4.5 Article

Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors are associated with lower rates of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: a systematic review

Journal

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 27, Issue 10, Pages 1039-1049

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tri.12372

Keywords

cyclosporine; everolimus; hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence; immunosuppression; liver transplantation; sirolimus; tacrolimus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) have been associated in a dose-dependent fashion with an increased risk of post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence. The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) (sirolimus/everolimus) might represent an alternative immunosuppressive regimen with antineoplastic effect. In the present systematic review, the association between mTORi and HCC recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) was evaluated and compared against that of CNIs-treated patients. In total, 3666 HCC liver transplant recipients from 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. Patients under CNIs developed HCC recurrence significantly more frequently, compared with patients under mTORi (448/3227 or 13.8% vs. 35/439 or 8%, P<0.001), although patients treated with CNIs had a higher proportion of HCC within Milan criteria (74% vs. 69%) and lower rates of microvascular invasion, compared with mTORi-treated patients (22% vs. 44%) (P<0.05). Patients on everolimus had significantly lower recurrence rates of HCC, compared with those on sirolimus or CNIs (4.1% vs. 10.5% vs. 13.8%, respectively, P<0.05), but everolimus-treated recipients had shorter follow-up period (13 vs. 30 vs. 43.2months, respectively) and more frequently been transplanted for HCC within Milan criteria (84% vs. 60.5% vs. 74%, respectively, P<0.05). Our findings favor the use of mTORi instead of CNIs to control HCC recurrence after LT, but comparative studies with longer follow-up are needed for final conclusions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available