Ashish Saharia

Hepatocellular carcinoma: a review

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver malignancy and is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. In the United States, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths. Despite advances in prevention techniques, screening, and new technologies in both diagnosis and treatment, incidence and mortality continue to rise. Cirrhosis remains the most important risk factor for the development of HCC regardless of etiology. Hepatitis B and C are independent risk factors for the development of cirrhosis. Alcohol consumption remains an important additional risk factor in the United States as alcohol abuse is five times higher than hepatitis C. Diagnosis is confirmed without pathologic confirmation. Screening includes both radiologic tests, such as ultrasound, computerized tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, and serological markers such as α-fetoprotein at 6-month intervals. Multiple treatment modalities exist; however, only orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) or surgical resection is curative. OLT is available for patients who meet or are downstaged into the Milan or University of San Francisco criteria. Additional treatment modalities include transarterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, percutaneous ethanol injection, cryoablation, radiation therapy, systemic chemotherapy, and molecularly targeted therapies. Selection of a treatment modality is based on tumor size, location, extrahepatic spread, and underlying liver function. HCC is an aggressive cancer that occurs in the setting of cirrhosis and commonly presents in advanced stages. HCC can be prevented if there are appropriate measures taken, including hepatitis B virus vaccination, universal screening of blood products, use of safe injection practices, treatment and education of alcoholics and intravenous drug users, and initiation of antiviral therapy. Continued improvement in both surgical and nonsurgical approaches has demonstrated significant benefits in overall survival. While OLT remains the only curative surgical procedure, the shortage of available organs precludes this therapy for many patients with HCC.

Combined lung and liver transplantation

Patients with end‐stage lung disease complicated by cirrhosis are not expected to survive lung transplantation alone. Such patients are potential candidates for combined lung‐liver transplantation (CLLT), however few reports document the indications and outcomes after CLLT. This is a review of a large single‐center CLLT series. Eight consecutive CLLT performed during 2009‐2012 were retrospectively reviewed. One patient received a third simultaneous heart transplant. Mean age was 42.5 ± 11.5 years. Pulmonary indications included cystic fibrosis (CF) (n = 3), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (n = 2), α1‐antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) (n = 1) and pulmonary hypertension (n = 2). Liver indications were CF (n = 3), hepatitis C (n = 2), AATD (n = 1), cryptogenic (n = 1), and cardiac/congestive (n = 1). Urgency was reflected by median lung allocation score (LAS) of 41 (36.0‐89.0) and median predicted FEV1 of 25.7%. Median donor age was 25 (20‐58) years with median cold ischemia times of 147 minutes and 6.1 hours for lung and liver, respectively. Overall patient survival at 30 days, 90 days and 1 year was 87.5%, 75.0% and 71.4% respectively. One patient had evidence of acute lung rejection, and no patients had liver allograft rejection. Early postoperative mortalities (90 days) were caused by sepsis in 2 recipients who exhibited the highest LAS of 69.9 and 89.0. The remaining recipients had a median LAS of 39.5 and 100% survival at 1‐year. Median length of stay was 25 days (7‐181). Complications requiring operative intervention included bile duct ischemia (n = 1) and bile leak (n = 1), ischemia of the bronchial anastomosis (n = 1), and necrotizing pancreatitis with duodenal perforation (n = 1). This series reflects a large single‐center CLLT experience. Sepsis is the most common cause of death. The procedure should be considered for candidates with LAS < 50. Liver Transpl 20:46–53, 2014.

Efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of voriconazole prophylaxis for prevention of invasive aspergillosis in high‐risk liver transplant recipients

Aspergillus infection remains a significant and deadly complication after liver transplantation (LT). We sought to determine whether the antifungal prophylactic use of voriconazole reduces the incidence of invasive aspergillosis (IA) in high‐risk LT recipients without prohibitively increasing cost. During the study era (April 2008 to April 2014), 339 deceased donor LTs were performed. Of those patients, 174 high‐risk recipients were administered antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole. The median biological Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score at the time of LT was 33 (range, 18‐49) with 56% requiring continuous renal replacement therapy and 50% requiring ventilatory support immediately before transplantation. Diagnosis of IA was stratified as proven, probable, or possible according to previously published definitions. No IA was documented in patients receiving voriconazole prophylaxis. At 90 days after LT, the institutional cost of prophylaxis was

Liver transplantation for locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant therapy: a prospective case-series

5324 or 5.6% of the predicted cost associated with post‐LT aspergillosis. There was no documentation of resistant strains isolated from any recipient who received voriconazole. In conclusion, these data suggest that voriconazole prophylaxis is safe, clinically effective, and cost‐effective in high‐risk LT recipients. Liver Transpl 22:163–170, 2016.

Intermediate-Term Outcomes of Dual Adult versus Single-Kidney Transplantation: Evolution of a Surgical Technique

BACKGROUND At present, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a contraindication for liver transplantation. However, previous studies in this field did not preselect patients on the basis of chemosensitivity or disease trajectory after neoadjuvant therapy. Experience with hilar cholangiocarcinoma has indicated that neoadjuvant therapy followed by liver transplantation in patients without disease progression results in a long-term survival benefit. We aimed to establish the potential efficacy of liver transplantation in patients with biologically responsive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma who have had sustained tumour stability or regression with neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS In this prospective case-series, patients with locally advanced, unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, without extrahepatic disease or vascular involvement, were treated at a single liver transplant centre according to a non-randomised, centre-approved clinical management protocol with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by liver transplantation. Neoadjuvant therapy consisted of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, such as gemcitabine-cisplatin or gemcitabine-capecitabine, with second-line or third-line therapies given per institutional standards. Patients with a minimum of 6 months of radiographic response or stability were listed for liver transplantation. The primary endpoints were overall survival and recurrence-free survival after liver transplantation, assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis. This report includes interim data from the initial case-series treated under this ongoing clinical management protocol, censored on Dec 1, 2017. FINDINGS Between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 1, 2017, 21 patients were referred for evaluation and 12 patients were accepted, of whom six patients have undergone liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Three patients received livers from extended criteria deceased donors that would otherwise have been discarded, two from domino living donors, and one from a standard criteria liver donor. Median duration from diagnosis to transplantation was 26 months (IQR 17-33) and median follow-up from transplantation was 36 months (29-51). All patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy while awaiting liver transplantation. Overall survival was 100% (95% CI 100-100) at 1 year, 83·3% (27·3-97·5) at 3 years, and 83·3% (27·3-97·5) at 5 years. Three patients developed recurrent disease at a median of 7·6 months (IQR 5·8-8·6) after transplantation, with 50% (95% CI 11·1-80·4) recurrence-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years. Adverse events after liver transplantation included one patient with postoperative ileus (grade 3) and one patient with acute kidney injury requiring temporary dialysis (grade 4). INTERPRETATION Selected patients with locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma who show pre-transplant disease stability on neoadjuvant therapy might benefit from liver transplantation. FUNDING None.

Management of the critically ill liver failure patient: Surpassing our limitations to reach transplantation

Background. Acceptance of dual kidney transplantation (DKT) has proven difficult, due to surgical complexity and concerns regarding long-term outcomes. We herein present a standard technique for ipsilateral DKT and compare outcomes to single-kidney transplant (SKT) recipients. Methods. A retrospective single-center comparison of DKT and SKT performed between February 2007 and July 2013. Results. Of 516 deceased donor kidney transplants, 29 were DKT and 487 were SKT. Mean follow-up was 43 ± 67 months. DKT recipients were older and more likely than SKT recipients to receive an extended criteria graft (p < 0.001). For DKT versus SKT, the rates of delayed graft function (10.3 versus 9.2%) and acute rejection (20.7 versus 22.4%) were equivalent (p = ns). A higher than expected urologic complication rate in the DKT cohort (14 versus 2%, p < 0.01) was reduced through modification of the ureteral anastomosis. Graft survival was equivalent between DKT and SKT groups (p = ns) with actuarial 3-year DKT patient and graft survivals of 100% and 93%. At 3 years, the groups had similar renal function (p = ns). Conclusions. By utilizing extended criteria donor organs as DKT, the donor pool was enlarged while providing excellent patient and graft survival. The DKT urologic complication rate was reduced by modification of the ureteral anastomosis.

Ipsilateral placement in double-kidney transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW Patients with liver failure and liver-related diseases are often critically ill. Here, we review advances in donor organ management, tools for patient selection and highlight ICU management of liver transplant (LT) recipients. A focused discussion on the impact each of these factors have on critical care management of liver failure patients is presented. RECENT FINDINGS Artificial liver assist devices to increase donor organ utilization are broadening the potential for transplantation of critically ill patients. Additionally, prognostication tools continue to improve and identify patients salvageable with transplantation despite severely deranged physiology. Most importantly, early recognition of liver failure combined with proactive critical care management reduces the incidence of failure-to-rescue and increases the likelihood of transplantation. SUMMARY Liver transplantation is often the only hope for cure, and despite the presence of profound physiologic disturbances surgery remains the goal. In this review, we cover topics key in ICU management of LT recipients. A focused discussion on development of artificial liver assist devices to increase donor organs, prognostic scoring systems to define appropriate transplant recipients, critical care management of liver failure physiology, and bridging modalities and supportive measures are presented.