma downstaging for liver transplantation in the era of systemic combined therapy with anti-VEGF/TKI and immunotherapy Hepatology 2022 76 1203 10.1002/hep.32613 35765265
Tran NH, Muñoz S, Thompson S, Hallemeier CL, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma downstaging for liver transplantation in the era of systemic combined therapy with anti-VEGF/TKI and immunotherapy. Hepatology. 2022;76:1203.35765265
11. Mehta N Kelley RK Yao FY Refining the approach to down-staging of HCC prior to liver transplantation: Patient selection, loco-regional treatments, and systemic therapies Hepatology 2023 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000452 37725754
Mehta N, Kelley RK, Yao FY. Refining the approach to down-staging of HCC prior to liver transplantation: Patient selection, loco-regional treatments, and systemic therapies. Hepatology. 2023. 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000452.37725754
12. She WH Cheung TT Bridging and downstaging therapy in patients suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma waiting on the list of liver transplantation Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016 10.21037/tgh.2016.03.04 28138601
She WH, Cheung TT. Bridging and downstaging therapy in patients suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma waiting on the list of liver transplantation. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016. 10.21037/tgh.2016.03.04.28138601
13. Yao FY Kerlan RK Hirose R Excellent outcome following down-staging of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation: an intention-to-treat analysis Hepatology 2008 48 819 827 10.1002/hep.22412 18688876
Yao FY, Kerlan RK, Hirose R, et al. Excellent outcome following down-staging of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation: an intention-to-treat analysis. Hepatology. 2008;48:819–27.18688876
14. Mehta N Frenette C Tabrizian P Down-staging outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the multicenter evaluation of reduction in tumor size before liver transplantation (MERITS-LT) consortium Gastroenterology 2021 161 1502 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.033 34331914
Mehta N, Frenette C, Tabrizian P, et al. Down-staging outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the multicenter evaluation of reduction in tumor size before liver transplantation (MERITS-LT) consortium. Gastroenterology. 2021;161:1502.34331914
15. Kudo M Finn RS Qin S Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial The Lancet 2018 391 1163 1173 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30207-1
Kudo M, Finn RS, Qin S, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. The Lancet. 2018;391:1163–73.
16. El-Khoueiry AB Trojan J Meyer T Nivolumab in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: 5-year follow-up from CheckMate 040 Ann Oncol 2023 S0923–7534 23 05115 5123
El-Khoueiry AB, Trojan J, Meyer T, et al. Nivolumab in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: 5-year follow-up from CheckMate 040. Ann Oncol. 2023;S0923–7534(23):05115–23.
17. Zhu AX Finn RS Edeline J Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib (KEYNOTE-224): a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol 2018 19 940 952 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30351-6 29875066
Zhu AX, Finn RS, Edeline J, et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib (KEYNOTE-224): a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:940–52.29875066
18. Qin S Chen Z Fang W Pembrolizumab versus placebo as second-line therapy in patients from Asia with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial JCO 2023 41 1434 1443 10.1200/JCO.22.00620
Qin S, Chen Z, Fang W, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as second-line therapy in patients from Asia with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. JCO. 2023;41:1434–43.
19. Qin S Finn RS Kudo M RATIONALE 301 study: tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma Future Oncol 2019 15 1811 1822 10.2217/fon-2019-0097 30969136
Qin S, Finn RS, Kudo M, et al. RATIONALE 301 study: tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Future Oncol. 2019;15:1811–22.30969136
20. Salem R Li D Sommer N Hernandez S Verret W Ding B Lencioni R Characterization of response to atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma: Results from the IMbrave150 trial Cancer Med 2021 10 5437 5447 10.1002/cam4.4090 34189869
Salem R, Li D, Sommer N, Hernandez S, Verret W, Ding B, Lencioni R. Characterization of response to atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma: Results from the IMbrave150 trial. Cancer Med. 2021;10:5437–47.34189869
21. Cheng A-L Qin S Ikeda M Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma J Hepatol 2022 76 862 873 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.030 34902530
Cheng A-L, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2022;76:862–73.34902530
22 Abou-Alfa GK Lau G Kudo M Tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma NEJM Evidence 2022 1 EVIDoa2100070 10.1056/EVIDoa2100070 38319892
Abou-Alfa GK, Lau G, Kudo M, et al. Tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. NEJM Evidence. 2022;1:EVIDoa2100070.38319892
23. Ho WJ Zhu Q Durham J Neoadjuvant cabozantinib and nivolumab convert locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma into resectable disease with enhanced antitumor immunity Nat Cancer 2021 2 891 903 10.1038/s43018-021-00234-4 34796337
Ho WJ, Zhu Q, Durham J, et al. Neoadjuvant cabozantinib and nivolumab convert locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma into resectable disease with enhanced antitumor immunity. Nat Cancer. 2021;2:891–903.34796337
24. Kaseb AO Hasanov E Cao HST Perioperative nivolumab monotherapy versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022 7 208 218 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00427-1 35065057
Kaseb AO, Hasanov E, Cao HST, et al. Perioperative nivolumab monotherapy versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;7:208–18.35065057
25. Sangro B Kudo M Qin S P-347 A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of transarterial chemoembolization combined with durvalumab or durvalumab plus bevacizumab therapy in patients with locoregional hepatocellular carcinoma: EMERALD-1 Ann Oncol 2020 31 S202 S203 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.429
Sangro B, Kudo M, Qin S, et al. P-347 A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of transarterial chemoembolization combined with durvalumab or durvalumab plus bevacizumab therapy in patients with locoregional hepatocellular carcinoma: EMERALD-1. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:S202–3.
26. Imfinzi plus bevacizumab met primary endpoint for progression-free survival in liver cancer eligible for embolisation in emerald-1 phase III trial. 2023. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2023/imfinzi-combination-improves-pfs-in-liver-cancer.html. Accessed 6 Feb 2024.
27. He AR Toskich B The ROWAN study: Safety and efficacy of transarterial radioembolization with Y-90 glass microspheres and the STRIDE regimen in hepatocellular carcinoma J Clin Oncol 2023 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.4_suppl.TPS622 38051990
He AR, Toskich B. The ROWAN study: Safety and efficacy of transarterial radioembolization with Y-90 glass microspheres and the STRIDE regimen in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2023. 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.4_suppl.TPS622.38051990
28. RenJi Hospital. Pembrolizumab and LENvatinib in participants with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) before liver transplant. In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2020. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04425226. Accessed 16 Jan 2024.
29. Berhane S Toyoda H Tada T Role of the GALAD and BALAD-2 serologic models in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and prediction of survival in patients Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016 14 875 886.e6 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.12.042 26775025
Berhane S, Toyoda H, Tada T, et al. Role of the GALAD and BALAD-2 serologic models in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and prediction of survival in patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:875-886.e6.26775025
30. Johnson PJ Pirrie SJ Cox TF The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma using a prospectively developed and validated model based on serological biomarkers Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 2014 23 144 153 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0870
Johnson PJ, Pirrie SJ, Cox TF, et al. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma using a prospectively developed and validated model based on serological biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2014;23:144–53.
31. Kumada T Toyoda H Kiriyama S Tanikawa M Hisanaga Y Kanamori A Tada T Tanaka J Yoshizawa H Predictive value of tumor markers for hepatocarcinogenesis in patients with hepatitis C virus J Gastroenterol 2011 46 536 544 10.1007/s00535-010-0349-7 21132575
Kumada T, Toyoda H, Kiriyama S, Tanikawa M, Hisanaga Y, Kanamori A, Tada T, Tanaka J, Yoshizawa H. Predictive value of tumor markers for hepatocarcinogenesis in patients with hepatitis C virus. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:536–44.21132575
32. Kotwani P Chan W Yao F Mehta N DCP and AFP-L3 are complementary to AFP in predicting high-risk explant features: results of a prospective study Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022 20 701 703.e2 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.01.043 33524592
Kotwani P, Chan W, Yao F, Mehta N. DCP and AFP-L3 are complementary to AFP in predicting high-risk explant features: results of a prospective study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20:701-703.e2.33524592
33. Norman JS Li PJ Kotwani P Shui AM Yao F Mehta N AFP-L3 and DCP strongly predict early hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation J Hepatol 2023 79 1469 1477 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.08.020 37683735
Norman JS, Li PJ, Kotwani P, Shui AM, Yao F, Mehta N. AFP-L3 and DCP strongly predict early hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2023;79:1469–77.37683735
34. Mehta N Dodge JL Roberts JP Yao FY A novel waitlist dropout score for hepatocellular carcinoma – identifying a threshold that predicts worse post-transplant survival J Hepatol 2021 74 829 837 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.10.033 33188904
Mehta N, Dodge JL, Roberts JP, Yao FY. A novel waitlist dropout score for hepatocellular carcinoma – identifying a threshold that predicts worse post-transplant survival. J Hepatol. 2021;74:829–37.33188904
35. Kwong A Hameed B Syed S Ho R Mard H Arshad S Ho I Suleman T Yao F Mehta N Machine learning to predict waitlist dropout among liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma Cancer Med 2022 11 1535 1541 10.1002/cam4.4538 35029055
Kwong A, Hameed B, Syed S, Ho R, Mard H, Arshad S, Ho I, Suleman T, Yao F, Mehta N. Machine learning to predict waitlist dropout among liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Med. 2022;11:1535–41.35029055
36. Mehta N Kotwani P Norman J Shui A Li P-Y Saxena V Chan W Yao FY AFP-L3 and DCP are superior to AFP in predicting waitlist dropout in HCC patients: results of a prospective study Liver Transplant 2023 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000149
Mehta N, Kotwani P, Norman J, Shui A, Li P-Y, Saxena V, Chan W, Yao FY. AFP-L3 and DCP are superior to AFP in predicting waitlist dropout in HCC patients: results of a prospective study. Liver Transplant. 2023. 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000149.
37. Orman ES Mayorga ME Wheeler SB Townsley RM Toro-Diaz HH Hayashi PH Barritt SA Declining liver graft quality threatens the future of liver transplantation in the United States Liver Transpl 2015 21 1040 1050 10.1002/lt.24160 25939487
Orman ES, Mayorga ME, Wheeler SB, Townsley RM, Toro-Diaz HH, Hayashi PH, Barritt SA. Declining liver graft quality threatens the future of liver transplantation in the United States. Liver Transpl. 2015;21:1040–50.25939487
38. Silverstein J Roll G Dodge JL Grab JD Yao FY Mehta N Donation after circulatory death is associated with similar posttransplant survival in all but the highest-risk hepatocellular carcinoma patients Liver Transpl 2020 26 1100 1111 10.1002/lt.25819 32531867
Silverstein J, Roll G, Dodge JL, Grab JD, Yao FY, Mehta N. Donation after circulatory death is associated with similar posttransplant survival in all but the highest-risk hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Liver Transpl. 2020;26:1100–11.32531867
39. Cotter TG Minhem M Wang J Peeraphatdit T Ayoub F Pillai A Hernandez-Alejandro R di Sabato D Charlton M Living-donor liver transplantation in the United States: evolution of frequency, outcomes, center volumes and factors associated with outcomes Liver Transpl 2021 27 1019 1031 10.1002/lt.26029 33619854
Cotter TG, Minhem M, Wang J, Peeraphatdit T, Ayoub F, Pillai A, Hernandez-Alejandro R, di Sabato D, Charlton M. Living-donor liver transplantation in the United States: evolution of frequency, outcomes, center volumes and factors associated with outcomes. Liver Transpl. 2021;27:1019–31.33619854
40. Kulik LM Fisher RA Rodrigo DR Outcomes of living and deceased donor liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma: results of the A2ALL cohort Am J Transplant 2012 12 2997 3007 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04272.x 22994906
Kulik LM, Fisher RA, Rodrigo DR, et al. Outcomes of living and deceased donor liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma: results of the A2ALL cohort. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:2997–3007.22994906
41. Vakili K Pomposelli JJ Cheah YL Akoad M Lewis WD Khettry U Gordon F Khwaja K Jenkins R Pomfret EA Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Increased recurrence but improved survival Liver Transpl 2009 15 1861 1866 10.1002/lt.21940 19938113
Vakili K, Pomposelli JJ, Cheah YL, Akoad M, Lewis WD, Khettry U, Gordon F, Khwaja K, Jenkins R, Pomfret EA. Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Increased recurrence but improved survival. Liver Transpl. 2009;15:1861–6.19938113
42. Mehta N Heimbach J Lee D Dodge JL Harnois D Burns J Sanchez W Roberts JP Yao FY Wait time of less than 6 and greater than 18 months predicts hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: proposing a wait time “sweet spot” Transplantation 2017 101 2071 10.1097/TP.0000000000001752 28353492
Mehta N, Heimbach J, Lee D, Dodge JL, Harnois D, Burns J, Sanchez W, Roberts JP, Yao FY. Wait time of less than 6 and greater than 18 months predicts hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: proposing a wait time “sweet spot.” Transplantation. 2017;101:2071.28353492
43. Silverstein J Yao FY Grab JD Braun HJ Roberts J Dodge JL Mehta N National Experience with Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Liver Transplantation 2022 10.1002/lt.26439 35226793
Silverstein J, Yao FY, Grab JD, Braun HJ, Roberts J, Dodge JL, Mehta N. National Experience with Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). Liver Transplantation. 2022. 10.1002/lt.26439.35226793
44 Bhangui P Yadav S Soin AS Post liver transplant recurrence in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: not necessarily the end of the road! Hepatoma Res 2020 6 null null
Bhangui P, Yadav S, Soin AS. Post liver transplant recurrence in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: not necessarily the end of the road! Hepatoma Res. 2020;6:null-null.
45. Lee J-H Cho Y Kim HY Serum tumor markers provide refined prognostication in selecting liver transplantation candidate for hepatocellular carcinoma patients beyond the Milan criteria Ann Surg 2016 263 842 850 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001578 26779979
Lee J-H, Cho Y, Kim HY, et al. Serum tumor markers provide refined prognostication in selecting liver transplantation candidate for hepatocellular carcinoma patients beyond the Milan criteria. Ann Surg. 2016;263:842–50.26779979
46. Mergental H Perera MTPR Laing RW Transplantation of declined liver allografts following normothermic ex-situ evaluation Am J Transplant 2016 16 3235 3245 10.1111/ajt.13875 27192971
Mergental H, Perera MTPR, Laing RW, et al. Transplantation of declined liver allografts following normothermic ex-situ evaluation. Am J Transplant. 2016;16:3235–45.27192971
47. Nasralla D Coussios CC Mergental H A randomized trial of normothermic preservation in liver transplantation Nature 2018 557 50 56 10.1038/s41586-018-0047-9 29670285
Nasralla D, Coussios CC, Mergental H, et al. A randomized trial of normothermic preservation in liver transplantation. Nature. 2018;557:50–6.29670285
48. van Rijn R Schurink IJ de Vries Y Hypothermic machine perfusion in liver transplantation — a randomized trial N Engl J Med 2021 384 1391 1401 10.1056/NEJMoa2031532 33626248
van Rijn R, Schurink IJ, de Vries Y, et al. Hypothermic machine perfusion in liver transplantation — a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1391–401.33626248
49 Mueller M Kalisvaart M O‘Rourke J Hypothermic oxygenated liver perfusion (HOPE) prevents tumor recurrence in liver transplantation from donation after circulatory death Ann Surg 2020 272 759 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004258 32889870
Mueller M, Kalisvaart M, O‘Rourke J, et al. Hypothermic oxygenated liver perfusion (HOPE) prevents tumor recurrence in liver transplantation from donation after circulatory death. Ann Surg. 2020;272:759.32889870
50. Mehta N Heimbach J Harnois DM Validation of a risk estimation of tumor recurrence after transplant (RETREAT) score for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplant JAMA Oncol 2017 3 493 500 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5116 27838698
Mehta N, Heimbach J, Harnois DM, et al. Validation of a risk estimation of tumor recurrence after transplant (RETREAT) score for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplant. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:493–500.27838698
51. van Hooff MC Sonneveld MJ Ijzermans JN Doukas M Sprengers D Metselaar HJ den Hoed CM de Man RA External validation of the RETREAT score for prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation Cancers (Basel) 2022 14 630 10.3390/cancers14030630 35158898
van Hooff MC, Sonneveld MJ, Ijzermans JN, Doukas M, Sprengers D, Metselaar HJ, den Hoed CM, de Man RA. External validation of the RETREAT score for prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14:630.35158898
52. Reddy SHS Mehta N Dodge JL Liver transplantation for HCC: validation of prognostic power of the RETREAT score for recurrence in a UK cohort HPB 2022 24 596 605 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.09.008 34702624
Reddy SHS, Mehta N, Dodge JL, et al. Liver transplantation for HCC: validation of prognostic power of the RETREAT score for recurrence in a UK cohort. HPB. 2022;24:596–605.34702624
53. Halazun KJ Najjar M Abdelmessih RM Samstein B Griesemer AD Guarrera JV Kato T Verna EC Emond JC Brown RSJ Recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a new MORAL to the story Ann Surg 2017 265 557 564 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001966 27611615
Halazun KJ, Najjar M, Abdelmessih RM, Samstein B, Griesemer AD, Guarrera JV, Kato T, Verna EC, Emond JC, Brown RSJ. Recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a new MORAL to the story. Ann Surg. 2017;265:557–64.27611615
54. Tran BV Moris D Markovic D Development and validation of a REcurrent Liver cAncer Prediction ScorE (RELAPSE) following liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium Liver Transpl 2023 29 683 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000145 37029083
Tran BV, Moris D, Markovic D, et al. Development and validation of a REcurrent Liver cAncer Prediction ScorE (RELAPSE) following liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium. Liver Transpl. 2023;29:683.37029083
55. Ivanics T Nelson W Patel MS Claasen MPAW Lau L Gorgen A Abreu P Goldenberg A Erdman L Sapisochin G The Toronto postliver transplantation hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence calculator: a machine learning approach Liver Transplant 2022 10.1002/lt.26332
Ivanics T, Nelson W, Patel MS, Claasen MPAW, Lau L, Gorgen A, Abreu P, Goldenberg A, Erdman L, Sapisochin G. The Toronto postliver transplantation hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence calculator: a machine learning approach. Liver Transplant. 2022. 10.1002/lt.26332.
56. Aggarwal A Te HS Verna EC Desai AP A national survey of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance practices following liver transplantation Transplant Direct 2020 7 e638 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001086 33324743
Aggarwal A, Te HS, Verna EC, Desai AP. A national survey of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance practices following liver transplantation. Transplant Direct. 2020;7:e638.33324743
57. Geissler EK Schnitzbauer AA Zülke C Sirolimus use in liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial Transplantation 2016 100 116 125 10.1097/TP.0000000000000965 26555945
Geissler EK, Schnitzbauer AA, Zülke C, et al. Sirolimus use in liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial. Transplantation. 2016;100:116–25.26555945
58. Schnitzbauer AA Filmann N Adam R mTOR inhibition is most beneficial after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with active tumors Ann Surg 2020 272 855 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004280 32889867
Schnitzbauer AA, Filmann N, Adam R, et al. mTOR inhibition is most beneficial after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with active tumors. Ann Surg. 2020;272:855.32889867
59. Sapisochin G Goldaracena N Astete S Benefit of treating hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation and analysis of prognostic factors for survival in a large Euro-American series Ann Surg Oncol 2015 22 2286 2294 10.1245/s10434-014-4273-6 25472651
Sapisochin G, Goldaracena N, Astete S, et al. Benefit of treating hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation and analysis of prognostic factors for survival in a large Euro-American series. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2286–94.25472651
60. Shetty K Dash C Laurin J Use of adjuvant sorafenib in liver transplant recipients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma J Transplant 2014 2014 913634 10.1155/2014/913634 24818010
Shetty K, Dash C, Laurin J. Use of adjuvant sorafenib in liver transplant recipients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma. J Transplant. 2014;2014:913634.24818010
61. Wassmer C-H El Hajji S Papazarkadas X Compagnon P Tabrizian P Lacotte S Toso C Immunotherapy and liver transplantation: a narrative review of basic and clinical data Cancers 2023 15 4574 10.3390/cancers15184574 37760542
Wassmer C-H, El Hajji S, Papazarkadas X, Compagnon P, Tabrizian P, Lacotte S, Toso C. Immunotherapy and liver transplantation: a narrative review of basic and clinical data. Cancers. 2023;15:4574.37760542
62 Tran LM Macedo C Zahorchak AF Donor-derived regulatory dendritic cell infusion modulates effector CD8+ T cell and NK cell responses after liver transplantation Sci Transl Med 2023 15 eadf4287 10.1126/scitranslmed.adf4287 37820009
Tran LM, Macedo C, Zahorchak AF, et al. Donor-derived regulatory dendritic cell infusion modulates effector CD8+ T cell and NK cell responses after liver transplantation. Sci Transl Med. 2023;15:eadf4287.37820009
63. Tojjari A Saeed A Singh M Cavalcante L Sahin IH Saeed A A comprehensive review on cancer vaccines and vaccine strategies in hepatocellular carcinoma Vaccines (Basel) 2023 11 1357 10.3390/vaccines11081357 37631925
Tojjari A, Saeed A, Singh M, Cavalcante L, Sahin IH, Saeed A. A comprehensive review on cancer vaccines and vaccine strategies in hepatocellular carcinoma. Vaccines (Basel). 2023;11:1357.37631925
