Which is more cost-effective under the MELD system: primary liver transplant, or salvage transplantation after hepatic resection or after loco-regional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan Criteria?

Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt Transplant Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
HPB (Impact Factor: 2.68). 11/2011; 13(11):783-91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00355.x
Source: PubMed


The optimal strategy for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a disease with increasing incidence, in patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis has long been debated. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of hepatic resection (HR) or locoregional therapy (LRT) followed by salvage orthotopic liver transplantation (SOLT) vs. that of primary orthotopic liver transplantation (POLT) for HCC within the Milan Criteria.
A Markov-based decision analytic model simulated outcomes, expressed in costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), for the three treatment strategies. Baseline parameters were determined from a literature review. Sensitivity analyses tested model strength and parameter variability.
Both HR and LRT followed by SOLT were associated with earlier recurrence, decreased survival, increased costs and decreased quality of life (QoL), whereas POLT resulted in decreased recurrence, increased survival, decreased costs and increased QoL. Specifically, HR/SOLT yielded 3.1 QALYs (at US$96 000/QALY) and LRT/SOLT yielded 3.9 QALYs (at US$74 000/QALY), whereas POLT yielded 5.5 QALYs (at US$52 000/QALY). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings at clinically meaningful probabilities.
 Under the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) system, in patients with HCC within the Milan Criteria, POLT increases survival and QoL at decreased costs compared with HR or LRT followed by SOLT. Therefore, POLT is the most cost-effective strategy for the treatment of HCC.

Download full-text


Available from: Derek E Moore, Feb 17, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often occurs in patients with chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma has the potential to eliminate both the tumor as well as the underlying cirrhosis and is the ideal treatment for HCC in cirrhotic liver as well as massive HCC in noncirrhotic liver. Limitations in organ availability, necessitate stringent selection of patients who would likely to derive most benefit. Selection criteria have considered tumor size, number, volume as well as biological features. The Milan criteria set the benchmark for tumors that would benefit from liver transplantation but were found to be excessively restrictive. Modest expansion in criteria has also been shown to be associated with equivalent survival. Microvascular invasion is the single most important adverse prognostic factor for survival. Living donor liver transplantation has expanded donor options and has the advantage of lower waiting period and not impacting the non-HCC waiting list. Acceptable outcomes have been obtained with living donor liver transplantation for larger and more numerous tumors in the absence of microvascular invasion. Downstaging of tumors to prevent progression while waiting for an organ or for reduction in size to allow enrolment for transplantation has met with variable success.
    Indian Journal of Surgery 02/2012; 74(1):100-117. DOI:10.1007/s12262-011-0387-2 · 0.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Controversy exists regarding the optimal timing of repair after iatrogenic bile duct injuries (BDI). Several studies advocate late repair (≥6 weeks after injury) with mandatory drainage and resolution of inflammation. Others indicate that early repair (<6 weeks after injury) produces comparable or superior clinical outcomes. Additionally, although most studies have reported inferior outcomes with primary surgeon repair, this practice continues. With disparate published recommendations and rising health care costs, decision analysis was used to examine the cost-effectiveness of BDI repair. A Markov model was developed to evaluate primary surgeon repair (PSR), late repair by a hepatobiliary surgeon (LHBS), and early repair by a hepatobiliary surgeon (EHBS). Baseline values and ranges were collected from the literature. Sensitivity analsyses were conducted to test the strength of the model and variability of parameters. The model demonstrated that EHBS was associated with lower costs, earlier return to normal activity, and better quality of life. Specifically, 1 year after repair, PSR yielded 0.53 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) ($120,000/QALY) and LHBS yielded 0.74 QALYs ($74,000/QALY); EHBS yielded 0.82 QALYs ($48,000/QALY). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings at clinically meaningful probabilities. This cost-effectiveness model demonstrates that early repair by a hepatobiliary surgeon is the superior strategy for the treatment of BDI in properly selected patients. Although there is little clinical difference between early and late repair, there is a great difference in cost and quality of life. Ideally, costs and quality of life should be considered in decisions regarding strategies of repair of injured bile ducts.
    Journal of the American College of Surgeons 04/2012; 214(6):919-27. DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.01.054 · 5.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents one of the most common cancers worldwide with rising incidence in developed countries. The best treatment options with curative intent for patients with HCC are liver resection or transplantation, although the role of hepatic ablative therapies has also been recognized. Surgical resection has emerged as the primary treatment in carefully selected patients of HCC. With the advances in surgical and radiological techniques, the perioperative mortality has been reduced to less than 5 % depending on the extent of resection and hepatic reserve. The role of liver transplantation (LT) as the mainstay of treatment for the majority of patients with HCC has evolved in the last few decades. Historically, the Milan criteria have been considered the gold standard for selecting patients; more expanded selection criteria to include those with more advanced tumors have been implemented in recent years. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has emerged as a way to expand the donor pool and has influenced the role of transplantation for HCC, especially in communities with little access to cadaveric transplantation. Salvage transplantation is an alternative option as it allows a window for the biologically less favorable lesions to declare tumor behavior. Salvage transplantation also decreases the burden on transplant resources. Sirolimus, a novel immunosuppressant drug with anti-tumor effect, may have a role in limiting the severity of recurrent disease after transplantation for HCC, and play an important role in the future management of transplant recipients. This article examines the literature on current status of management of HCC.
    Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 06/2012; 31(3):89-99. DOI:10.1007/s12664-012-0200-6
Show more