Under the “sickest first” Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) allocation, livers amenable to splitting are most often allocated to patients unsuitable for split liver transplantation (SLT). Our experience with SLT using hemilivers was reviewed. From April 2004 to June 2012, we used 25 lobar grafts (10 left lobes and 15 right lobes) for adult‐sized recipients. Twelve recipients were transplanted with primary offers, and 13 were transplanted with leftover grafts. Six grafts were shared with other centers. The data were compared with matched whole liver grafts (n = 121). In 92% of donors, the livers were split in situ. Hemiliver recipients with severe portal hypertension had a greater graft‐to‐recipient weight ratio than those without severe portal hypertension (1.96% vs. 1.40%, p < 0.05). Hemiliver recipients experienced biliary complications more frequently (32.0% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.01); however, the 5‐year graft survival for hemilivers was comparable to whole livers (80.0% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.43). The secondary recipients with leftover grafts did not have increased incidences of graft failure (p = 0.99) or surgical complications (p = 0.43) compared to the primary recipients. In conclusion, while routine application is still controversial due to various challenges, hemiliver SLT can achieve excellent outcomes under the MELD allocation.

Objective: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using small grafts, especially left lobe grafts (H1234-MHV) (LLG), continues to be a challenge due to small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). We herein demonstrate that with surgical modifications, outcomes with small grafts can be improved. Methods: Between 2012 and 2020, we performed 130 adult LDLT using 61 (47%) LLG (H1234-MHV) in a single Enterprise. The median graft-to-recipient weight ratio was 0.84%, with graft-to-recipient weight ratio <0.7% accounting for 22%. Splenectomy was performed in 72 (56%) patients for inflow modulation before (n=50) or after (n=22) graft reperfusion. In LLG-LDLT, venous outflow was achieved using all three recipient hepatic veins. In right lobe graft (H5678) (RLG)-LDLT, the augmented graft right hepatic vein was anastomosed to the recipient’s cava with a large cavotomy. Outcome measures include SFSS, early allograft dysfunction (EAD), and survival. Results: Graft survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 94%, 90%, and 83%, respectively, with no differences between LLG (H1234-MHV) and RLG (H5678). Splenectomy significantly reduced portal flow without increasing the complication rate. Despite the aggressive use of small grafts, SFSS and EAD developed in only 1 (0.8%) and 18 (13.8%) patients, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression revealed model for end-stage liver disease score and LLG (H1234-MHV) as independent risk factors for EAD and splenectomy as a protective factor (odds ratio: 0.09; P=0.03). For LLG (H1234-MHV)-LDLT, patients who underwent prereperfusion splenectomy tended to have better 1-year graft survival than those receiving postreperfusion splenectomy. Conclusions: LLG (H1234-MHV) are feasible in adult LDLT with excellent outcomes comparable to RLG (H5678). Venous outflow augmentation and splenectomy help lower the threshold of using small-for-size grafts without compromising graft survival.

Background.: This study compares selection criteria for liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for inclusivity and predictive ability to identify the most permissive criteria that maintain patient outcomes. Methods.: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database was queried for deceased donor LT’s for HCC (2003–2020) with 3-y follow-up; these data were compared with a 2-center experience. Milan, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 5-5-500, Up-to-seven (U7), HALT-HCC, and Metroticket 2.0 scores were calculated. Results.: Nationally, 26 409 patients were included, and 547 at the 2 institutions. Median SRTR-follow-up was 6.8 y (interquartile range 3.9–10.1). Three criteria allowed the expansion of candidacy versus Milan: UCSF (7.7%, n = 1898), Metroticket 2.0 (4.2%, n = 1037), and U7 (3.5%, n = 828). The absolute difference in 3-y overall survival (OS) between scores was 1.5%. HALT-HCC (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.559, 0.551–0.567) best predicted 3-y OS although AUC was notably similar between criteria (0.506 < AUC < 0.527, Mila n = 0.513, UCSF = 0.506, 5-5-500 = 0.522, U7 = 0.511, HALT-HCC = 0.559, and Metroticket 2.0 = 0.520), as was Harrall’s c-statistic (0.507 < c-statistic < 0.532). All scores predicted survival to P < 0.001 on competing risk analysis. Median follow-up in our enterprise was 9.8 y (interquartile range 7.1–13.3). U7 (13.0%, n = 58), UCSF (11.1%, n = 50), HALT-HCC (6.4%, n = 29), and Metroticket 2.0 (6.3%, n = 28) allowed candidate expansion. HALT-HCC (AUC = 0.768, 0.713–0.823) and Metroticket 2.0 (AUC = 0.739, 0.677–0.801) were the most predictive of recurrence. All scores predicted recurrence and survival to P < 0.001 using competing risk analysis. Conclusions.: Less restrictive criteria such as Metroticket 2.0, UCSF, or U7 allow broader application of transplants for HCC without sacrificing outcomes. Thus, the criteria for Model for End-stage Liver Disease-exception points for HCC should be expanded to allow more patients to receive life-saving transplantation.

Objective: To describe the rate of occult carcinoma deposits in total hepatectomy specimens from patients treated with liver transplant (LT) for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Background: Previous studies have shown that patients with CRLM treated with systemic therapy demonstrate a high rate of complete radiographic response or may have disappearing liver metastases. However, this does not necessarily translate into a complete pathologic response, and residual invasive cancer may be found in up to 80% of the disappearing tumors after resection. Methods: Retrospective review of 14 patients who underwent LT for CRLM, at 2 centers. Radiographic and pathologic correlation of the number of tumors and their viability before and after LT was performed. Results: The median (interquartile range) number of tumors at diagnosis was 11 (4–23). The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 24 (16–37). Hepatic artery infusion was used in 5 patients (35.7%); 6 (42.9%) underwent surgical resection, and 5 (35.7%) received locoregional therapy. The indication for LT was unresectability in 8 patients (57.1%) and liver failure secondary to oncologic treatment in the remaining 6 (42.9%). Before LT, 7 patients (50%) demonstrated fluorodeoxyglucose-avid tumors and 7 (50%) had a complete radiographic response. Histopathologically, 11 patients (78.6%) had a viable tumor. Nine (64.2%) of the 14 patients were found to have undiagnosed metastases on explant pathology, with at least 22 unaccounted viable tumors before LT. Furthermore, 4 (57.1%) of the 7 patients who demonstrated complete radiographic response harbored viable carcinoma on explant pathology. Conclusions: A complete radiographic response does not reliably predict a complete pathologic response. In patients with unresectable CRLM, total hepatectomy and LT represent a promising treatment options to prevent indolent disease progression from disappearing CRLM.

Background: Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-established treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but there are ongoing debates regarding outcomes and selection. This study examines the experience of LT for HCC at a high-volume centre. Methods: A prospectively maintained database was used to identify HCC patients undergoing LT from 2000 to 2020 with more than or equal to 3-years follow-up. Data were obtained from the centre database and electronic medical records. The Metroticket 2.0 HCC-specific 5-year survival scale was calculated for each patient. Kaplan–Meier and Cox-regression analyses were employed assessing survival between groups based on Metroticket score and individual donor and recipient risk factors. Results: Five hundred sixty-nine patients met criteria. Median follow-up was 96.2 months (8.12 years; interquartile range 59.9–147.8). Three-year recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were 88.6% (n=504) and 86.6% (n=493). Five-year RFS and OS were 78.9% (n=449) and 79.1% (n=450). Median Metroticket 2.0 score was 0.9 (interquartile range 0.9–0.95). Tumour size greater than 3 cm (P=0.012), increasing tumour number on imaging (P=0.001) and explant pathology (P<0.001) was associated with recurrence. Transplant within Milan (P<0.001) or UCSF criteria (P<0.001) had lower recurrence rates. Increasing alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)-values were associated with more HCC recurrence (P<0.001) and reduced OS (P=0.008). Chemoembolization was predictive of recurrence in the overall population (P=0.043) and in those outside-Milan criteria (P=0.038). A receiver-operator curve using Metroticket 2.0 identified an optimal cut-off of projected survival greater than or equal to 87.5% for predicting recurrence. This cut-off was able to predict RFS (P<0.001) in the total cohort and predict both, RFS (P=0.007) and OS (P=0.016) outside Milan. Receipt of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts (55/478, 13%) or living-donor grafts (3/22, 13.6%) experienced better survival rates compared to donation after cardiac death (DCD) grafts (n=15/58, 25.6%, P=0.009). Donor age was associated with a higher HCC recurrence (P=0.006). Both total ischaemia time (TIT) greater than 6hours (P=0.016) and increasing TIT correlated with higher HCC recurrence (P=0.027). The use of DCD grafts for outside-Milan candidates was associated with increased recurrence (P=0.039) and reduced survival (P=0.033). Conclusion: This large two-centre analysis confirms favourable outcomes after LT for HCC. Tumour size and number, pre-transplant AFP, and Milan criteria remain important recipient HCC-risk factors. A higher donor risk (i.e. donor age, DCD grafts, ischaemia time) was associated with poorer outcomes.