Search

Importance: The 2022 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer algorithm currently discourages liver resection (LR) for patients with multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presenting with 2 or 3 nodules that are each 3 cm or smaller., Objective: To compare the efficacy of liver resection (LR), percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with multinodular HCC., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study is a retrospective analysis conducted using data from the HE.RC.O.LE.S register (n = 5331) for LR patients and the ITA.LI.CA database (n = 7056) for PRFA and TACE patients. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) method was applied to balance data and potential confounding factors between the 3 groups. Included were patients from multiple centers from 2008 to 2020; data were analyzed from January to December 2023., Interventions: LR, PRFA, or TACE., Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were calculated. Cox MAIC-weighted multivariable analysis and competing risk analysis were used to assess outcomes., Results: A total of 720 patients with early multinodular HCC were included, 543 males (75.4%), 177 females (24.6%), and 350 individuals older than 70 years (48.6%). There were 296 patients in the LR group, 240 who underwent PRFA, and 184 who underwent TACE. After MAIC, LR exhibited 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 89.11%, 70.98%, and 56.44%, respectively. PRFA showed rates of 94.01%, 65.20%, and 39.93%, while TACE displayed rates of 90.88%, 48.95%, and 29.24%. Multivariable Cox survival analysis in the weighted population showed a survival benefit over alternative treatments (PRFA vs LR: hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.86; P = .01; TACE vs LR: HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.29-2.68; P = .001). Competing risk analysis confirmed a lower risk of cancer-related death in LR compared with PRFA and TACE., Conclusions and Relevance: For patients with early multinodular HCC who are ineligible for transplant, LR should be prioritized as the primary therapeutic option, followed by PRFA and TACE when LR is not feasible. These findings provide valuable insights for clinical decision-making in this patient population.

Importance: Living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) offers advantages over deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) of improved intention-to-treat outcomes and management of the shortage of deceased-donor allografts. However, conflicting data still exist on the outcomes of LDLT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Objective: To investigate the potential survival benefit of an LDLT in patients with HCC from the time of waiting list inscription., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study with an intention-to-treat design analyzed the data of patients aged 18 years or older who had an HCC diagnosis and were on a waiting list for a first transplant. Patients from 12 collaborative centers in Europe, Asia, and the US who were on a transplant waiting list between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2017, composed the international cohort. The Toronto cohort comprised patients from 1 transplant center in Toronto, Ontario, Canada who were on a waiting list between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015. The international cohort centers performed either an LDLT or a DDLT, whereas the Toronto cohort center was selected for its capability to perform both LDLT and DDLT. The benefit of LDLT was tested in the 2 cohorts before and after undergoing an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. Data were analyzed from February 1 to May 31, 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Intention-to-treat death was defined as a patient death that occurred for any reason and was calculated from the time of waiting list inscription for liver transplant to the last follow-up date (December 31, 2019). Four multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models for intention-to-treat death were created., Results: A total of 3052 patients were analyzed in the international cohort, of whom 2447 were men (80.2%) and the median (IQR) age at first referral was 58 (53-63) years. The Toronto cohort comprised 906 patients, of whom 743 were men (82.0%) and the median (IQR) age at first referral was 59 (53-63) years. In all the settings, LDLT was an independent protective factor, reducing the risk of overall death by 49% in the pre-IPTW analysis for the international cohort (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71; P < .001), 33% in the post-IPTW analysis for the international cohort (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.85; P = .001), 43% in the pre-IPTW analysis for the Toronto cohort (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73; P < .001), and 48% in the post-IPTW analysis for the Toronto cohort (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .001). The discriminatory ability of the mathematical models further improved in all of the cases in which LDLT was incorporated., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that having a potential live donor could decrease the intention-to-treat risk of death in patients with HCC who are on a waiting list for a liver transplant. This benefit is associated with the elimination of the dropout risk and has been reported in centers in which both LDLT and DDLT options are equally available.

Background: The Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) prognostic system for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently been proposed and validated. We sought to explore the relationship among the ITA.LI.CA prognostic variables (ie tumour stage, functional score based on performance status and Child-Pugh score, and alpha-fetoprotein), treatment selection and survival outcome in HCC patients., Patients and Methods: We analysed 4,867 consecutive HCC patients undergoing six main treatment strategies (liver transplantation, LT; liver resection, LR; ablation, ABL; intra-arterial therapy, IAT; Sorafenib, SOR; and best supportive care, BSC) and enrolled during 2002-2015 in a multicenter Italian database. In order to control pretreatment imbalances in observed variables, a machine learning methodology was used and inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) was calculated. An IPTW-adjusted multivariate survival model that included ITA.LI.CA prognostic variables, treatment period and treatment strategy was then developed. The survival benefit of HCC treatments was described as a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval), using BSC as a reference value and as predicted median survival., Results: After the IPTW, the six treatment groups became well balanced for most baseline characteristics. In the IPTW-adjusted multivariate survival model, treatment strategy was found to be the strongest survival predictor, irrespective of ITA.LI.CA prognostic variables and treatment period. The survival benefit of different therapies over BSC was: LT = 0.19 (0.18-0.20); RES = 0.40 (0.37-0.42); ABL 0.42 (0.40-0.44); IAT = 0.58 (0.55-0.61); SOR = 0.92 (0.87-0.97). This multivariate model was then used to predict median survival for each therapy within each ITA.LI.CA stage., Conclusion: The concept of therapeutic hierarchy was established within each ITA.LI.CA stage., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Prognostic assessment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at the time of diagnosis remains controversial and becomes even more complex at the time of restaging when new variables need to be considered. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the prognostic utility of restaging patients before proceeding with additional therapies for HCC. Two independent Italian prospective databases were used to identify 1,196 (training cohort) and 648 (validation cohort) consecutive patients with HCC treated over the same study period (2008-2015) who had complete restaging before decisions about additional therapies. The performance of the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) prognostic score at restaging was compared with that of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, Hong Kong Liver Cancer, and Cancer of the Liver Italian Program systems. A multivariable Cox survival analysis was performed to identify baseline, restaging, or dynamic variables that were able to improve the predictive performance of the prognostic systems. At restaging, 35.3% of patients maintained stable disease; most patients were either down-staged by treatment (27.2%) or had disease progression (37.5%). The ITA.LI.CA scoring system at restaging demonstrated the best prognostic performance in both the training and validation cohorts (c-index 0.707 and 0.722, respectively) among all systems examined. On multivariable analysis, several variables improved the prognostic ability of the ITA.LI.CA score at restaging, including progressive disease after the first treatment, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at restaging, and choice of nonsurgical treatment as additional therapy. A new ITA.LI.CA restaging model was created that demonstrated high discriminative power in both the training and validation cohorts (c-index 0.753 and 0.745, respectively)., Conclusion: Although the ITA.LI.CA score demonstrated the best prognostic performance at restaging, other variables should be considered to improve the prognostic assessment of patients at the time of deciding additional therapies for HCC., (© 2018 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

The debate about the best approach to select patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) waiting for liver transplantation (LT) is still ongoing. This study aims to identify the best variables allowing to discriminate between "high-" and "low-benefit" patients. To do so, the concept of intention-to-treat (ITT) survival benefit of LT has been created. Data of 2,103 adult HCC patients consecutively enlisted during the period 1987-2015 were analyzed. Three rigorous statistical steps were used in order to create the ITT survival benefit of LT: the development of an ITT LT and a non-LT survival model, and the individual prediction of the ITT survival benefit of LT defined as the difference between the median ITT survival with (based on the first model) and without LT (based on the second model) calculated for each enrolled patient. Four variables (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, alpha-fetoprotein, Milan-Criteria status, and radiological response) displayed a high effect in terms of delta benefit. According to these risk factors, four benefit groups were identified. Patients with three to four factors ("no-benefit group"; n = 405 of 2,103; 19.2%) had no benefit of LT compared to alternative treatments. Conversely, patients without any risk factor ("large-benefit group"; n = 108; 5.1%) yielded the highest benefit from LT reaching 60 months., Conclusion: The ITT transplant survival benefit presented here allows physicians to better select HCC patients waiting for LT. The obtained stratification may lead to an improved and more equitable method of organ allocation. Patients without benefit should be de-listed, whereas patients with large benefit ratio should be prioritized for LT. (Hepatology 2017;66:1910-1919)., (© 2017 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Prognostic assessment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. Using the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) database as a training set, we sought to develop and validate a new prognostic system for patients with HCC., Methods and Findings: Prospective collected databases from Italy (training cohort, n = 3,628; internal validation cohort, n = 1,555) and Taiwan (external validation cohort, n = 2,651) were used to develop the ITA.LI.CA prognostic system. We first defined ITA.LI.CA stages (0, A, B1, B2, B3, C) using only tumor characteristics (largest tumor diameter, number of nodules, intra- and extrahepatic macroscopic vascular invasion, extrahepatic metastases). A parametric multivariable survival model was then used to calculate the relative prognostic value of ITA.LI.CA tumor stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, Child-Pugh score (CPS), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in predicting individual survival. Based on the model results, an ITA.LI.CA integrated prognostic score (from 0 to 13 points) was constructed, and its prognostic power compared with that of other integrated systems (BCLC, HKLC, MESIAH, CLIP, JIS). Median follow-up was 58 mo for Italian patients (interquartile range, 26-106 mo) and 39 mo for Taiwanese patients (interquartile range, 12-61 mo). The ITA.LI.CA integrated prognostic score showed optimal discrimination and calibration abilities in Italian patients. Observed median survival in the training and internal validation sets was 57 and 61 mo, respectively, in quartile 1 (ITA.LI.CA score ≤ 1), 43 and 38 mo in quartile 2 (ITA.LI.CA score 2-3), 23 and 23 mo in quartile 3 (ITA.LI.CA score 4-5), and 9 and 8 mo in quartile 4 (ITA.LI.CA score > 5). Observed and predicted median survival in the training and internal validation sets largely coincided. Although observed and predicted survival estimations were significantly lower (log-rank test, p < 0.001) in Italian than in Taiwanese patients, the ITA.LI.CA score maintained very high discrimination and calibration features also in the external validation cohort. The concordance index (C index) of the ITA.LI.CA score in the internal and external validation cohorts was 0.71 and 0.78, respectively. The ITA.LI.CA score's prognostic ability was significantly better (p < 0.001) than that of BCLC stage (respective C indexes of 0.64 and 0.73), CLIP score (0.68 and 0.75), JIS stage (0.67 and 0.70), MESIAH score (0.69 and 0.77), and HKLC stage (0.68 and 0.75). The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the intrinsically significant differences between the Taiwanese and Italian groups., Conclusions: The ITA.LI.CA prognostic system includes both a tumor staging-stratifying patients with HCC into six main stages (0, A, B1, B2, B3, and C)-and a prognostic score-integrating ITA.LI.CA tumor staging, CPS, ECOG performance status, and AFP. The ITA.LI.CA prognostic system shows a strong ability to predict individual survival in European and Asian populations.

Background & Aims: The role of hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in different Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages is controversial. We aimed at measuring the survival benefit of resection vs. non-surgical-therapies in each BCLC stage., Methods: Using the ITA.LI.CA database, we identified 2090 BCLC A, B, and C HCC patients observed between 2000 and 2012: 550 underwent resection, 1046 loco-regional therapy (LRT), and 494 best supportive care (BSC). A multivariate log-logistic model was chosen to predict median survival (MS) after resection vs. MS after LRT or BSC. The results were expressed as net survival benefit of resection: (MS resection-MS LRT)/MS BSC., Results: After stratifying for BCLC stage, the median net survival benefit of resection over LRT was: BCLC 0=62% (40%, 82%), A=45% (13%, 65%), B=46% (9%, 76%), C=-16% (-55%, 33%). Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score>9, Child B class, and performance status (PST)=2 were the main risk factors for liver resection. 1181 Child A patients (57%) with MELD⩽9 and PST<2 had always a large positive net survival benefit of resection over LRT, independently of BCLC stage: BCLC 0=64% (44%, 85%), A=59% (45%, 74%), B=71% (52%, 90%), C=56% (36%, 78%). Among the 909 (43%) patients with at least one risk factor (MELD>9 or PST=2 or Child B class), resection did not prove any survival benefit over LRT., Conclusions: Resection could result in survival benefit over LRT for HCC patients regardless of their BCLC stage, provided that liver dysfunction (Child B or MELD>9) and PST>1 are absent., (Copyright © 2014 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: We sought to measure the impact of model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score, tumor staging, and microvascular invasion (MVI) on the relative survival benefit of liver transplantation (LT) versus liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Methods: The study population comprised 1,106 HCC patients with cirrhosis undergoing LR from one Eastern (n = 424) and two Western (n = 682) surgical units. Exclusion criteria were very large (>10 cm) tumors, macrovascular invasion, and metastases. We identified three tumor stages: stage I (within Milan, n = 806), stage II (beyond Milan within Up-to-7, n = 123), and stage III (beyond Milan and Up-to-7, n = 177). Patient survival after LR was compared to that predicted after LT by the Metroticket calculator in relationship with staging, MVI, and MELD score using Monte Carlo simulation., Results: Two hundred eighty-three patients (26 %) with a MELD score of ≥10 had an acceptable 5-year survival after LR of 47 %, while that of patients with a low MELD score was 67 % (p < 0.0001). Mean 5-year LT benefit was -4.50 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] -4.73 to -4.27) for patients with a MELD score of <10, and 0.81 months (95 % CI 0.58 to 1.04) for those with a MELD score of ≥10. MELD score and MVI were the strongest predictors of transplant survival benefit. LT reached a survival benefit, versus LR only in HCC patients with a MELD score of ≥10 and without MVI (3.08 months, 95 % CI 2.78 to 3.39), whatever the tumor stage., Conclusions: LT proved to be harmful in patients with resectable HCC with a low MELD score (<10) or with aggressive tumors (with MVI). As a result of a shortage of donors, only selected resectable tumors with a MELD score of ≥10 should be considered for transplantation.

Background & Aims: Number-needed-to-treat is used in assessing the effectiveness of a health-care intervention, and reports the number of patients who need to be treated to prevent one additional bad outcome. Although largely used in medical literature, there are no studies measuring the benefit of liver transplantation (LT) over hepatic resection (HR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in terms of "Number of patients needed to transplant (NTT).", Exclusion Criteria: Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) Classes B-C, very large (>10 cm) and multi-nodular (>2 nodules) tumours, macroscopic vascular invasion and extra-hepatic metastases., Study Population: 1028 HCC cirrhotic patients from one Eastern (n=441) and two Western (n=587) surgical units. Patient survival observed after HR by proportional hazard regression model was compared to that predicted after LT by the Metroticket calculator. The benefit obtainable from LT compared to resection was analysed in relationship with number of nodules (modelled as ordinal variable: single vs. oligonodular), size of largest nodule (modelled as a continuous variable), presence of microscopic vascular invasion (MVI), and time horizon from surgery (5-year vs. 10-year)., Results: 330 patients were beyond the Milan criteria (32%) and 597 (58%) had MVI. The prevalence of MVI was 52% in patients within Milan criteria and 71% in those beyond (p<0.0001). In the 5-year transplant benefit analysis, nodule size and HCC number were positive predictors of transplant benefit, while MVI had a strong negative impact on NTT. Transplantation performed as an effective therapy (NTT <5) only in oligonodular HCC with largest diameter >3cm (beyond conventional LT criteria) when MVI was absent. The 10-year scenario increased drastically the transplant benefit in all subgroups of resectable patients, and LT became an effective therapy (NTT <5) for all patients without MVI whenever tumor extension and for oligonodular HCC with MVI within conventional LT criteria., Conclusions: Based on NTT analysis, the adopted time horizon (5-year vs. 10-year scenario) is the main factor influencing the benefit of LT in patients with resectable HCC and Child A cirrhosis., (Copyright © 2014 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: The current organ allocation system for liver transplantation (LT) creates an imbalance between patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We describe a model designed to re-establish allocation equity among patient groups using transplant benefit as the common endpoint., Methods: We enrolled consecutive adult patients entering the waiting list (WL group, n=2697) and undergoing LT (LT group, n=1702) during the period 2004-2009 in the North Italy Transplant program area. Independent multivariable regressions (WL and LT models) were created for patients without HCC and for those with stage T2 HCC. Monte Carlo simulation was used to create distributions of transplant benefit, and covariates such as Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) were combined in regression equations. These equations were then calibrated to create an "MELD equivalent" which matches HCC patients to non-HCC patients having the same numerical MELD score., Results: Median 5 year transplant benefit was 15.12 months (8.75-25.35) for the non-HCC patients, and 28.18 months (15.11-36.38) for the T2-HCC patients (p<0.001). Independent predictors of transplant benefit were MELD score (estimate=0.89, p<0.001) among non-HCC patients, and MELD (estimate=1.14, p<0.001) and logAFP (estimate=-0.46, p<0.001) among HCC patients. The equation "HCC-MELD"=1.27∗MELD - 0.51∗logAFP+4.59 calculates a numerical score for HCC patients, whereby their transplant benefit is equal to that of non-HCC patients with the same numerical value for MELD., Conclusions: We describe a method for calibrating HCC and non-HCC patients according to survival benefit, and propose that this method has the potential, if externally validated, to restore equity to the organ allocation system., (Copyright © 2013 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Allocation of deceased-donor livers to patients with chronic liver failure is improved by prioritising patients by 5-year liver transplantation survival benefit. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging has been proposed as the standard means to assess for prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to create a prediction model linking the BCLC stage of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma to their 5-year liver transplant benefit., Methods: A large cohort of consecutive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (n=1328) from the ITA.LI.CA database (n=2951) were judged as potentially eligible for liver transplantation according to the following criteria: absence of macroscopic vascular invasion or metastases, age 70 years or younger, and absence of relevant extra-hepatic comorbidities. To assess the correlation between BCLC staging and non-liver transplantation survival, we did Cox univariate and multivariate analyses including the following covariates: BCLC stage, year of diagnosis, age, sex, cause of cirrhosis, model for end-stage liver disease score, α-fetoprotein concentrations, and treatment. Liver-transplantation survival benefit for patients was calculated, using Monte Carlo simulation analysis, as the patient's 5-year life expectancy with liver transplantation (estimated by the Metroticket model) minus the 5-year life expectancy without liver transplantation according to BCLC stage., Findings: 83 (6%) of 1328 patients had BCLC 0 stage disease, 614 (46%) had BCLC A, 500 (38%) had BCLC B-C, and 131 (10%) had BCLC D. In the Cox non-liver transplantation survival multivariate model, hazard ratios associated with increasing BCLC stages were 1.530 (95% CI 1.107-2.116) for BCLC A versus BCLC 0, 1.572 (1.350-1.830) for BCLC B-C versus BCLC A, and 1.470 (1.164-1.856) for BCLC D versus BCLC B-C. Results of the Monte Carlo simulation analysis confirmed the significant effect of BCLC classification on transplant benefit; in the adjusted model, a median 5-year transplant benefit of 11.19 months (IQR 10.73-11.67) for BCLC 0, 13.49 months (11.51-15.57) for BCLC A, 17.36 months (15.06-19.28) for BCLC B-C, and 28.46 months (26.38-30.34) for BCLC D., Interpretation: Liver transplantation could result in survival benefit for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and advanced liver cirrhosis (BCLC stage D) and in those with intermediate tumours (BCLC stages B-C), regardless of the nodule number-size criteria (ie, Milan criteria), provided that macroscopic vascular invasion and extra-hepatic disease are absent., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: VEGF and AFP mRNA determinations in the blood are promising prognostic factors for patients with HCC. This study explores their potential prognostic synergy in a cohort of HCC patients evaluated for potentially curative therapies., Methods: One hundred twenty-four patients with a diagnosis of HCC were prospectively enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria were: (a) histological diagnosis of HCC and assessment of tumour grade and (b) determination of AFP mRNA status and VEGF levels in the blood before therapy., Results: At baseline evaluation, 40% of the study group had AFP mRNA in the blood (AFP mRNA positive), and 35% had VEGF>23 pg ml(-1) (VEGF positive). Surgery was performed in 58 patients (47%), 54 (43%) had tumour ablation, and 12 had chemoembolisation (10%). Median follow-up and survival of the study group were 19 and 26 months (range, 1 to 60), respectively. The association of AFP mRNA and VEGF proved to be prognostically more accurate than their single use in discriminating the risk of death (ROC curve analysis) and survival probability (Cox analysis). In particular, we identified 3 main molecular stages (p<0.0001): both negative (3-year survival = 63%), one positive (3-year survival = 40%), both positive (3-year survival = 16%). Multivariate analysis identified BCLC staging, surgery, and molecular staging as the most significant survival variables., Conclusions: The preoperative determination of AFP mRNA status and VEGF may potentially refine the prognostic evaluation of HCC patients and improve the selection process for potentially curative therapies.

Background: How to prioritize patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for liver transplantation (LT) remains controversial. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a policy for prioritizing HCC patients according to their response to pre-LT therapy., Methods: The study period was from 2000 to 2008. Dropout criteria included macroscopic vascular invasion, metastases, and poorly differentiated grade at pre-LT biopsy. A specific treatment algorithm was adopted to treat HCC before LT, and the effect of treatment was evaluated 3 months after listing or after the diagnosis of HCC for patients diagnosed while already on the waiting list. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1, patients with disease that completely or partially responded to therapy; and group 2, patients with stable, progressive, or untreatable disease. Group 2 patients were prioritized for LT unless full restaging and repeat biopsy identified dropout criteria., Results: At the 3-month visit, 62 HCC patients (42%) were assigned to group 2 and 85 (58%) to group 1. Eleven of 12 dropouts due to tumor progression came from group 2 (P < 0.01). Response to therapy was the sole predictor of dropout probability, independent of tumor stage (competing risk analysis). The 42 patients in group 2 who were transplanted had much the same 3-year post-LT survival rate as the 57 transplanted patients in group 1 (with survival rates of 82% and 83%, respectively; P > 0.05), but a slightly higher risk of post-LT HCC recurrence (13% and 2%, respectively; P = 0.04)., Conclusions: Response to therapy is a potentially effective tool for prioritizing HCC patients for LT.

Background: There are no studies evaluating the survival benefit of liver transplantation over alternative therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma., Methods: The short- to mid-term survival benefit (study group=135 aggressively treated patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, 52% beyond Milan criteria at pathology) was calculated by comparing the mortality rates of liver transplantation vs alternative therapies patients. A Markov prediction model was then created to estimate the long-term survival benefit of liver transplantation (gain in life expectancy) over alternative therapies. The long-term survival rates in the liver transplantation group were calculated using the Metroticket website calculator (http://89.96.76.14/metroticket/calculator/)., Results: The short- to mid-term analysis indicated that liver transplantation afforded no significant survival benefit in the group of patients with hepatoma as a whole (hazard ratio=1.229, 95% confidence interval 0.544-2.773, p=.6200). The benefit was concentrated in patients with a poor initial response to alternative therapies (hazard ratio=3.137, 95% confidence interval 1.428-6.891, p=.0044). In the long-term analysis, the gain in life expectancy of liver transplantation vs alternative therapies was 6.115 years (base-case analysis) and the main determinants of gain in life expectancy were the 5-year survival prospects after alternative therapies and the patient's age., Conclusions: The survival benefit of liver transplantation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma is strongly related to the patient's age and the effectiveness of available alternative therapies., (Copyright (c) 2010 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)