AFP Response to Locoregional Therapy Can Stratify the Risk of Tumor Recurrence in HCC Patients after Living Donor Liver Transplantation
by
,
I-Hsuan Chen
1,
Chien-Chin Hsu
2,
Chee-Chien Yong
1,
Yu-Fan Cheng
3,
Chih-Chi Wang
1,
Chih-Che Lin
1,* and
Chao-Long Chen
1 1
Liver Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan
2
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan
3
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(5), 1551; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15051551
Submission received: 1 February 2023
/
Revised: 17 February 2023
/
Accepted: 24 February 2023
/
Published: 1 March 2023
Abstract
:Simple Summary
We evaluated the effect of AFP response to locoregional therapy (LRT) on the outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients after living donor liver transplantation. The enrolled patients were divided into four groups according to LRT and AFP response to LRT. The nonresponse group had the highest 5-year cumulative recurrence rates whereas the complete-response group (patients with abnormal AFP before LRT and with normal AFP after LRT) had the lowest 5-year cumulative recurrence rates among the four groups. The 5-year cumulative recurrence rates of the partial-response group (AFP response was not back to the normal level) was comparable to the control group. AFP response to LRT can be used to stratify the risk of HCC recurrence after LDLT and also to clarify the efficacy of LRT. A better prognosis can be expected if a partial AFP response of over 15% is achieved.
Abstract
(1) Background: Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) has been incorporated into the selection criteria of liver transplantation and been used to predict the outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence. Locoregional therapy (LRT) is recommended for bridging or downstaging in HCC patients listed for liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the AFP response to LRT on the outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). (2) Methods: This retrospective study included 370 HCC LDLT recipients with pretransplant LRT from 2000 to 2016. The patients were divided into four groups according to AFP response to LRT. (3) Results: The nonresponse group had the worst 5-year cumulative recurrence rates whereas the complete-response group (patients with abnormal AFP before LRT and with normal AFP after LRT) had the best 5-year cumulative recurrence rate among the four groups. The 5-year cumulative recurrence rate of the partial-response group (AFP response was over 15% lower) was comparable to the control group. (4) Conclusions: AFP response to LRT can be used to stratify the risk of HCC recurrence after LDLT. If a partial AFP response of over 15% declineis achieved, a comparable result to the control can be expected.
1. Introduction
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide and the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths [1]. Liver transplantation (LT) is the best radical treatment option because it can remove the cancer as well as the entire pre-cancerous cirrhotic liver [2]. The Milan and University of California San Francisco (UCSF) transplantation selection criteria are based on morphological variables (tumor size and number), but there is increasing evidence that the biological marker alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is a powerful predictor of tumor recurrence [3]. Recently, some centers have expanded the selection criteria or offered a downstaging protocol for advanced HCC [4,5,6,7]. Despite proposals from several groups, universally accepted guidelines regarding the selection of these patients are still lacking [8].
Pretransplant LRTs including TACE, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) are regarded as adjunct tools to downstage advanced HCC. The very early stage (BCLC 0) is defined as the presence of a single nodule of <2 cm in diameter and without vascular invasion or metastases in patients with good performance status (PS 0) and well-preserved liver function (Child–Pugh A). The early stage (BCLC A) corresponds to patients with one nodule of <5 cm or up to three nodules each of <3 cm. Patients with BCLC stages 0 and A are candidates for potentially curative treatment options, i.e., surgical resection, LT, or local ablation. The treatment approach for BCLC-A patients varies according to tumor number and degree of liver function impairment. In the intermediate stage (BCLC-B), the magnitude of the tumor burden may be quite heterogeneous, and prognosis is also influenced by AFP concentration and the degree of liver function impairment even if still belonging to Child–Pugh class A. This individualized patient profile may also determine whether liver transplantation, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), or systemic therapy should be used. [9]. It is increasingly used to control tumor growth when the waiting time is prolonged and serves as a tool to improve candidate selection [10]. Systemic therapy is a deferred option in HCC because of the strong and broad resistance of HCC to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The use of single agents in therapy is practically non-existent because of their low response [11]. Tumor downstaging, defined as a reduction in viable tumor burden by LRT to meet acceptable LT criteria, has been considered as a better alternative to simply expanding the tumor size limits for LT [12,13,14]. In principle, downstaging serves as a tool to select a subset of patients with favorable tumor biology who would respond to downstaging treatments and do well after LT [13]. LRT has also developed from the concept of bridging cases to the time of LT to the concept of neoadjuvant (necrotizing) treatment [15].
AFP is widely used to distinguish a subset of LT candidates with a reasonable life expectancy after LT [16,17], and it is also considered a good predictor of the response to LRT in many other strategies [18]. It has many defects but remains the only relevant biomarker routinely used in HCC patients’ management. HCC prognosis being correlated with AFP, this biomarker should play a role in the decision of the various therapeutic strategies for patients with curative or palliative HCC, and not only before liver transplantation. With mounting evidence on preoperative AFP levels of prognostic interest, it would be relevant to AFP modulate to the therapeutic management strategies of HCC and the BCLC guidelines to improve the treatment of HCC patients [19,20]. Many liver transplant centers globally incorporate AFP, with differences in cutoffs, into their listing criteria. Therefore, the optimal serum AFP level cutoff as an exclusion criterion for LT in pretransplant HCC patients has been discussed abundantly. In a previous study, the subset of patients outside the Milan criteria with low serum AFP levels (0–15 ng/mL) displayed improved post-LT survival [21]. The high end of the AFP level cutoff, ranging from 400 ng/mL to 1000 ng/mL [6,22,23], had a poor prognosis. Bhat et al. reported that AFP value after TACE was significantly associated with better overall survival after LT in limited cases [24]. Mounting evidence reveals that AFP > 1000 ng/mL manifested in HCC patients either within or outside MC portends reduced post-LT survival and considerable risk of HCC recurrence [22,25,26].
The reduction in AFP is also thought to indicate a good response to non-transplant treatment [27,28,29]. We hypothesized that the AFP response to LRT might predict tumor recurrence after LDLT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of AFP response to LRT and use it to stratify the tumor recurrence risk of HCC patients after LDLT.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients
Between January 2000 and December 2016, 370 HCC patients with LRT who underwent LDLT at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital were enrolled in this study. Patients with HCC and combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were included, but those with other liver malignancies were excluded. Although some developments have been made, the surgical techniques used on donors and recipients have mainly remained the same and are described in detail elsewhere [30,31]. Decision making for primary resection, LRT, and LDLT were conducted as previously described [2]. Treatment recommendations were according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Stage [9]. None of the patients in this study had received chemotherapy. Systemic therapy is a deferred option in HCC because of the strong and broad resistance of HCC to cytotoxic chemotherapy [11].
Acceptance for LDLT required the candidate to fit the UCSF criteria, in accordance with Taiwan National Health Insurance policy. In our experience, the contraindications of LRT as downstaging include metastasis, major vascular invasion, a history of HCC rupture, and infiltrative-type tumors. The level of AFP (over 1000 ng/mL) was not the contraindication. Necrotizing therapy is advised if possible before transplant, even if the tumor status is within the criteria, to minimize the possibility of tumor recurrence [15]. Therefore, patients would receive LRT if they did not have contraindications for LRT. Before transplantation, chest and abdominal CT, bone scan, and brain MRI were routinely performed to exclude metastasis.
2.2. Patient Grouping
The serum AFP level was measured through radioimmunoassay (normal value: <20 ng/mL). One hundred and seventy-seven (47.8%) patients whose serum AFP levels were within the normal reference range (<20 ng/mL) before and after LRT were assigned to the control group. One hundred and ninety-three (52.2%) patients with abnormal serum AFP levels (>20 ng/mL) before LRT were stratified into the following groups according to the AFP response to LRT: complete AFP response (CR), partial AFP response (PR), and no AFP response (NR). The definition of CR was that AFP levels returned to the normal reference range (<20 ng/mL) after LRT. In patients with persistent abnormal AFP levels after LRT, the AFP decline was calculated by subtracting the pretransplant AFP level from the pre-LRT-maximal AFP level and dividing the result by the pre-LRT (or maximal) AFP level. The cutoff value of AFP decline between the PR and NR groups for tumor recurrence was determined by c-statistics using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
2.3. Immunosuppression and Follow-Up Protocol
Basiliximab (Simulect; Novartis Pharma AG, Switzerland) was intravenously administered (20 mg) twice. Steroid therapy consisted of intraoperative intravenous methylprednisolone (500 mg), followed by a 20 mg/day dosage, which was tapered down and withdrawn after 3 months if no acute cellular rejection occurred. Patients with stable vital signs and renal function were given tacrolimus (Prograf; Fujisawa, Killorglin, Ireland) at a dose to maintain trough levels at 5–10 ng/mL during the first week after LDLT. Mycophenolate mofetil (CellCept; Roche, Ponce, Puerto Rico) was continuously administered at 0.5–1 g/day. Patients diagnosed with unfavorable tumor histology (such as poorly differentiated HCC, combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma, or presence of macrovascular or microvascular invasion) or who were initially beyond UCSF criteria were given sirolimus (Rapamune; Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) at a dose that was maintained at 4–12 ng/mL. No adjuvant therapy was given to prevent recurrence. During the follow-up, the dosage of immunosuppressants was intentionally minimized if liver function was normal or stable. Follow-up visits in the outpatient clinic were scheduled on a monthly basis for the first year after transplantation and then every 3 months thereafter. Tumor recurrence was assessed by monthly measurements of AFP and liver ultrasound every 3 months. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging were arranged when they were clinically indicated.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) or as the median (interquartile range, IQR) if the data were not normally distributed. Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test was used for comparisons between groups as appropriate. Analysis of variance or the Kruskal–Wallis test was used for comparisons among groups as appropriate. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages and were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. The cumulative recurrence rate was calculated, and survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan–Meier method, and survival was compared between groups using the log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (forward stepwise selection) was used to assess predictors of tumor recurrence and overall survival. Univariable and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Statistical significance was set at p-value < 0.05. ROC curve analysis was performed using a nonparametric method. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows, version 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NJ, USA).
2.5. Ethics Statement
The current study was approved by the Chang Gung Medical Foundation Institutional Review Board (approval number: 201701632A3). All methods were performed in accordance with the approved guidelines. Written informed consent was waived by the Chang Gung Medical Foundation Institutional Review Board due to the retrospective design of this study.
3. Results
3.1. Patient Characteristics and Their Association with Recurrence
The 370 enrolled HCC patients were 295 men and 75 women, with a median age of 55.4 years. The median follow-up after LDLT was 85.9 months (IQR, 55.5–115.0 months). HCC recurred in 47 (12.7%) patients at a median of 15.2 months after LDLT (IQR, 7.1–30.7 months), of which 26 (55.3%) were extrahepatic metastases, and 4 (8.5%) were early extrahepatic metastases which was defined as within 6 months after transplantation. The causes of mortality were HCC- (n = 35, 9.5%), non-HCC- (n = 32, 8.2%), and surgery-related (n = 7, 1.9%). The patients’ demographic characteristics and histopathological results of the explanted liver are shown in Table 1. Most patients were infected with hepatitis B and C viruses. Compared with the nonrecurrence group, the recurrence group had higher pretransplant AFP levels, more frequently underwent LRT, had higher tumor burdens, and had higher rates of microvascular invasion and viable tumors.
3.2. Cutoff Value of AFP Response to LRT
In patients with persistent abnormal AFP levels after LRT, the median AFP decline was 71.2% (IQR: 21.5–91.5%). To further stratify the risk of tumor recurrence with AFP decline, a ROC curve was used to determine the cutoff point between the PR and NR groups (Figure 1A). AFP decline demonstrated acceptable discrimination for predicting tumor recurrence, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.641 (p = 0.05). With an optimal cutoff value of 15%, the sensitivity and specificity of predicting tumor recurrence were 65.0% and 67.4%, respectively. The scatter plot in Figure 1B shows the distribution of pre-LRT (or maximal) and pretransplant AFP levels in the LRT groups.
3.3. Recurrence Rates According to Pre-LRT AFP and AFP-Response Groups
Figure 2 shows the recurrence rates of the four groups based on pre-LRT AFP and AFP response. Of the 177 (11.9%) patients with normal pre-LRT serum AFP levels (control group), 21 experienced recurrence after LDLT. Of the patients with abnormal pre-LRT serum AFP levels, 84 had AFP levels that returned to normal (CR group) after LRT. Their recurrence rate (4/84, 4.8%) was significantly lower (p = 0.001) than those with persistent abnormal AFP levels (22/109, 20.2%). In patients with an AFP decline of more than 15% (PR group), 8 of 67 (11.9%) patients experienced recurrence after LDLT. In patients with an AFP decline less than 15% (NR group), their recurrence rate was significantly higher (p = 0.006) than the PR group.
Table 2 shows the clinicopathologic characteristics of the four groups. The AFP-response groups had significant differences in microvascular invasion and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T stage. The frequency of complete tumor necrosis was higher in the CR group; however, the AFP and pathologic response groups had only borderline significance. Regarding the correlation between the AFP-response groups and LRT, we found that the PR group had the highest percentage (41.8%) of pre-LRT-maximal AFP levels and the NR group had the lowest percentage (14.3%). The NR group also had the highest recurrence (p < 0.001) and mortality rates (p = 0.001) among the three groups. Consequently, the medium of recurrence months was significantly less than in the CR group (p = 0.004) (Table 2).
3.4. Cumulative Recurrence Rate and Overall Survival
The 5-year cumulative recurrence rates in the control, CR, PR, and NR groups were 11.7%, 4.9%, 10.7%, and 33.4%, respectively (Figure 3A). The CR group had excellent outcomes, while the NR group had the worst outcomes. The PR group obtained similar outcomes to the control group. The 5-year overall survival rates of the control, CR, PR, and NR groups were 81.5%, 94.0%, 88.0%, and 70.7%, respectively (Figure 3B). The CR group had excellent outcomes, while the NR group had the worst outcomes.
Univariable analysis demonstrated that NR was an unfavorable factor (HR 3.213, 95% CI 1.633–6.322, p = 0.001) for tumor recurrence (Table 3) and overall survival (HR 1.873, 95% CI 1.044–3.361, p = 0.035). CR was a favorable factor (HR 0.496, 95% CI 0.247–0.995, p = 0.049) for overall survival (Table 4). In multivariable analyses, the groups, according to LRT number, AFP response to LRT, and largest tumor size, independently predicted tumor recurrence; moreover, AFP response to LRT and AJCC T stage predicted overall survival (Table 3 and Table 4).
4. Discussion
This study suggested that AFP response to LRT can be used to stratify the tumor recurrence risk after LDLT in HCC patients with abnormal pre-LRT AFP levels. Patients with AFP levels that returned to normal after LRT had excellent outcomes after LDLT. Patients with an AFP decline of more than 15% after LRT achieved comparable outcomes to those in the non-LRT and normal AFP groups. In contrast, patients with an AFP decline of less than 15% had the worst outcomes after LDLT. The pretransplant selection criteria for HCC patients could be refined with the consideration of AFP response to LRT.
High AFP was usually associated with a poor prognosis after LT. High AFP before transplant was a critical condition. Merani et al. [32] demonstrated that patients with an AFP level of >400 ng/mL at the time of listing who were downstaged to AFP ≤ 400 ng/mL had significantly better intent-to-treat survival than patients failing to show a reduction in AFP to <400 ng/mL. They concluded that downstaging HCC patients with high AFP was feasible and leads to similar survival to that of patients with persistently low AFP levels.
Bhat et al. [24] evaluated 35 HCC patients beyond the Milan criteria who received carboplatin-based TACE before LT and found that the percentage decrease in AFP was a significant predictor for survival and that patients with an AFP decrease exceeding 50% had significantly better median survival rates. Mehta et al. [33] had a similar finding focusing on a high level of AFP (>1000 ng/mL). Our study stratified patients into three groups according to their post-LRT AFP levels. Patients with AFP levels returning to normal were classified as the CR group and had excellent outcomes. The percentage decrease in AFP was only used in patients with persistent abnormal AFP levels after LRT, and the cutoff value of a 15% AFP decline was determined with a ROC curve. Noticeably, there were 25 patients who had high levels of AFP (>1000 ng/mL) before LRT. Four of them belonged to the NR group and the rest were either in the PR or CR group. The mortality and recurrence rates of the NR group were 38.1% and 33.3%, respectively, and of the control group were 21.5% and 11.9%, respectively.
Pretransplant LRT for HCC has been shown to be a strategy to improve long-term survival [34]. The concept of necrotizing therapy has been applied in our center, in which LRT was used as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve complete or major tumor necrosis [15]. In our cohort, none of the 69 patients with pathological complete tumor necrosis experienced recurrence; however, it could only be recognized in the post-transplant explanted liver. Our results demonstrated that patients with a complete AFP response to LRT (abnormal AFP levels returning to normal levels after LRT) had the lowest 5-year cumulative recurrent rate (4.9%) and excellent 5-year overall survival (94.0%). The CR group could be used as a predictor for excellent outcomes before transplantation.
Our study demonstrated that patients with no AFP response to LRT (NR group) had the highest 5-year cumulative recurrence rate (33.4%) and worst 5-year overall survival (70.7%). AFP was a comprehensive biomarker of tumor behavior. AFP promotes the growth, proliferation, and metastasis of HCC and prevents apoptosis and the escape of HCC from immune surveillance [35]. A high AFP level has been shown to be associated with poorer outcomes [36,37]. If the serum AFP level fails to decrease after LRT, it might be due to technical or anatomic issues, aggressive tumor biology, or undetected tumors present in other parts of the liver or outside the liver. In this study, our patients had a whole-body bone scan and brain MRI to exclude the possibility of extrahepatic metastasis. Only one patient in the NR group had extrahepatic metastasis. Our data showed that the NR group more frequently had microvascular invasion. Therefore, NR indicated that tumors had a more aggressive behavior, and NR could be used as a predictor for tumor recurrence and poor outcomes.
Our study also showed that patients in the PR group with a partial AFP response to LRT had significantly better outcomes than those in the NR group. Compared with patients with normal AFP levels (control group), there were no significant differences in the 5-year cumulative recurrent rate and overall survival. In patients with cirrhotic liver and impaired liver function, comprehensive LRT is intolerable. One cycle of LRT resulting in a 15% decrease in the AFP level might be able to predict promising outcomes after LT.
In some previous studies, suboptimal results with high recurrence rates were seen in patients who had received LT with an AFP level of ≥400 ng/mL [38,39]. We further investigated the details of three AFP-response groups with LRT. Notably, only 14.3% of maximal AFP in the NR group was higher than 400 ng/mL. The PR group had the highest proportion of maximal AFP among the three groups. This result indicated that a high level of AFP was not a main indicator of recurrence in this study. AFP response could be another indicator to predict the risk of recurrence. If AFP did not respond to the LRT, the prognosis was worse than for PR even if the AFP was still low. Nevertheless, if AFP could partially respond to LRT, even decreasing by only 15% to the maximal AFP, it could improve the outcome after LT. Recent studies suggested that the change in AFP while on the waiting list could best predict survival, with cutoff values of 200, 50, or 15 ng/mL/month in patients without downstaging or bridging LRT [40,41,42]. However, in our center, downstaging or bridging LRT was an important method to help patients fitting the national criteria. This study also showed that the AFP response could be used to distinguish the efficacy of LRT. The dynamic change in AFP was indicative of the tumor’s biological behavior, which was complicated. In patients with pretransplant LRT, a single AFP level could not be used for evaluating tumor aggressiveness. Therefore, AFP response to LRT was an alternative method for evaluating tumor aggressiveness and could be used to stratify the risk of tumor recurrence in HCC patients after LDLT. In this retrospective study, we simplified two points of AFP level to evaluate the prognosis. It was not only more accurate than a single point but also simpler than dynamic AFP levels. In a medical application, if LRT produces a complete or partial response before LDLT in abnormal AFP patients, a better prognosis can be expected. Although the survival rate in the no AFP response group was higher than that of most patients receiving hepatectomy or ablation, obviously the inferior survival compared with the AFP-response groups will change the post-transplant treatment policy. For instance, post-transplant management such as immunosuppressant modification and the indication of adjuvant therapy by target therapy (study on-going) to reduce recurrence are completely different. By the pretransplant AFP response from our study, we can stratify the patients for different post-transplant protocols [43].
In real-world practice, patients with high AFP (>1000 ng/mL) would be normally exclude by some centers. In our LRT groups, there were 11 patients (13.4%) in the CR group, 10 (14.9%) in the PR group, and 4 (9.5%) in the NR group whose maximal AFP was beyond 1000 ng/mL. The proportion in each group was similar, but the outcomes were very different.
The present study had some limitations. First, this study was a single-center retrospective study with a small sample size. Second, there was a lack of data on HCC-related dropouts from the waiting list and patient selection bias. In our center, infiltrative tumors or those accompanied by sky-high AFP as contraindication criteria for a downstaging procedure are excluded in the first place. Third, the pretransplant LRT method was not standardized. The choice of TACE, RFA, PEI, or their combined use depended on the patient’s clinical condition.
5. Conclusions
This study showed that AFP response to LRT was a predictor for tumor recurrence in HCC after LDLT. It was an easy and feasible method to stratify the risk of tumor recurrence. The CR group had better outcomes than the control group of patients with normal AFP levels. The NR group had the worst outcomes, whereas the outcomes of the PR group were comparable to those of the control group. These results might encourage patients who planned to undergo LT but could not reach a complete AFP response or had a high level of AFP in the first place. The patients who had high AFP (>400 ng/mL) might consider undergoing LRT and could still have the opportunity to get a better outcome. If they still do not have a partial AFP response after LRT, the surgeon can monitor the condition of these patients to treat early when recurrence occurs.
Author Contributions
Contributed to the study design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript: I.-H.C. Contributed to the study concept and design, interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript: C.-C.H., C.-C.Y., Y.-F.C. and C.-C.W. Contributed to the study concept and design, acquisition of data, confirmation of analysis and interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript: C.-C.L. and C.-L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was funded by grants from the health and welfare surcharge of tobacco products, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan (MOHW-110TDU-B-212-134022 and MOHW111-TDU-B-221-114009 to Chen CL) and from Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan (CMRPG8K1001 and CMRPG8L0331 to Lin CC).
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study was approved by the Chang Gung Medical Foundation Institutional Review Board (approval number: 201701632A3).
Informed Consent Statement
Written informed consent was waived by the Chang Gung Medical Foundation Institutional Review Board due to the retrospective design of this study.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Hsin-Yi Chien and Chih-Yun Lin and the Biostatistics Center, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Marrero, J.A. Multidisciplinary Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Where Are We Today? Semin. Liver Dis. 2013, 33 (Suppl. 1), S3–S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Concejero, A.; Chen, C.-L.; Wang, C.-C.; Wang, S.-H.; Lin, C.-C.; Liu, Y.-W.; Yang, C.-H.; Yong, C.-C.; Lin, T.-S.; Jawan, B.; et al. Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Single-Center Experience in Taiwan. Transplantation 2008, 85, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Özdemir, F.; Baskiran, A. The Importance of AFP in Liver Transplantation for HCC. J. Gastrointest. Cancer 2020, 51, 1127–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yao, F.Y.; Kerlan, R.K., Jr.; Hirose, R.; Davern, T.J., 3rd; Bass, N.M.; Feng, S.; Peters, M.; Terrault, N.; Freise, C.E.; Ascher, N.L.; et al. Excellent outcome following down-staging of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation: An intention-to-treat analysis. Hepatology 2008, 48, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ravaioli, M.; Grazi, G.L.; Piscaglia, F.; Trevisani, F.; Cescon, M.; Ercolani, G.; Vivarelli, M.; Golfieri, R.; Grigioni, A.D.; Panzini, I.; et al. Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results of Down-Staging in Patients Initially Outside the Milan Selection Criteria. Am. J. Transplant. 2008, 8, 2547–2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toso, C.; Asthana, S.; Bigam, D.L.; Shapiro, A.M.J.; Kneteman, N.M. Reassessing selection criteria prior to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma utilizing the scientific registry of transplant recipients database. Hepatology 2009, 49, 832–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzaferro, V.M.; Llovet, J.M.; Miceli, R.; Bhoori, S.; Schiavo, M.; Mariani, L.; Camerini, T.; Roayaie, S.; Schwartz, M.E.; Grazi, G.L.; et al. Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: A retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009, 10, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pomfret, E.A.; Washburn, K.; Wald, C.; Nalesnik, M.A.; Douglas, D.; Russo, M.; Roberts, J.; Reich, D.J.; Schwartz, M.E.; Mieles, L.; et al. Report of a national conference on liver allocation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. Liver Transplant. 2010, 16, 262–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reig, M.; Forner, A.; Rimola, J.; Ferrer-Fàbrega, J.; Burrel, M.; Garcia-Criado, Á.; Kelley, R.K.; Galle, P.R.; Mazzaferro, V.; Salem, R.; et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J. Hepatol. 2022, 76, 681–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, N.; Yao, F.Y. Moving past “One Size (and Number) Fits All” in the selection of candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation. Liver Transplant. 2013, 19, 1055–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nerenstone, S.R.; Ihde, D.C.; Friedman, M.A. Clinical trials in primary hepatocellular carcinoma: Current status and future directions. Cancer Treat. Rev. 1988, 15, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verna, E.C.; Patel, Y.A.; Aggarwal, A.; Desai, A.P.; Frenette, C.; Pillai, A.A.; Salgia, R.; Seetharam, A.; Sharma, P.; Sherman, C.; et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Management after the transplant. Am. J. Transplant. 2020, 20, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, F.Y.; Fidelman, N.; Lysy, P.A.; Smets, F.; Sibille, C.; Najimi, M.; Sokal, E.M. Reassessing the boundaries of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Where do we stand with tumor down-staging? Hepatology 2016, 63, 1014–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Parikh, N.D.; Waljee, A.K.; Singal, A.G. Downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Liver Transplant. 2015, 21, 1142–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lin, C.-C.; Chen, C.-L. Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma achieves better outcomes. HepatoBiliary Surg. Nutr. 2016, 5, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chaiteerakij, R.; Zhang, X.; Addissie, B.D.; Mohamed, E.A.; Harmsen, W.S.; Theobald, P.J.; Peters, B.E.; Balsanek, J.G.; Ward, M.M.; Giama, N.H.; et al. Combinations of biomarkers and Milan criteria for predicting hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation. Liver Transplant. 2015, 21, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, J.-H.; Cho, Y.; Kim, H.Y.; Cho, E.J.; Lee, D.H.; Yu, S.J.; Lee, J.W.; Yi, N.-J.; Lee, K.-W.; Kim, S.H.; et al. Serum Tumor Markers Provide Refined Prognostication in Selecting Liver Transplantation Candidate for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Beyond the Milan Criteria. Ann. Surg. 2016, 263, 842–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toso, C.; Mentha, G.; Kneteman, N.M.; Majno, P. The place of downstaging for hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepatol. 2010, 52, 930–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepatol. 2018, 69, 182–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gómez-Rodríguez, R.; Romero-Gutiérrez, M.; Artaza-Varasa, T.; González-Frutos, C.; Ciampi-Dopazo, J.J.; Cruz-Pérez, G.-D.; Sánchez-Ruano, J.J. The value of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and alpha-fetoprotein in the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Rev. Esp. Enferm. Dig. 2012, 104, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berry, K.; Ioannou, G.N. Serum alpha-fetoprotein level independently predicts posttransplant survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transplant. 2013, 19, 634–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hakeem, A.R.; Young, R.S.; Marangoni, G.; Lodge, J.P.A.; Prasad, K.R. Systematic review: The prognostic role of alpha-fetoprotein following liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2012, 35, 987–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hameed, B.; Mehta, N.; Sapisochin, G.; Roberts, J.P.; Yao, F.Y. Alpha-fetoprotein level > 1000 ng/mL as an exclusion criterion for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma meeting the Milan criteria. Liver Transplant. 2014, 20, 945–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bhat, M.; Hassanain, M.; Simoneau, E.; Tzimas, G.N.; Chaudhury, P.; Deschenes, M.; Valenti, D.; Ghali, P.; Wong, P.; Cabrera, T.; et al. Magnitude of Change in Alpha-Fetoprotein in Response to Transarterial Chemoembolization Predicts Survival in Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Curr. Oncol. 2013, 20, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duvoux, C.; Roudot–Thoraval, F.; Decaens, T.; Pessione, F.; Badran, H.; Piardi, T.; Francoz, C.; Compagnon, P.; Vanlemmens, C.; Dumortier, J.; et al. Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Model Including α-Fetoprotein Improves the Performance of Milan Criteria. Gastroenterology 2012, 143, 986–994 e983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, Q.; Avolio, A.W.; Graziadei, I.; Otto, G.; Rossi, M.; Tisone, G.; Goffette, P.; Vogel, W.; Pitton, M.B.; Lerut, J.; et al. Alpha-fetoprotein and modified response evaluation criteria in Solid Tumors progression after locoregional therapy as predictors of hepatocellular cancer recurrence and death after transplantation. Liver Transplant. 2013, 19, 1108–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J.-Y.; Li, C.; Wen, T.-F.; Yan, L.-N.; Li, B.; Wang, W.-T.; Yang, J.-Y.; Xu, M.-Q. Alpha fetoprotein changes predict hepatocellular carcinoma survival beyond the Milan criteria after hepatectomy. J. Surg. Res. 2017, 209, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, Y.; Yoon, S.M.; Han, S.; Shim, J.H.; Kim, K.M.; Lim, Y.-S.; Lee, H.C.; Kim, S.Y.; Park, J.-H.; Lee, S.-W.; et al. Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Changes in Alpha-Fetoprotein Levels after Combined Radiotherapy and Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.-S.; Qu, K.; Liu, C.; Zhang, Y.-L.; Liu, J.; Song, Y.-Z.; Zhang, P.; Liu, S.-N.; Chang, H.-L. Highlights for α-fetoprotein in determining prognosis and treatment monitoring for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 18, 7242–7250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.-L.; Chen, Y.-S.; de Villa, V.H.; Wang, C.-C.; Lin, C.-L.; Goto, S.; Wang, S.-H.; Cheng, Y.-F.; Huang, T.-L.; Jawan, B.; et al. Minimal blood loss living donor hepatectomy12. Transplantation 2000, 69, 2580–2586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Villa, V.H.; Chen, C.-L.; Chen, Y.-S.; Wang, C.-C.; Lin, C.-C.; Cheng, Y.-F.; Huang, T.-L.; Jawan, B.; Eng, H.-L. Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation—Addressing the Middle Hepatic Vein Controversy. Ann. Surg. 2003, 238, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Merani, S.; Majno, P.; Kneteman, N.M.; Berney, T.; Morel, P.; Mentha, G.; Toso, C. The impact of waiting list alpha-fetoprotein changes on the outcome of liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepatol. 2011, 55, 814–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mehta, N.; Dodge, J.L.; Roberts, J.P.; Hirose, R.; Yao, F.Y. Alpha-Fetoprotein Decrease from >1000 to <500 ng/mL in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Leads to Improved Posttransplant Outcomes. Hepatology 2018, 69, 1193–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bharat, A.; Brown, D.B.; Crippin, J.S.; Gould, J.E.; Lowell, J.A.; Shenoy, S.; Desai, N.M.; Chapman, W.C. Pre-Liver Transplantation Locoregional Adjuvant Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma as a Strategy to Improve Longterm Survival. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2006, 203, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mizejewski, G.J. Does alpha-fetoprotein contribute to the mortality and morbidity of human hepatocellular carcinoma? A commentary. J. Hepatocell. Carcinoma 2016, 3, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chevret, S.; Trinchet, J.-C.; Mathieu, D.; Rached, A.A.; Beaugrand, M.; Chastang, C. A new prognostic classification for predicting survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Groupe d’Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome Hepatocellulaire. J. Hepatol. 1999, 31, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farinati, F.; Rinaldi, M.; Gianni, S.; Naccarato, R. How should patients with hepatocellular carcinoma be staged? Validation of a new prognostic system. Cancer 2000, 89, 2266–2273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mailey, B.; Artinyan, A.; Khalili, J.; Denitz, J.; Sanchez-Luege, N.; Sun, C.-L.; Bhatia, S.; Nissen, N.; Colquhoun, S.D.; Kim, J. Evaluation of Absolute Serum α-Fetoprotein Levels in Liver Transplant for Hepatocellular Cancer. Arch. Surg. 2011, 146, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wong, L.L.; Naugler, W.E.; Schwartz, J.; Scott, D.L.; Bhattacharya, R.; Reyes, J.; Orloff, S.L. Impact of locoregional therapy and alpha-fetoprotein on outcomes in transplantation for liver cancer: A UNOS Region 6 pooled analysis. Clin. Transplant. 2013, 27, E72–E79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, K.; Tzimas, G.N.; Barkun, J.S.; Metrakos, P.; Tchervenkov, J.I.; Hilzenrat, N.; Wong, P.; Deschênes, M. Preoperative Alpha-Fetoprotein Slope is Predictive of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence after Liver Transplantation. Can. J. Gastroenterol. 2007, 21, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vibert, E.; Azoulay, D.; Hoti, E.; Iacopinelli, S.; Samuel, D.; Salloum, C.; Lemoine, A.; Bismuth, H.; Castaing, D.; Adam, R. Progression of Alphafetoprotein Before Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Cirrhotic Patients: A Critical Factor. Am. J. Transplant. 2010, 10, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Halazun, K.J.; Rosenblatt, R.E.; Mehta, N.; Lai, Q.; Hajifathalian, K.; Gorgen, A.; Brar, G.; Sasaki, K.; Doyle, M.B.M.; Tabrizian, P.; et al. Dynamic α-Fetoprotein Response and Outcomes After Liver Transplant for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. JAMA Surg. 2021, 156, 559–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, D.-Z.; Cheng, J.-W.; Yan, J.-Y.; Huang, A.; Wang, Y.-P.; Zhang, S.-Y.; Cao, Y.; Huang, X.-W.; Fan, J.; Zhou, J.; et al. Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib for preventing tumor recurrence after liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria. Ann. Transl. Med. 2022, 10, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
(A) Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of AFP decline in patients with persistent abnormal AFP levels after locoregional therapy (LRT) for predicting tumor recurrence after living donor liver transplantation. (B). The distribution of the pre-LRT-maximal and pretransplant AFP levels in four defined groups: control, complete AFP response (CR), partial AFP response (PR), and no AFP response (NR).
Figure 1.
(A) Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of AFP decline in patients with persistent abnormal AFP levels after locoregional therapy (LRT) for predicting tumor recurrence after living donor liver transplantation. (B). The distribution of the pre-LRT-maximal and pretransplant AFP levels in four defined groups: control, complete AFP response (CR), partial AFP response (PR), and no AFP response (NR).
Figure 2.
Flowchart of patient grouping according to AFP level, AFP response, and recurrence rates. The recurrence rates show the significant difference in the no AFP response group compared to the other three groups.
Figure 2.
Flowchart of patient grouping according to AFP level, AFP response, and recurrence rates. The recurrence rates show the significant difference in the no AFP response group compared to the other three groups.
Figure 3.
Cumulative recurrence rates (A) and overall survival (B) of the four groups according to AFP level and AFP response (CR, complete AFP response; PR, partial AFP response; NR, no AFP response). CR group showed the excellent cumulative recurrence rate and survival rate compared with NR group. PR group was comparable to the control.
Figure 3.
Cumulative recurrence rates (A) and overall survival (B) of the four groups according to AFP level and AFP response (CR, complete AFP response; PR, partial AFP response; NR, no AFP response). CR group showed the excellent cumulative recurrence rate and survival rate compared with NR group. PR group was comparable to the control.
Table 1.
Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients associated with tumor recurrence after living donor liver transplantation.
Table 1.
Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients associated with tumor recurrence after living donor liver transplantation.
| Clinicopathologic Characteristics | All Patients (n = 370) | Nonrecurrence (n = 323) | Recurrence (n = 47) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 55.4 (50.9–60.7) | 55.5 (50.2–60.7) | 54.7 (50.5–60.1) | 0.609 |
| Gender, male, n (%) | 295 (79.7) | 254 (78.6) | 41 (87.2) | 0.171 |
| BMI, median (IQR) | 25.2 (22.8–27.5) | 25.2 (22.8–27.5) | 25.3 (23.1–27.4) | 0.846 |
| Liver disease, n (%) | ||||
| HBV | 226 (61.1) | 193 (59.8) | 33 (70.2) | 0.169 |
| HCV | 135 (36.5) | 122 (37.8) | 13 (27.7) | 0.178 |
| Alcoholic | 24 (6.5) | 20 (6.2) | 4 (8.5) | 0.753 |
| Others | 6 (1.6) | 6 (1.9) | - | 0.346 |
| Child–Pugh class, n (%) | 0.963 | |||
| A | 204 (55.1) | 179 (55.4) | 25 (53.2) | |
| B | 23(33.2) | 105 (32.5 | 18 (38.3) | |
| C | 43(11.6) | 39 (12.1) | 4 (8.5) | |
| MELD, median (IQR) | 9.0 (7.0–12.0) | 9.0 (7.0–12.0) | 9.0 (7.0–12.0) | 0.996 |
| Pre-LRT-maximal AFP (ng/mL), median (IQR) | 23.5 (10.8–109.9) | 22.0 (10.7–106.0) | 30.0 (11.3–200.0) | 0.396 |
| Pre-LRT-maximal AFP > 20 ng/mL, n (%) | 193 (52.2) | 167 (51.7) | 26 (55.3) | 0.643 |
| Pretransplant AFP (ng/mL), median (IQR) | 10.5 (5.5–26.5) | 10.2 (5.5–22.9) | 12.7 (5.8–75.1) | 0.050 |
| Pretransplant AFP > 20 ng/mL, n (%) | 110 (29.7) | 87 (27.0) | 23 (47.6) | 0.002 |
| Pretransplant LRT number, median (IQR) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 3 (2–5) | <0.001 |
| Pretransplant LRT methods, n (%) | 0.003 | |||
| RFA only | 74 (20.0) | 72 (22.3) | 2 (4.3) | |
| TACE only | 128(34.6) | 114 (35.3) | 14 (29.8) | |
| PEI only | 9 (2.4) | 7 (2.2) | 2 (4.3) | |
| TACE and RFA | 97 (26.2) | 77 (23.8) | 20 (42.6) | |
| TACE and PEI | 28 (7.6) | 24 (7.4) | 4 (8.5) | |
| RFA and PEI | 8 (2.2) | 7 (2.2) | 1 (2.1) | |
| TACE, RFA, and PEI | 26 (7.0) | 22 (6.8) | 4 (8.5) | |
| Tumor number, median (IQR) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (2–4) | 0.067 |
| Largest tumor size (cm), median (IQR) | 2.7 (2.0–3.5) | 2.6 (2.0–3.5) | 3.0 (2.5–5.0) | 0.001 |
| Total tumor size (cm), median (IQR) | 4.5 (2.8–7.0) | 4.3 (2.6–6.5) | 6.5 (3.8–11.0) | <0.001 |
| Beyond Milan criteria, n (%) | 168 (45.4) | 138 (42.7) | 30 (63.8) | 0.007 |
| Beyond UCSF criteria, n (%) | 122 (33.0) | 95 (29.4) | 27 (57.4) | <0.001 |
| Microvascular invasion, n (%) | 104 (28.1) | 73 (22.6) | 31 (66.0) | <0.001 |
| AJCC T stage, n (%) | <0.001 | |||
| T1 | 96 (25.9) | 94 (29.1) | 2 (4.3) | |
| T2 | 250 (67.6) | 213 (65.9) | 37 (78.7) | |
| T3 | 18 (4.9) | 13 (4.0) | 5 (10.6) | |
| T4 | 6 (1.6) | 3 (0.9) | 3 (6.4) | |
| Tumor necrosis, n (%) | 0.050 | |||
| No tumor necrosis | 31 (8.4) | 30 (9.3) | 1 (2.1) | |
| Partial tumor necrosis | 270 (73.0) | 224 (69.3) | 46 (97.9) | |
| Complete tumor necrosis | 69 (18.6) | 69 (21.4) | 0 (0) |
Table 2.
Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients in the 4 groups according to locoregional therapy, pre-LRT AFP, and AFP response.
Table 2.
Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients in the 4 groups according to locoregional therapy, pre-LRT AFP, and AFP response.
| Clinicopathologic Characteristics | Control (n = 177) | Complete AFP Response (n = 84) | Partial AFP Response (n = 67) | No AFP Response (n = 42) | p * | p ** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 55.5 (51.3–60.6) | 55.5 (49.5–60.7) | 54.3 (49.0–59.9) | 55.5 (51.6–60.8) | 0.703 | 0.599 |
| Male (%) | 146 (82.5) | 64 (76.2) | 54 (80.6) | 31 (73.8) | 0.256 | 0.683 |
| BMI, median (IQR) | 25.5 (22.7–27.7) | 24.8 (23.1–27.3) | 25.2 (22.5–27.5) | 25.1 (22.6–27.3) | 0.809 | 0.986 |
| Liver disease (%) | ||||||
| HBV | 111 (62.7) | 56 (66.7) | 34 (50.7) | 25 (59.5) | 0.226 | 0.141 |
| HCV | 55 (31.1) | 31 (36.9) | 29 (43.3) | 20 (47.6) | 0.120 | 0.480 |
| Alcoholic | 13 (7.3) | 5 (6.0) | 4 (6.0) | 2 (4.8) | 0.921 | 0.957 |
| Others | 5 (2.8) | 0 | 1 (1.5) | 0 | 0.183 | 0.389 |
| Child–Pugh class, n (%) | 0.576 | 0.370 | ||||
| A | 100 (56.5) | 45 (53.6) | 40 (59.7) | 19 (45.2) | ||
| B | 54 (30.5) | 33 (39.3) | 19 (28.4) | 17 (40.5) | ||
| C | 23 (13.0) | 6 (7.1) | 8 (11.9) | 6 (14.3) | ||
| MELD, median (IQR) | 9 (7–12) | 9.5 (7–12) | 10 (7–12) | 11 (8–13.3) | 0.132 | 0.206 |
| Maximal AFP (ng/mL), median (IQR) | 9.9 (6.0–14.6) | 71.2 (33.4–229.7) | 301.0 (97.3–743.0) | 72.7 (32.6–174.5) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Maximal AFP >400 ng/mL, n (%) | - | 15 (17.2%) | 28 (41.8%) | 6 (14.3%) | <0.001 | 0.001 |
| Pretransplant AFP (ng/mL), median (IQR) | 5.7 (3.5–9.7) | 10.2 (5.2–14.3) | 44.2 (28.9–87.0) | 72.7 (29.1–88.1) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Pretransplant AFP > 400, n (%) | - | - | 3 (4.5) | 6 (14.3) | <0.001 | 0.002 |
| pretransplant LRT number, median (IQR) | 2 (1–4) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 3 (1–4) | 0.327 | 0.239 |
| Pretransplant LRT methods, n (%) | 0.102 | 0.195 | ||||
| TACE only | 56 (31.6) | 25 (29.8) | 32 (47.8) | 15 (35.7) | ||
| RFA only | 36 (20.3) | 26 (31.0) | 8 (11.9) | 4 (9.5) | ||
| PEI only | 5 (2.8) | 3 (3.6) | 0 | 1 (2.4) | ||
| TACE and RFA | 44 (24.9) | 19 (22.6) | 21 (31.3) | 13 (31.0) | ||
| TACE and PEI | 17 (9.6) | 6 (7.1) | 3 (4.5) | 2 (4.8) | ||
| RFA and PEI | 4 (2.3) | 1 (1.2) | 1 (1.5) | 2 (4.8) | ||
| TACE, RFA, and PEI | 15 (8.5) | 4 (4.8) | 2 (3.0) | 5 (11.9) | ||
| Tumor number, median (IQR) | 2 (1–3) | 2.0 (1–3) | 2 (1–4) | 2.5 (2–5) | 0.204 | 0.111 |
| Largest tumor size (cm), median (IQR) | 2.6 (2.0–3.5) | 3.0 (2.1–3.8) | 2.7 (2.0–3.4) | 2.8 (2.0–3.6) | 0.678 | 0.769 |
| Total tumor size (cm), median (IQR) | 4.3 (2.7–6.3) | 4.5 (2.9–6.9) | 4.2 (2.7–8.0) | 6.1 (3.2–10.0) | 0.179 | 0.168 |
| Beyond Milan criteria, n (%) | 73 (41.2) | 38 (45.2) | 32 (47.8) | 25 (59.5) | 0.039 | 0.305 |
| Beyond UCSF criteria, n (%) | 56 (31.6) | 25 (29.8) | 23 (34.3) | 18 (42.9) | 0.485 | 0.344 |
| Microvascular invasion, n (%) | 42(23.7) | 18(21.4) | 22(32.8) | 22(52.4) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| AJCC T stage, n (%) | 0.040 | 0.029 | ||||
| T1 | 53 (29.9) | 24 (28.6) | 16 (23.9) | 3 (7.1) | ||
| T2 | 112 (63.3) | 57 (67.9) | 45 (67.2) | 36 (85.7) | ||
| T3 | 8 (4.5) | 3 (3.6) | 5 (7.5) | 2 (4.8) | ||
| T4 | 4 (2.3) | 0 | 1 (1.5) | 1 (2.4) | ||
| Tumor necrosis, n (%) | 0.07 | 0.087 | ||||
| No tumor necrosis | 19 (10.7) | 5 (6.0) | 7 (10.4) | 4 (9.5) | ||
| Partial tumor necrosis | 119 (67.2) | 59 (70.2) | 55 (82.1) | 33 (78.6) | ||
| Complete tumor necrosis | 39 (22.0) | 20 (23.8) | 5 (7.5) | 5 (11.9) | ||
| Recurrence, n (%) | 21 (11.9) | 4 (4.8) | 8 (11.9) | 14 (33.3) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Recurrence, n (%) | 21 (11.9) | 4 (4.8) | 8 (11.9) | 14 (33.3) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Recurrence model | 0.776 | 0.612 | ||||
| Intra-hepatic metastasis | 10 (47.6) | 1 (25.0) | 3(37.5) | 7(50.0) | ||
| Extrahepatic metastasis | 11 (52.4) | 3 (75.0) | 5 (62.5) | 7 (50.0) | ||
| Early extrahepatic metastasis (<6 months), n (%) | 2 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.5) | 1 (2.4) | - | - |
| Recurrence months, median (IQR) | 15.2 (7.8–29.60) | 24.6 (17.6–44.1) | 10.9 (6.4–23.1) | 13.9 (8.0–34.5) | 0.736 | 0.594 |
| RFS months, median (IQR) | 76.1 (49.1–112.3) | 95.2 (73.0–121.5) | 89.7 (56.5–118.2) | 69.8 (21.6–104.2) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Expired, n (%) | 38 (21.5) | 10 (11.9) | 10 (14.9) | 16 (38.1) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| OS months, median (IQR) | 76.1 (50.7–112.7) | 95.2 (74.0–121.5) | 90.2 (59.5–118.2) | 75.6 (41.0–110.0) | 0.033 | 0.085 |
Control: patients with normal AFP levels before and after LRT. Complete AFP response: patients with abnormal AFP levels before LRT and normal AFP levels after LRT. Partial AFP response: patients with persistent abnormal AFP levels after LRT and the AFP level declines by more than 15%. No AFP response: patients with persistent abnormal AFP levels after LRT and the AFP level declines by less than 15%. * Comparison among 4 groups. ** Comparison among 3 groups of complete AFP response, partial AFP response, and no AFP response.
Table 3.
Cox hazard analysis (univariable and multivariable) of clinicopathologic data for tumor recurrence with locoregional therapy.
Table 3.
Cox hazard analysis (univariable and multivariable) of clinicopathologic data for tumor recurrence with locoregional therapy.
| Clinicopathologic Characteristics | HR (95% CI) Univariable | p | HR (95% CI) Multivariable | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.996 (0.962–1.032) | 0.842 | ||
| Gender, male | 1.724 (0.732–4.061) | 0.213 | ||
| BMI | 0.968 (0.892–1.051) | 0.439 | ||
| Liver disease | ||||
| HBV | 1.478 (0.791–2.763) | 0.221 | ||
| HCV | 0.672 (0.355–1.273) | 0.223 | ||
| Alcoholic | 1.352 (0.485–3.769) | 0.564 | ||
| Others | 0.049 (0.00–1614.0) | 0.569 | ||
| Child–Pugh class | 0.671 | |||
| A | 1 | |||
| B | 1.196 (0.652–2.192) | 0.563 | ||
| C | 0.755 (0.263–2.169) | 0.601 | ||
| MELD | 1.021 (0.971–1.072) | 0.421 | ||
| Log10 maximal AFP (ng/mL) | 1.135 (0.800–1.610) | 0.478 | ||
| Log10 pretransplant AFP (ng/mL) | 1.743 (1.154–2.630) | 0.008 | ||
| Pretransplant LRT number | 1.108 (1.042–1.178) | 0.001 | 1.098 (1.017–1.186) | 0.016 |
| Pretransplant LRT methods | 0.091 | |||
| RFA only | ||||
| TACE only | 4.299 (0.977–18.92) | 0.054 | ||
| PEI only | 7.974 (1.123–56.62) | 0.038 | ||
| TACE and RFA | 8.660 (2.024–37.06) | 0.004 | ||
| TACE and PEI | 5.557 (1.018–30.342) | 0.048 | ||
| RFA and PEI | 4.582 (0.415–50.544) | 0.214 | ||
| TACE, RFA, and PEI | 6.025 (1.103–32.900) | 0.038 | ||
| Group (AFP response) | <0.001 | 0.004 | ||
| Normal AFP | 1 | 1 | ||
| Complete AFP response | 0.369 (0.126–1.074) | 0.067 | 0.289 (0.096–0.870) | 0.027 |
| Partial AFP response | 1.000 (0.443–2.258) | 1.000 | 0.951 (0.418–2.164) | 0.905 |
| No AFP response | 3.213 (1.633–6.322) | 0.001 | 2.272 (1.115–4.631) | 0.024 |
| Pathological tumor characteristics | ||||
| Tumor number | 1.142 (1.042–1.252) | 0.005 | ||
| Largest tumor size (cm) | 1.596 (1.322–1.927) | <0.001 | 1.515 (1.194–1.923) | 0.001 |
| Total tumor size (cm) | 1.137 (1.079–1.198) | <0.001 | ||
| Beyond Milan criteria | 2.176 (1.200–3.946) | 0.010 | ||
| Beyond UCSF criteria | 2.936 (1.646–5.236) | 0.001 | ||
| AJCC T stage | <0.001 | |||
| T1 | 1 | |||
| T2 | 7.462 (1.798–30.97) | 0.006 | ||
| T3 | 17.77 (3.445–91.61) | 0.001 | ||
| T4 | 38.28 (6.387–229.4) | <0.001 |
Table 4.
Cox hazard analysis (univariable and multivariable) of clinicopathologic data for overall survival.
Table 4.
Cox hazard analysis (univariable and multivariable) of clinicopathologic data for overall survival.
| Clinicopathologic Characteristics | HR (95% CI) for Univariable | p | HR (95% CI) for Multivariable | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 1.000 (0.972–1.029) | 0.975 | ||
| Gender, male | 0.923 (0.523–1.628) | 0.782 | ||
| BMI | 0.976 (0.914–1.041) | 0.454 | ||
| Liver disease | ||||
| HBV | 0.895 (0.561–1.431) | 0.644 | ||
| HCV | 1.130 (0.706–1.809) | 0.611 | ||
| Alcoholic | 0.929 (0.339–2.548) | 0.886 | ||
| Others | 0.906 (0.126–6.525) | 0.922 | ||
| Child–Pugh class | 0.574 | |||
| A | 1 | |||
| B | 1.234 (0.753–2.024) | 0.404 | ||
| C | 1.364 (0.677–2.749) | 0.386 | ||
| MELD | 1.013 (0.974–1.055) | 0.517 | ||
| Log10 maximal AFP (ng/mL) | 1.012 (0.756–1.355) | 0.936 | ||
| Log10 pretransplant AFP (ng/mL) | 1.491 (1.053–2.112) | 0.024 | ||
| Pretransplant LRT number | 1.065 (1.004–1.131) | 0.038 | ||
| Pretransplant LRT methods | 0.220 | |||
| RFA only | 1 | |||
| TACE only | 1.737 (0.781–3.861) | 0.176 | ||
| PEI only | 0.861 (0.108–6.897) | 0.888 | ||
| TACE and RFA | 2.379 (1.068–5.296) | 0.034 | ||
| TACE and PEI | 3.166 (1.244–8.059) | 0.016 | ||
| RFA and PEI | 1.064 (0.133–8.510) | 0.953 | ||
| TACE, RFA, and PEI | 1.795 (0.587–5.488) | 0.305 | ||
| Group (AFP response) | 0.005 | 0.010 | ||
| Normal AFP | 1 | |||
| Complete AFP response | 0.496 (0.247–0.995) | 0.049 | 0.523 (0.260–1.052) | 0.069 |
| Partial AFP response | 0.665 (0.331–1.334) | 0.251 | 0.667 (0.331–1.341) | 0.255 |
| No AFP response | 1.873 (1.044–3.361) | 0.035 | 1.834 (1.000–3.365) | 0.050 |
| s | ||||
| Tumor number | 1.034 (0.939–1.139) | 0.497 | ||
| Largest tumor size (cm) | 1.193 (1.010–1.410) | 0.038 | ||
| Total tumor size (cm) | 1.047 (0.992–1.105) | 0.096 | ||
| Beyond Milan criteria | 1.072 (0.678–1.695) | 0.766 | ||
| Beyond UCSF criteria | 1.353 (0.845–2.169) | 0.208 | ||
| AJCC T stage | <0.001 | 0.001 | ||
| T1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| T2 | 1.390 (0.766–2.522) | 0.278 | 1.258 (0.685–0.307) | 0.459 |
| T3 | 3.745 (1.564–8.964) | 0.003 | 9.403 (2.816–31.40) | 0.001 |
| T4 | 6.984 (2.291–21.29) | 0.001 | - | 0.982 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Chen, I.-H.; Hsu, C.-C.; Yong, C.-C.; Cheng, Y.-F.; Wang, C.-C.; Lin, C.-C.; Chen, C.-L. AFP Response to Locoregional Therapy Can Stratify the Risk of Tumor Recurrence in HCC Patients after Living Donor Liver Transplantation. Cancers 2023, 15, 1551. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15051551
AMA Style
Chen I-H, Hsu C-C, Yong C-C, Cheng Y-F, Wang C-C, Lin C-C, Chen C-L. AFP Response to Locoregional Therapy Can Stratify the Risk of Tumor Recurrence in HCC Patients after Living Donor Liver Transplantation. Cancers. 2023; 15(5):1551. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15051551
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, I-Hsuan, Chien-Chin Hsu, Chee-Chien Yong, Yu-Fan Cheng, Chih-Chi Wang, Chih-Che Lin, and Chao-Long Chen. 2023. "AFP Response to Locoregional Therapy Can Stratify the Risk of Tumor Recurrence in HCC Patients after Living Donor Liver Transplantation" Cancers 15, no. 5: 1551. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15051551
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
