Wing Chiu Dai

Entecavir monotherapy is effective in suppressing hepatitis B virus after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS We investigated the efficacy of entecavir, a cyclopentyl guanosine nucleoside analogue, as monoprophylaxis in patients with chronic hepatitis B who received a liver transplant. METHODS We studied data from 80 consecutive patients who received a liver transplant (47 from living donors and 33 from deceased donors) for hepatitis B-related disease and entecavir monotherapy as prophylaxis. None of the patients received hepatitis B immunoglobulin. Indications for transplant included decompensation from cirrhosis (27.5%), acute-on-chronic hepatitis B (47.5%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (25%). The median follow-up time was 26 months (range, 5-40 months). Before transplant, 33 patients were not on antiviral therapy and 47 were on oral therapy (18 had received less than 3 months of treatment). RESULTS At the time of transplant, the median log HBV DNA level was 3.5 copies/mL (range, 1.54-8.81); 21 patients (26%) had undetectable levels of HBV DNA. The cumulative rate of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss was 86% and 91% after 1 and 2 years, respectively. Ten patients had reappearance of HBsAg. Eighteen patients (22.5%) were HBsAg positive at the time of their last examination; 17 of these had undetectable levels of HBV DNA, and the remaining patient had a low level of HBV DNA (217 copies/mL). There was no evidence of mutations at sites that confer resistance to entecavir among patients who were HBsAg positive. CONCLUSIONS Although only 26% of patients had complete viral suppression at the time of transplant, 91% lost HBsAg, with 98.8% achieving undetectable levels of HBV DNA. A hepatitis B immunoglobulin-free regimen of entecavir monotherapy is effective after liver transplantation for chronic hepatitis B.

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in 110 patients with liver cirrhosis: a propensity analysis at a single center

Objective: To investigate the long-term outcomes of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with background cirrhosis. Background: Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been gaining popularity, but has not been widely accepted, because published data were gathered from small numbers of patients. Methods: Data of patients diagnosed with HCC and cirrhosis treated by hepatectomy were reviewed. The outcomes of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared with those of open hepatectomy. Propensity score matching of patients in a ratio of 1:3 was conducted. Results: There were 110 patients and 330 patients in the laparoscopic group and the open group, respectively. The laparoscopic group had less blood loss (150 vs 400 mL; P < 0.001), shorter operation time (185 vs 255 minutes; P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (4vs 7 days; P < 0.001). The median overall survival was 136 months in the laparoscopic group and 120 months in the open group. The 1, 3, and 5-year overall survival rates were 98.9%, 89.8%, and 83.7%, respectively, in the laparoscopic group, and 94%, 79.3%, and 67.4%, respectively, in the open group (P = 0.033). The median disease-free survival was 66.37 months in the laparoscopic group and 52.4 months in the open group. The 1, 3, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 87.7%, 65.8%, and 52.2%, respectively, in the laparoscopic group, and 75.2%, 56.3%, and 47.9%, respectively, in the open group (P = 0.141). Conclusions: Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC can be carried out safely with favorable short-term and long-term outcomes even in cirrhotic patients at high-volume liver cancer centers.

High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation: An effective bridging therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients

AIM To analyze whether high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation is an effective bridging therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS From January 2007 to December 2010, 49 consecutive HCC patients were listed for liver transplantation (UCSF criteria). The median waiting time for transplantation was 9.5 mo. Twenty-nine patients received transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as a bringing therapy and 16 patients received no treatment before transplantation. Five patients received HIFU ablation as a bridging therapy. Another five patients with the same tumor staging (within the UCSF criteria) who received HIFU ablation but not on the transplant list were included for comparison. Patients were comparable in terms of Child-Pugh and model for end-stage liver disease scores, tumor size and number, and cause of cirrhosis. RESULTS The HIFU group and TACE group showed no difference in terms of tumor size and tumor number. One patient in the HIFU group and no patient in the TACE group had gross ascites. The median hospital stay was 1 d (range, 1-21 d) in the TACE group and two days (range, 1-9 d) in the HIFU group (P < 0.000). No HIFU-related complication occurred. In the HIFU group, nine patients (90%) had complete response and one patient (10%) had partial response to the treatment. In the TACE group, only one patient (3%) had response to the treatment while 14 patients (48%) had stable disease and 14 patients (48%) had progressive disease (P = 0.00). Seven patients in the TACE group and no patient in the HIFU group dropped out from the transplant waiting list (P = 0.559). CONCLUSION HIFU ablation is safe and effective in the treatment of HCC for patients with advanced cirrhosis. It may reduce the drop-out rate of liver transplant candidate.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for elderly patients with malignant liver tumors: a single-center experience.

Laparoscopic liver resection is associated with less perioperative blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications in younger patients. However, it remains unclear if these short‐term benefits could also be applicable to elderly patients with medical comorbidities.

Pilot study of high‐intensity focused ultrasound ablation as a bridging therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients wait‐listed for liver transplantation

The objective of this study was to investigate the outcomes of high‐intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation as a bridging therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had been wait‐listed for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Adult patients with unresectable and unablatable HCCs within the University of California San Francisco criteria who had been wait‐listed for DDLT were screened for their suitability for HIFU ablation as a bridging therapy if they were not suitable for transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Treatment outcomes for patients receiving HIFU ablation, TACE, and best medical treatment (BMT) were compared. Fifty‐one patients were included in the analysis. Before the introduction of HIFU ablation, only 39.2% of the patients had received bridging therapy (TACE only, n = 20). With HIFU ablation in use, the rate increased dramatically to 80.4% (TACE + HIFU, n = 41). The overall dropout rate was 51% (n = 26). Patients in the BMT group had a significantly higher dropout rate (P = 0.03) and significantly poorer liver function as reflected by higher Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease scores and higher Child‐Pugh grading. Clinically relevant ascites was found in 5 patients in the HIFU group and 2 patients in the BMT group, but none was found in the TACE group (P = 0.01 and P = 0.03, respectively). The TACE and HIFU groups had comparable percentages of tumor necrosis in excised livers (P = 0.35), and both were significantly higher than that in the BMT group (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively). In conclusion, HIFU ablation was safe even for HCC patients with Child‐Pugh C disease. Its adoption increased the percentage of patients receiving bridging therapy from 39.2% to 80.4%. A randomized controlled trial for further validation of its efficacy is warranted. Liver Transpl 20:912–921, 2014.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular reconstruction for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas with borderline resectability.

AIM To analyze whether pancreaticoduodenectomy with simultaneous resection of tumor-involved vessels is a safe approach with acceptable patient survival. METHODS Between January 2001 and March 2012, 136 patients received pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma at our hospital. Seventy-eight patients diagnosed with pancreatic head carcinoma were included in this study. Among them, 46 patients received standard pancreaticoduodenectomy (group 1) and 32 patients received pancreaticoduodenectomy with simultaneous resection of the portal vein or the superior mesenteric vein or artery (group 2) followed by reconstruction. The immediate surgical outcomes and survivals were compared between the groups. Fifty-five patients with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas without liver metastasis who received only bypass operations (group 3) were selected for additional survival comparison. RESULTS The median ages of patients were 67 years (range: 37-82 years) in group 1, and 63 years (range: 35-86 years) in group 2. All group 2 patients had resection of the portal vein or the superior mesenteric vein and three patients had resection of the superior mesenteric artery. The pancreatic fistula formation rate was 21.7% (10/46) in group 1 and 15.6% (5/32) in group 2 (P = 0.662). Two hospital deaths (4.3%) occurred in group 1 and one hospital death (3.1%) occurred in group 2 (P = 0.641). The one-year, three-year and five-year overall survival rates in group 1 were 71.1%, 23.6% and 13.5%, respectively. The corresponding rates in group 2 were 70.6%, 33.3% and 22.2% (P = 0.815). The one-year survival rate in group 3 was 13.8%. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with simultaneous vascular resection was safe for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION The short-term and survival outcomes with simultaneous resection were not compromised when compared with that of standard pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Excellent outcomes of liver transplantation using severely steatotic grafts from brain‐dead donors

Liver grafts with macrovesicular steatosis of >60% are considered unsuitable for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) because of the unacceptably high risk of primary nonfunction (PNF) and graft loss. This study reports our experience in using such grafts from brain‐dead donors. Prospectively collected data of DDLT recipient outcomes from 1991 to 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Macrovesicular steatosis >60% at postperfusion graft biopsy was defined as severe steatosis. In total, 373 patients underwent DDLT. Nineteen patients received severely steatotic grafts (ie, macrovesicular steatosis >60%), and 354 patients had grafts with ≤60% steatosis (control group). Baseline demographics were comparable except that recipient age was older in the severe steatosis group (51 versus 55 years; P = 0.03). Median Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 20 in the severe steatosis group and 22 in the control group. Cold ischemia time (CIT) was 384 minutes in the severe steatosis group and 397.5 minutes in the control group (P = 0.66). The 2 groups were similar in duration of stay in the hospital and in the intensive care unit. Risk of early allograft dysfunction (0/19 [0%] versus 1/354 [0.3%]; P>0.99) and 30‐day mortality (0/19 [0%] versus 11/354 [3.1%]; P = 0.93) were also similar between groups. No patient developed PNF. The 1‐year and 3‐year overall survival rates in the severe steatosis group were both 94.7%. The corresponding rates in the control group were 91.8% and 85.8% (P = 0.55). The use of severely steatotic liver grafts from low‐risk donors was safe, and excellent outcomes were achieved; however, these grafts should be used with caution, especially in patients with high MELD score. Keeping a short CIT was crucial for the successful use of such grafts in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 22:226‐236, 2016.

Increasing the recipient benefit/donor risk ratio by lowering the graft size requirement for living donor liver transplantation

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), a right liver graft is larger than a left liver graft and hence leads to better recipient survival. However, in comparison with donor left hepatectomy, donor right hepatectomy carries a higher donor risk. We estimated the expansion of the applicability of left liver living donor liver transplantation (LLDLT) by lowering the graft weight (GW)/standard liver volume (SLV) ratio in increments of 5%. Consecutive LDLT cases were included in this study. The results of computed tomography volumetry provided the graft volume measurements, and the GW was derived from the graft volume with the conversion factor of 1.19 mL/g. We tried to estimate how many more times LLDLT would have been feasible if the GW/SLV requirement had been lowered to 40%, 35%, 30%, or 25%. In all, 361 consecutive donor‐recipient pairs underwent LDLT. Right liver living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) accounted for 95% of the LDLT cases. Most recipients were male (74.2%), and most donors were female (60.4%). The median GW/SLV ratio was 46% (47% for RLDLT and 37% for LLDLT, P < 0.001). Two of the 218 female donors donated the left liver, and 12 of the 93 female recipients received a left liver. In 147 of the 173 cases (85%) when the donor was female and the recipient was male, the GW/SLV ratio did not reach 30%. LLDLT could have been performed more often than 5% of the time if a lower GW/SLV requirement had been adopted. With GW/SLV ratios ≥ 40%, ≥ 35%, ≥ 30%, and ≥ 25%, the proportion of LLDLT cases would have risen from 5% to 5.8%, 12.5%, 29.1%, and 62.3%, respectively. LLDLT could have been performed approximately twice as often with every 5% reduction of the GW/SLV requirement. In conclusion, lowering the graft size requirement could improve the applicability of LLDLT and hence reduce donor risk. Liver Transpl, 2012.

Efficacy of radiofrequency ablation compared with transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative survival analysis

BACKGROUND This study aims to assess if radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has any oncological superiority over transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) on post-hepatectomy recurrence. METHODOLOGY From 2002 to 2011, 60.15% of 823 patients developed recurrence after hepatectomy for Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). 102 patients with recurrence underwent RFA (n = 42) or TACE (n = 60) for tumor size ≤5 cm and number of lesion ≤3 when tumors were not resectable or transplantable. Those with renal impairment, portal vein thrombosis and poor liver reserve were excluded. Primary outcome was overall survival, which was determined using log-rank test and Kaplan Meier plots performed. Categorical data were analyzed using Chi-square test and continuous variable were analyzed using Mann-U Whitney test. RESULTS Demographics and primary tumor characteristics were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). Overall survival after initial hepatectomy and salvage treatment for recurrence was similar (p > 0.05) in both groups with 5-year OS after salvage treatment for RFA and TACE at 24.1% and 25.7%, respectively. For patients with second recurrence after salvage treatment, an interchangeable treatment strategy of RFA and TACE conferred a better survival outcome than a stand-alone treatment with RFA or TACE (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS RFA and TACE may be equally effective for intrahepatic recurrence after hepatectomy when tumor size is ≤5 cm and ≤3 lesion when re-resection or salvage transplantation is not considered feasible.

Survival analysis of high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy vs. transarterial chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinomas.

High‐intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation is a non‐invasive treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), but long‐term survival analysis is lacking. This study was to analyse its outcome compared to that of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).