Tumor surveillance-what can and should be done? Screening for recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation

Division of Transplant, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0780, USA.
Liver Transplantation (Impact Factor: 3.79). 11/2005; 11(11 Suppl 2):S45-6. DOI: 10.1002/lt.20605
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 1. The overall rate of recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after liver transplantation ranged from 11 to 18% in three of the largest series, with some differences in pre-transplant selection criteria. 2. Patients whose explant pathology is within the currently accepted criteria for transplantation have a low rate of recurrence (8%). Patients whose pathology is outside of the criteria have a 50% chance of recurrence, suggesting that post-operative pathology should be used to stratify screening. 3. About 10% of patients with recurrence appear to be long-term survivors after surgical therapy for the recurrence. 4. Screening all patients for HCC recurrence after transplantation is probably not cost effective and selecting patients with high risk explant pathology would be more cost effective. 5. Surprisingly, there is a dearth of information in the literature that would suggest rational screening protocols. I could not find a single article that examined protocols for screening for recurrence after transplantation. What follows is my interpretation of the effectiveness of screening after transplantation for HCC.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) represents a major treatment for end-stage chronic liver disease, as well as selected cases of hepatocellular carcinoma and acute liver failure. The ever-increasing development of imaging modalities significantly contributed, over the last decades, to the management of recipients both in the pre-operative and post-operative period, thus impacting on graft and patients survival. When properly used, imaging modalities such as ultrasound, multidetector computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and procedures of direct cholangiography are capable to provide rapid and reliable recognition and treatment of vascular and biliary complications occurring after OLT. Less defined is the role for imaging in assessing primary graft dysfunction (including rejection) or chronic allograft disease after OLT, e.g., hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence. This paper: (1) describes specific characteristic of the above imaging modalities and the rationale for their use in clinical practice; (2) illustrates main imaging findings related to post-OLT complications in adult patients; and (3) reviews future perspectives emerging in the surveillance of recipients with HCV recurrence, with special emphasis on MRI.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the major causes of morbidity, mortality and healthcare expenditure in patients with chronic liver disease. There are no consensus guidelines on diagnosis and management of HCC in India. The Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) set up a Task-Force on HCC in 2011, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines for diagnosis and management of HCC, relevant to disease patterns and clinical practices in India. The Task-Force first identified various contentious issues on various aspects of HCC and these issues were allotted to individual members of the Task-Force who reviewed them in detail. The Task-Force used the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine—Levels of Evidence of 2009 for developing an evidence-based approach. A 2-day round table discussion was held on 9th and 10th February, 2013 at Puri, Odisha, to discuss, debate, and finalize the consensus statements. The members of the Task-Force reviewed and discussed the existing literature at this meeting and formulated the INASL consensus statements for each of the issues. We present here the INASL consensus guidelines (The Puri Recommendations) on prevention, diagnosis and management of HCC in India.
    08/2014; 4(Suppl 3). DOI:10.1016/j.jceh.2014.04.003
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the major causes of morbidity, mortality and healthcare expenditure in patients with chronic liver disease. The management of HCC is evolving because of recently introduced novel therapeutic approaches. Optimal outcome requires an early and accurate assessment of tumor response to therapy. Current imaging modalities, such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging; provide reliable and reproducible anatomical data in order to demonstrate tumor burden changes. However, in the setting of novel targeted therapies and liver directed treatments, simple tumor anatomical changes can be less informative and usually appear later than biological changes. There has been a growing interest to monitor the therapeutic response, at an early phase of treatment, by measuring tumor viability and/or perfusion. Therefore the importance of tumor viability assessment is increasingly being recognized. The tumor viability measurement guidelines have recently been amended to include the measurement of only the longest diameter of the enhancing tumors to formally amend RECIST to modified RECIST (mRECIST). Viable tumor should be defined as uptake of contrast agent in the arterial phase. In this review, we discuss criteria of response evaluation in HCC and further follow-up of patients receiving curative and palliative treatment.
    08/2014; 4(Suppl 3). DOI:10.1016/j.jceh.2014.05.005