Published online Jul 28, 2016. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v8.i21.874
Peer-review started: April 6, 2016
First decision: June 7, 2016
Revised: June 17, 2016
Accepted: July 11, 2016
Article in press: July 13, 2016
Published online: July 28, 2016
Liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been established as a standard treatment in selected patients for the last two and a half decades. After initially dismal outcomes, the Milan criteria (MC) (single HCC ≤ 5 cm or up to 3 HCCs ≤ 3 cm) have been adopted worldwide to select HCC patients for LT, however cumulative experience has shown that MC can be too strict. This has led to the development of numerous expanded criteria worldwide. Morphometric expansions on MC as well as various criteria which incorporate biomarkers as surrogates of tumor biology have been described. HCC that presents beyond MC initially can be downstaged with locoregional therapy (LRT). Post-LRT monitoring aims to identify candidates with favorable tumor behavior. Similarly, tumor marker levels as response to LRT has been utilized as surrogate of tumor biology. Molecular signatures of HCC have also been correlated to outcomes; these have yet to be incorporated into HCC-LT selection criteria formally. The ongoing discrepancy between organ demand and supply makes patient selection the most challenging element of organ allocation. Further validation of extended HCC-LT criteria models and pre-LT treatment strategies are required.
Core tip: Numerous expanded selection criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-liver transplantation (LT) have been proposed worldwide. Surrogates of favorable tumor biology such as Post-locoregional therapy strategies which observe tumor behavior, and the addition of HCC biomarkers to selection criteria have been explored. Further investigation is encouraged to identify patients beyond MC with the most favorable tumor biology for LT.
- Citation: Elshamy M, Aucejo F, Menon KVN, Eghtesad B. Hepatocellular carcinoma beyond Milan criteria: Management and transplant selection criteria. World J Hepatol 2016; 8(21): 874-880
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v8/i21/874.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v8.i21.874
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignancy of the liver, with over 700000 new cases diagnosed yearly worldwide[1]. HCC continues to be a global health problem due to insufficient screening and surveillance and poorly controlled risk factors[2]. HCC arises most frequently in patients with chronic liver disease from diverse etiologies, and liver transplantation (LT) has been established as a standard treatment in selected patients for the last two and a half decades[3]. However, an ongoing conundrum is the discrepancy between organ demand and supply, making patient selection the most challenging piece of the puzzle to prevent organ misutilization[4].
Poor patient selection (excessive tumor burden, unknown tumor biology) made initial results of LT for HCC quite dismal[5]. It wasn’t until 1996, when Mazzaferro et al[6] defined tumor criteria for patient selection (single lesion ≤ 5 cm, or up to 3 lesions ≤ 3 cm each in the absence of tumor vascular invasion or evidence of extra-hepatic metastases) associated with comparable outcome to patients undergoing LT without HCC. The study revealed 4 year post-LT survival > 75% and post-LT recurrence rate in the order of 8%. These criteria have since been known as the Milan criteria (MC), and have been adopted worldwide to select HCC patients for LT[7].
Patients who present with HCC beyond MC can be down-staged via loco-regional therapy (LRT). LRT are trans-catheter, needle based or radiation treatments which target the tumor and induce selective tumor necrosis[8]. The efficacy of these treatments is gauged radiologically by the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors[9]. Tumor response to LRT, post LRT observation before LT, and HCC biomarkers have been described for selecting the most favorable tumor biology in patients presenting with HCC beyond MC[9-11].
Although strict adherence to MC can produce outcomes comparable to LT for non-HCC, cumulative experience over the last two decades have shown that MC can be too strict, and that select patients beyond MC may benefit from LT with adequate survival[12]. This has led to the development of numerous HCC expanded criteria worldwide, applied for both cadaveric and live donor liver transplantation.
Herein, we review various expanded HCC criteria and outcomes, impact of tumor response to LRT in post-LT outcome and emerging HCC molecular signatures that may be incorporated into patient selection criteria in the near future.
In 2001, Yao et al[13] published one of the most popular expanded LT-HCC criteria. The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria considered a single lesion ≤ 6.5 cm, or 2-3 lesions ≤ 4.5 cm each, with total tumor diameter ≤ 8 cm.
Tumor recurrence was 11.4% and 5 years post-LT survival was in the order of 72.4%[13]. The original UCSF criteria were developed based on explant histopathological analysis, but subsequently have been validated utilizing pre-LT imaging. In 2007, Yao et al[14] published a prospective study utilizing the UCSF criteria revealing 80% 5 years post-LT recurrence free survival (RFS). Alongside MC, UCSF criteria have been the most widely recognized transplant criteria for HCC, and can expand 5%-20% the indication of LT for HCC patients[14]. Currently, some worldwide transplant centers utilize UCSF as the standard selection LT criteria for HCC[15].
The Navarro extended criteria described by Herrero et al[16] in 2001 can expand the MC by considering LT for a single lesion ≤ 6 cm, or 2-3 lesions ≤ 5 cm each. In their analysis, 12.7% of the cohort experienced tumor recurrence. Post-LT 5 years overall survival and RFS was 79% and 70% respectively.
Silva et al[17] published the Valencia criteria in 2008. These would consider LT in HCC patients with 1-3 lesions ≤ 5 cm each, and total tumor ≤ 10 cm. Two hundred and fifty-seven patients undergoing LT for HCC were analyzed, however only 10% were beyond MC based on pre-LT imaging. Patients who fell within the Valencia criteria demonstrated post-LT 5 year survival comparable to patients within MC. The Valencia criteria expands LT to a higher maximum tumor burden compared to both MC and UCSF criteria, without detriment to patient survival, however similar to the Navarro criteria, due to the small number of patients in this cohort, these criteria require further validation.
Correlation of tumor size and number according to explant pathology and post-LT survival in 1206 patients from the International Registry of Hepatic Tumors, led to the recommendation of LT for a single lesion ≤ 6 cm, or 2-4 lesions ≤ 5 cm each by Onaca et al[18] in 2007. Survival in patients exceeding MC but meeting these criteria were not significantly lower than for patients meeting MC. Five years post-LT RFS with a single lesion 5.1-6.0 cm in diameter, or with 2-4 lesions (largest 3.1-5.0 cm) were 63.9%, and 64.6% respectively, compared to 5 years post-LT RFS of 61.8% if MC were met[18].
Other proposed extended criteria do not put a limit to number of tumors recommended for LT. Roayaie et al[19] in 2002, demonstrated 55% 5 years post- LT RFS for patients with lesions 5-7 cm in diameter. In 2004, Kneteman et al[20] reported the outcomes of LT utilizing extended criteria described as a singles lesion < 7.5 cm, or multiple lesions < 5 cm each. Four year post-LT survival was 82.9% vs 87.4% in the MC group.
One of the more recently proposed extended criteria is the Up-to-7 criteria proposed by Mazzaferro et al[21] in 2009. A cohort of 1556 patients undergoing cadaveric LT and LDLT for HCC from 36 transplant centers was analyzed, 71.5% of the cohort had HCC exceeding MC. The Up-to-7 criteria are defined as the sum of the size of the largest tumor in cm and the total number of tumors in the absence of tumor microvascular invasion. Five years post-LT survival for patients within the Up-to-7 criteria compared to MC were 71.2% vs 73.3%[21]. The major limitation of these criteria is the lack of pre-LT information about microvascular invasion. Currently, this can only be partially projected via assessment of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level.
Outcomes in HCC patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were shown to be equivalent to cadaveric liver transplantation[22]. Soejima et al[23] reported that tumor diameter > 5 cm was associated with worse prognosis; however the number of tumors was not. In the cohort of 60 patients who underwent LDLT for HCC, 67% were beyond MC based on pre-LT imaging. Three years post-LT survival of 68.6% was reported for patients beyond MC[23].
Jonas et al[24] also described their extended criteria based on a cohort of 21 patients undergoing LDLT for HCC. Three year survival rates for patients not meeting MC or USCF criteria were 62% and 53% respectively. Sugawara et al[25] proposed an expansion of selection criteria to include up to 5 HCC lesions, ≤ 5 cm each. In their cohort of 78 patients, post-LT RFS at 3 years was 94%.
Table 1 demonstrates an overview of proposed morphometric based expanded selection criteria.
| Ref. | Year | Description | Donor type | n | Survival |
| Yao et al[13] | 2001 | 1 lesion ≤ 6.5 cm, or 2-3 lesions ≤ 4.5 cm each. Total tumor diameter ≤ 8 cm | Cadaveric | 70 | 5 yr OS: 72.4% |
| Herrero et al[16] | 2001 | 1 lesion ≤ 6 cm, or 2-3 lesions ≤ 5 cm each | Cadaveric | 47 | 5 yr OS: 79% |
| Roayaie et al[19] | 2002 | Any number of lesions, 5-7 cm each | Cadaveric | 43 | 5 yr RFS: 55% |
| Keneteman et al[20] | 2004 | 1 lesion < 7.5 cm, or multiple lesions < 5 cm each | Cadaveric | 40 | 4 yr OS: 82.9% |
| 4 yr RFS: 76.8% | |||||
| Onaca et al[18] | 2007 | 1 lesion ≤ 6 cm, or 2-4 lesions ≤ 5 cm each | Cadaveric | 1206 | 5 yr RFS: 1 lesion ≤ 6 cm: 63.9%/or 2-4 lesions 3.1 cm-5 cm each: 64.6% |
| Soejima et al[23] | 2007 | Any number lesions ≤ 5 cm each | Living | 67 | 3 yr OS: 68.6% |
| Jonas et al[24] | 2007 | Single lesion and diameter, or any number of lesions ≤ 6 cm each. Total tumor diameter ≤ 15 cm | Living | 21 | 3 yr OS: 53% |
| Sugawara et al[25] | 2007 | Up to 5 lesions ≤ 5 cm each | Living | 78 | 3 yr RFS: 94% |
| Silva et al[17] | 2008 | 1-3 lesions ≤ 5 cm each. Total tumor diameter ≤ 10 cm | Cadaveric | 257 | 5 yr OS: 67% |
| Mazzaferro et al[21] | 2009 | The sum of the size and number of tumors not exceeding 7 in the absence of microvascular invasion | Both | 1556 | 5 yr OS: 71.2% |
Post-LT outcomes in patients with HCC are in part a consequence of tumor biology. As a result of the impossibility to unveil this feature solely through morphometric imaging characteristics, multiple studies have attempted to include other indicators of tumor behavior as selection criteria. AFP and des-γ-carboxyprothrombin (DCP) both have established correlations with post treatment prognosis[26,27]. A pre-LT AFP level > 1000 ng/mL has been demonstrated as a significant predictor of HCC recurrence post-LT[26]. A large scale analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data has demonstrated that patients transplanted beyond MC with an AFP level of 0 to 15 ng/mL (normal range) had improved survival[28].
One of the most popular HCC-LT extended criteria including biomarkers as surrogates of tumor biology are the Hangzhou criteria (absence of macrovascular invasion and total tumor diameter ≤ 8 cm. If the tumor burden is > 8 cm, histopathology via tumor biopsy should be non-poorly differentiated HCC and AFP level should be ≤ 400 ng/mL[29].
In the original cohort of 195 patients, fulfilling Hangzhou criteria led to a 5 year survival of 70.7% and DFS: 62.4%. On the other hand, patients beyond Hangzhou criteria had a 5 year survival of 18.9% and DFS: 4.7%[29]. A large scale comparative study of multiple extended criteria confirmed post LT survival associated with LT beyond MC but meeting Hangzhou at 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-years was 89.5%, 70.8%, 62.4% and 52.9% respectively. Additionally, 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year RFS was 81.6%, 64.3%, 56.5%, and 37.2% respectively. Compared to MC, expanded criteria expanded transplantable patients by 12.4% for Valencia, 16.3% for UCSF, 19.6% for Navarro, and 51.5% for Hangzhou. RFS rates were comparable to MC[30].
In 2012, Lai et al[31] also suggested that the combination of total tumor diameter > 8 cm and an AFP level ≤ 400 ng/mL would result in favorable survival outcomes. The 5 year DFS rate was 74.4%. It was also noted that patients with increased AFP values in response to LRT had higher recurrence rates[31]. Duvoux et al[32] have suggested a predictive scoring model that combines the AFP level at listing with MC. In their model, an AFP level ≤ 100 ng/mL in the setting of patients beyond MC (1-3 lesions with a maximum tumor diameter of 6 cm) demonstrated 5- year survival near 70%[32].
Similar criteria have been applied to LDLT as well. In a multicenter study from Japan, Todo et al[33] suggested that the combination of an AFP cut of level ≥ 200 ng/mL and protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonism factor II (PIVKA II) ≥ 100 mAU/mL are significant predictors for poor post LT survival. These combined were described as the A-P level. Five year DFS for beyond MC HCC patients and within the A-P cutoff level was similar to those within MC at 78.7% and 90.4% respectively.
Kwon et al[34] demonstrated their outcomes incorporating an AFP level ≤ 400 ng/mL as a selection criteria along with any number of lesions ≤ 5 cm each. In a cohort of 139 patients, 5 year survival was noted at 79.9%, without a significant difference between patients within or beyond MC[34]. More recently in 2015, Toso et al[35] in a prospective study suggested extended LT criteria described as a combination of a total tumor volume ≤ 115 cm3 and an AFP level ≤ 400 ng/mL. Four year post LT survival was similar between the extended criteria group and the MC group at 78.7% and 74.6% respectively[35].
A lower AFP cut off rate of < 100 ng/mL as a critera for HCC-LT was recommended by Grąt et al[36]. A retrospective analysis of a 121 patients demonstrated significant prediction of recurrence in patients transplanted within UCSF and Up-to-7 criteria who surpassed this limit. Five year RFS for patients meeting UCSF and within the AFP cut off was superior to those meeting USCF but beyond the cut off limit at 100% vs 69% respectively. Similarly, when applied to the Up-to-7 criteria, 5 year RFS for those meeting both the criteria and cut off limit was noted at 100% vs 71.9% for beyond the cut off limit[36].
DCP, often utilized as a tumor marker for HCC in Japan, has been incorporated into the Kyoto criteria published by Fujiki et al[37] in 2009: A DCP level of ≤ 400 mAU/mL in addition to morphometric criteria of up to 10 nodules ≤ 5 cm each. Five year recurrence was similar for patients within MC, and patients beyond MC but meeting Kyoto criteria at 7% and 4% respectively. Five year survival for patients meeting Kyoto criteria was 89%[37]. Takada et al[38] also propose similar selection criteria. In their cohort of 136 patients, those who met the proposed selection criteria demonstrated a 5 year survival rate of 87%.
Lee et al[39] proposes the incorporation of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) to HCC-LT selection criteria. Retrospective analysis of 2806 patients demonstrated that patients with PET negative scans preoperatively in combination with a total tumor diameter ≤ 10 cm demonstrated 5 year overall survival and DFS rates of 73.4% and 80.4% respectively, which was not significantly different from those within MC[39].
Table 2 demonstrates an overview of proposed expanded selection criteria which incorporate biomarkers to morphometric tumor measurements.
| Ref. | Year | Morphometric criteria | Biomarker criteria | Donor type | n | Survival |
| Kwon et al[34] | 2007 | Any number of lesions ≤ 5 cm each | AFP ≤ 400 ng/mL | Living | 139 | 5 yr OS: 79.9% |
| Takada et al[38] | 2007 | Up to 10 lesions ≤ 5 cm each | PIVKA-II ≤ 400 mAU/mL | Living | 136 | 5 yr OS: 87% |
| Zheng et al[29] | 2008 | Total tumor diameter ≤ 8 cm or total | If total | Cadaveric | 195 | 5 yr OS: 70.7%, 5 yr DFS: 62.4% |
| tumor diameter > 8 cm with histopathologic grade I or II | tumor diameter > 8 cm: AFP ≤ 400 ng/mL | |||||
| Fujiki et al[37] | 2009 | Up to 10 lesions ≤ 5 cm each | DCP ≤ 400 mAU/mL | Living | 144 | 5 yr OS: 89% |
| Lai et al[31] | 2012 | Total tumor diameter ≤ 8 cm | AFP ≤ 400 ng/mL | Cadaveric | 158 | 5 yr DFS: 74.4% |
| Grąt et al[36] | 2014 | UCSF or Up-to-7 criteria | AFP < 100 ng/mL | Cadaveric | 121 | 5 yr OS: 100% |
| Toso et al[35] | 2015 | Total tumor volume ≤ 115 cm3 | AFP ≤ 400 ng/mL | Cadaveric | 166 | 4 yr OS: 74.6% |
| Lee et al[39] | 2015 | Total tumor diameter ≤ 10 cm | PET/CT negative uptake | Living | 280 | 5 yr OS: 73.4%, |
| 5 yr DFS: 80.4% |
LRT in HCC-LT candidates is considered an element of two approaches: For patients listed/to be listed within MC, LRT is applied neo-adjuvently as bridging therapy to halt tumor progression[40]. Patients who present initially beyond MC are downstaged to reduce tumor size to meet MC[41]. Both strategies provide the opportunity to evaluate radiological and laboratory surrogates of tumor response, which could unveil more aggressive tumors with less favorable biology in order to be excluded from LT.
Since tumor behavior over time is a surrogate of tumor biology, LRT followed by a required waiting time before LT can help to unveil tumor biology and has been coined as the “ablate and wait” strategy[10].
A systematic review and pooled analysis of 13 studies revealed the success rate of downstaging raging between 11%-77%. There was no significant difference in utilizing Transarterial Chemoembolization or Transarterial Radioemobilzation. Post LT recurrence rates were noted to be as high as 16%, however survival outcomes could not be calculated due to heterogeneity of the data which prevented adequate analysis. Further investigation is required to determine the effect of heterogeneous downstaging protocols in term of LRT modality, frequency, and waiting period pre- LT[42].
The correlation between the AFP expression in response to LRT and post LT survival has also been investigated. A multicentric study which included 422 patients who underwent LRT before LT for HCC (306 within MC, 116 beyond MC) demonstrated an increased risk for HCC recurrence and death with an AFP slope > 15 ng/mL per month[43].
Genetic molecular signatures have been explored for their potential as biomarkers for HCC[44]. Dvorchik et al[45] assessed fractional allelic imbalance rates in a panel of 9 tumor suppressor genes. A higher rate of tumor suppressor gene mutation correlated with worse post-LT outcome independently of tumor vascular invasion or tumor burden[45].
MicroRNA (miRNA) signatures detected in serum exosomes have also been described as potential biomarkers for HCC. In a cohort of 6 HCC patients miR-718 was described as significantly linked to HCC; and this was further validated in a cohort of 59 LDLT HCC cases. In the validation cohort, miR-718 expression levels were significantly lower in patients beyond MC, and with poorer histological differentiation. However, due to the small incidence of recurrence in this cohort, no direct association could be linked to miR-718[46].
Another study analyzed paraffin embedded tissue from 69 HCC LT patients (which included 40 post LT recurrences) for miRNA expression. The biomarker proposed by this study consisted of 67 miRNAs, this biomarker had significantly identified the HCC recurrent cases, and it also displayed significance when applied to patients within and beyond MC[47].
A predictive scoring system was recently published combining MC with miRNA markers to identify the risk of HCC recurrence post- LT. Two miRNA markers significant of tumor recurrence (miR-214, miR-3187) were identified via microarray analysis of paraffin explant samples of 40 patients. In another validation cohort of 22 patients, high expression of miR-214 and low expression of miR-3187 were significantly associated with HCC recurrence. A predictive score including levels of these miRNAs and MC status was successful in identifying patients with a lower risk for tumor recurrence and death[48].
Although there remains a large discrepancy between cadaveric organ availability and demand, numerous selection criteria for HCC exceeding the well-established MC have been proposed worldwide. Only a few of these criteria have been validated by multiple independent studies. The current direction of incorporating biomarkers and other surrogates of tumor biology to morphometric criteria is highly encouraged, however this is not without challenge. The most commonly used HCC biomarker AFP, is not a reliable indicator for HCC. AFP levels are not elevated in up to 40% of cases [49,50], furthermore AFP is challenged by its poor sensitivity and specificity[51]. Pre-LT tumor biopsy is somehow discouraged, due in part to tumor heterogeneity when multifocal HCC is present, as well as the risk of needle-tract seeding[52].
In light of the current organ shortage, hepatic resection followed by salvage LT has also been suggested as a treatment strategy for HCC. A systematic review by Chan et al[53] demonstrated median overall survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years post LT was 89%, 80%, and 62% respectively. Additionally, tissue specimens obtained from a pre-LT resection can assist in selection of tumors with a favorable histopathological profile for LT[53].
Monitoring radiologic and laboratory (tumor markers) tumor response post-LRT has been utilized to identify tumors with favorable biology; and in line with this current UNOS guidelines for organ allocation in the United States require listing HCC patients for 6 mo before qualification for HCC exception points[54].
miRNAs are stable in blood and resistant to RNAases, which makes them promising HCC biomarkers[46]. Further validation of extended HCC-LT criteria models that incorporate predictors of tumor biology are needed to optimize organ utilization in an ongoing era of organ shortage.
Manuscript source: Invited manuscript
Specialty Type: Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Country of Origin: United States
Peer-Review Report Classification
Grade A (Excellent): 0
Grade B (Very good): 0
Grade C (Good): C
Grade D (Fair): D
Grade E (Poor): 0
P- Reviewer: Bouras AF, Dondossola D S- Editor: Gong ZM L- Editor: A E- Editor: Li D
| 1. | Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893-2917. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 11128] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11614] [Article Influence: 893.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (4)] |
| 2. | El-Serag HB. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1118-1127. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 2881] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2977] [Article Influence: 229.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 3. | Freeman RB Jr, Steffick DE, Guidinger MK, Farmer DG, Berg CL, Merion RM. Liver and intestine transplantation in the United States, 1997-2006. Am J Transplant. 2008;8:958-976. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 217] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 207] [Article Influence: 12.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 4. | Martin P, DiMartini A, Feng S, Brown R Jr, Fallon M. Evaluation for liver transplantation in adults: 2013 practice guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the American Society of Transplantation. Hepatology. 2014;59:1144-1165. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 581] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 572] [Article Influence: 57.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 5. | Iwatsuki S, Gordon RD, Shaw BW Jr, Starzl TE. Role of liver transplantation in cancer therapy. Ann Surg. 1985;202:401-407. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 359] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 380] [Article Influence: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 6. | Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, Montalto F, Ammatuna M, Morabito A, Gennari L. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:693-699. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 5110] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4991] [Article Influence: 178.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 7. | Mazzaferro V, Bhoori S, Sposito C, Bongini M, Langer M, Miceli R, Mariani L. Milan criteria in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an evidence-based analysis of 15 years of experience. Liver Transpl. 2011;17 Suppl 2:S44-S57. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 384] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 399] [Article Influence: 30.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 8. | Cescon M, Cucchetti A, Ravaioli M, Pinna AD. Hepatocellular carcinoma locoregional therapies for patients in the waiting list. Impact on transplantability and recurrence rate. J Hepatol. 2013;58:609-618. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 113] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 108] [Article Influence: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 9. | Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30:52-60. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 2583] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2903] [Article Influence: 207.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (36)] |
| 10. | Roberts JP, Venook A, Kerlan R, Yao F. Hepatocellular carcinoma: Ablate and wait versus rapid transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2010;16:925-929. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 107] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 108] [Article Influence: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 11. | Merani S, Majno P, Kneteman NM, 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. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 132] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 143] [Article Influence: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 12. | Yao FY, Ferrell L, Bass NM, Bacchetti P, Ascher NL, Roberts JP. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of the proposed UCSF criteria with the Milan criteria and the Pittsburgh modified TNM criteria. Liver Transpl. 2002;8:765-774. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 319] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 341] [Article Influence: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 13. | Yao FY, Ferrell L, Bass NM, Watson JJ, Bacchetti P, Venook A, Ascher NL, Roberts JP. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: expansion of the tumor size limits does not adversely impact survival. Hepatology. 2001;33:1394-1403. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1594] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1583] [Article Influence: 68.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 14. | Yao FY, Xiao L, Bass NM, Kerlan R, Ascher NL, Roberts JP. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: validation of the UCSF-expanded criteria based on preoperative imaging. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:2587-2596. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 382] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 397] [Article Influence: 23.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 15. | The Transplantation Society Of Australia and New Zealand Organ Transplantation from Deceased Donors: Consensus Statement on Eligibility Criteria and Allocation Protocols. [updated 2015 Apr 15; accessed 2016 Mar 28]. Available from: http://www.tsanz.com.au/organallocationprotocols/documents/CSVs1.4_V4_Final.pdf. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 16. | Herrero JI, Sangro B, Quiroga J, Pardo F, Herraiz M, Cienfuegos JA, Prieto J. Influence of tumor characteristics on the outcome of liver transplantation among patients with liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2001;7:631-636. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 163] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 153] [Article Influence: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 17. | Silva M, Moya A, Berenguer M, Sanjuan F, López-Andujar R, Pareja E, Torres-Quevedo R, Aguilera V, Montalva E, De Juan M. Expanded criteria for liver transplantation in patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:1449-1460. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 83] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 84] [Article Influence: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 18. | Onaca N, Davis GL, Goldstein RM, Jennings LW, Klintmalm GB. Expanded criteria for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a report from the International Registry of Hepatic Tumors in Liver Transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2007;13:391-399. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 150] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 151] [Article Influence: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 19. | Roayaie S, Frischer JS, Emre SH, Fishbein TM, Sheiner PA, Sung M, Miller CM, Schwartz ME. Long-term results with multimodal adjuvant therapy and liver transplantation for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinomas larger than 5 centimeters. Ann Surg. 2002;235:533-539. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 332] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 312] [Article Influence: 14.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 20. | Kneteman NM, Oberholzer J, Al Saghier M, Meeberg GA, Blitz M, Ma MM, Wong WW, Gutfreund K, Mason AL, Jewell LD. Sirolimus-based immunosuppression for liver transplantation in the presence of extended criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2004;10:1301-1311. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 204] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 206] [Article Influence: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 21. | Mazzaferro V, Llovet JM, Miceli R, Bhoori S, Schiavo M, Mariani L, Camerini T, Roayaie S, Schwartz ME, Grazi GL. Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:35-43. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 22. | Bhangui P, Vibert E, Majno P, Salloum C, Andreani P, Zocrato J, Ichai P, Saliba F, Adam R, Castaing D. Intention-to-treat analysis of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: living versus deceased donor transplantation. Hepatology. 2011;53:1570-1579. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 103] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 116] [Article Influence: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 23. | Soejima Y, Taketomi A, Yoshizumi T, Uchiyama H, Aishima S, Terashi T, Shimada M, Maehara Y. Extended indication for living donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Transplantation. 2007;83:893-899. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 119] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 117] [Article Influence: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 24. | Jonas S, Mittler J, Pascher A, Schumacher G, Theruvath T, Benckert C, Rudolph B, Neuhaus P. Living donor liver transplantation of the right lobe for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis in a European center. Liver Transpl. 2007;13:896-903. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 37] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 37] [Article Influence: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 25. | Sugawara Y, Tamura S, Makuuchi M. Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Tokyo University series. Dig Dis. 2007;25:310-312. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 171] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 184] [Article Influence: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 26. | Hameed B, Mehta N, Sapisochin G, Roberts JP, Yao FY. Alpha-fetoprotein level & gt; 1000 ng/mL as an exclusion criterion for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma meeting the Milan criteria. Liver Transpl. 2014;20:945-951. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 174] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 200] [Article Influence: 20.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (1)] |
| 27. | Hakamada K, Kimura N, Miura T, Morohashi H, Ishido K, Nara M, Toyoki Y, Narumi S, Sasaki M. Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin as an important prognostic indicator in patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:1370-1377. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in CrossRef: 27] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 27] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 28. | Berry K, Ioannou GN. Serum alpha-fetoprotein level independently predicts posttransplant survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2013;19:634-645. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 107] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 123] [Article Influence: 11.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 29. | Zheng SS, Xu X, Wu J, Chen J, Wang WL, Zhang M, Liang TB, Wu LM. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Hangzhou experiences. Transplantation. 2008;85:1726-1732. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 321] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 368] [Article Influence: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 30. | Xu X, Lu D, Ling Q, Wei X, Wu J, Zhou L, Yan S, Wu L, Geng L, Ke Q. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria. Gut. 2016;65:1035-1041. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 118] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 154] [Article Influence: 19.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 31. | Lai Q, Avolio AW, Manzia TM, Sorge R, Agnes S, Tisone G, Berloco PB, Rossi M. Combination of biological and morphological parameters for the selection of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma waiting for liver transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2012;26:E125-E131. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 55] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 58] [Article Influence: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 32. | Duvoux C, Roudot-Thoraval F, Decaens T, Pessione F, Badran H, Piardi T, Francoz C, Compagnon P, Vanlemmens C, Dumortier J. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a model including α-fetoprotein improves the performance of Milan criteria. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:986-994.e3; quiz e14-e15. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 561] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 635] [Article Influence: 52.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 33. | Todo S, Furukawa H, Tada M; Japanese Liver Transplantation Study Group. Extending indication: role of living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2007;13:S48-S54. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 68] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 71] [Article Influence: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 34. | Kwon CH, Kim DJ, Han YS, Park JB, Choi GS, Kim SJ, Joh JW, Lee SK. HCC in living donor liver transplantation: can we expand the Milan criteria? Dig Dis. 2007;25:313-319. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 57] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 58] [Article Influence: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 35. | Toso C, Meeberg G, Hernandez-Alejandro R, Dufour JF, Marotta P, Majno P, Kneteman NM. Total tumor volume and alpha-fetoprotein for selection of transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma: A prospective validation. Hepatology. 2015;62:158-165. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 161] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 197] [Article Influence: 21.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 36. | Grąt M, Kornasiewicz O, Lewandowski Z, Hołówko W, Grąt K, Kobryń K, Patkowski W, Zieniewicz K, Krawczyk M. Combination of morphologic criteria and α-fetoprotein in selection of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation minimizes the problem of posttransplant tumor recurrence. World J Surg. 2014;38:2698-2707. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 37. | Fujiki M, Takada Y, Ogura Y, Oike F, Kaido T, Teramukai S, Uemoto S. Significance of des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin in selection criteria for living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:2362-2371. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 113] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 126] [Article Influence: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 38. | Takada Y, Ito T, Ueda M, Sakamoto S, Haga H, Maetani Y, Ogawa K, Ogura Y, Oike F, Egawa H. Living donor liver transplantation for patients with HCC exceeding the Milan criteria: a proposal of expanded criteria. Dig Dis. 2007;25:299-302. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 39. | Lee SD, Kim SH, Kim SK, Kim YK, Park SJ. Clinical Impact of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Transplantation. 2015;99:2142-2149. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 18] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 40. | Otto G, Herber S, Heise M, Lohse AW, Mönch C, Bittinger F, Hoppe-Lotichius M, Schuchmann M, Victor A, Pitton M. Response to transarterial chemoembolization as a biological selection criterion for liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2006;12:1260-1267. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 319] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 304] [Article Influence: 16.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 41. | Yao FY, Kerlan RK, Hirose R, Davern TJ, Bass NM, Feng S, Peters M, Terrault N, Freise CE, Ascher NL. Excellent outcome following down-staging of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation: an intention-to-treat analysis. Hepatology. 2008;48:819-827. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 385] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 386] [Article Influence: 24.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 42. | Parikh ND, Waljee AK, Singal AG. Downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Liver Transpl. 2015;21:1142-1152. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 152] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 158] [Article Influence: 17.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 43. | Lai Q, Avolio AW, Graziadei I, Otto G, Rossi M, Tisone G, Goffette P, Vogel W, Pitton MB, Lerut J; European Hepatocellular Cancer Liver Transplant Study Group. 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 Transpl. 2013;19:1108-1118. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 139] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 152] [Article Influence: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 44. | Woo HG, Park ES, Thorgeirsson SS, Kim YJ. Exploring genomic profiles of hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol Carcinog. 2011;50:235-243. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 54] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 58] [Article Influence: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 45. | Dvorchik I, Schwartz M, Fiel MI, Finkelstein SD, Marsh JW. Fractional allelic imbalance could allow for the development of an equitable transplant selection policy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:443-450. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 38] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 40] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 46. | Sugimachi K, Matsumura T, Hirata H, Uchi R, Ueda M, Ueo H, Shinden Y, Iguchi T, Eguchi H, Shirabe K. Identification of a bona fide microRNA biomarker in serum exosomes that predicts hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:532-538. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 212] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 230] [Article Influence: 25.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 47. | Barry CT, D’Souza M, McCall M, Safadjou S, Ryan C, Kashyap R, Marroquin C, Orloff M, Almudevar A, Godfrey TE. Micro RNA expression profiles as adjunctive data to assess the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:428-437. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 41] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 39] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 48. | Liese J, Peveling-Oberhag J, Doering C, Schnitzbauer AA, Herrmann E, Zangos S, Hansmann ML, Moench C, Welker MW, Zeuzem S. A possible role of microRNAs as predictive markers for the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. Transpl Int. 2016;29:369-380. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 49. | Chen DS, Sung JL, Sheu JC, Lai MY, How SW, Hsu HC, Lee CS, Wei TC. Serum alpha-fetoprotein in the early stage of human hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 1984;86:1404-1409. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 50. | Sherman M. Alphafetoprotein: an obituary. J Hepatol. 2001;34:603-605. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 51. | Waghray A, Murali AR, Menon KN. Hepatocellular carcinoma: From diagnosis to treatment. World J Hepatol. 2015;7:1020-1029. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 102] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 105] [Article Influence: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 52. | Durand F, Belghiti J, Paradis V. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: role of biopsy. Liver Transpl. 2007;13:S17-S23. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 36] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 31] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 53. | Chan DL, Alzahrani NA, Morris DL, Chua TC. Systematic review of efficacy and outcomes of salvage liver transplantation after primary hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29:31-41. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 45] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 45] [Article Influence: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 54. | Wedd JP, Nordstrom E, Nydam T, Durham J, Zimmerman M, Johnson T, Thomas Purcell W, Biggins SW. Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients listed for liver transplantation: Current and future allocation policy and management strategies for the individual patient. Liver Transpl. 2015;21:1543-1552. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 22] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |