Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare patient survival after liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from live donors (LD) or extended criteria donors (ECD). METHODS: Data from consecutive LT procedures for HCC involving either LD or ECD were reviewed. Patient survival was our primary outcome. Re-transplantation (Re-LT), ischemic type bile lesions (ITBL), and tumor recurrence represented secondary outcomes. The primary outcome was statistically analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression; logistic regression analyses were used for statistical analysis of the secondary outcomes. Propensity score was calculated based on patient age, sex, hepatitis C viral infection (HCV), laboratory model for end-stage liver disease (labMELD) score, bridging treatment, Milan criteria, α-fetoprotein levels, and tumor grade. RESULTS: The study evaluated 109 recipients undergoing LT from either LD (n=57) or ECD (n=52). LT procedure (hazard ratio [HR] 2.349, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.151-4.794, P=0.0190), age (HR 1.075, 95%CI 1.020-1.133, P=0.0074) and labMELD score (HR 1.082, 95%CI 1.021-1.147, P=0.0075) reached significance by Cox proportional hazards regression. After adjustment with the propensity score (stratification with 5 strata), the LT procedure was still significant (HR 2.401, 95%CI 1.114-5.175, P=0.0253). Tumor grade (odds ratio [OR] 9.628, 95%CI 1.120-82.752, P=0.0391), labMELD score (OR 1.224, 95%CI 1.019-1.471, P=0.0306), and Milan criteria (OR 6.375, 95%CI 1.239-32.796, P=0.0267) gained statistical significance by logistic regression analysis for Re-LT, ITBL, and tumor recurrence, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LT for HCC showed superior patient survival with ECD rather than LD grafts. Re-LT, ITBL, and tumor recurrence showed no significant differences between the two groups. However, the diverging criteria for the definition of ECD grafts represent a considerable limitation for the wide application of this policy.