4.6 Review

Liver Transplant Oncology: Towards Dynamic Tumor-Biology-Oriented Patient Selection

Journal

CANCERS
Volume 14, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14112662

Keywords

transplant oncology; HCC; liver transplant; tumor biology; immunotherapy

Categories

Funding

  1. Else Kroner-Fresenius Stiftung [2019_A130]
  2. Wilhelm Sander-Stiftung [2019.022.1]
  3. Bayerisches Zentrum fur Krebsforschung (BZKF)
  4. Deutsches Zentrum fur Infektionsforschung (DZIF)
  5. Forderprogram fur Forschung und Lehre (FoFeLe) of the LMU

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Liver transplantation is now being considered for non-resectable colorectal liver metastases, with good oncologic outcomes; however, due to organ shortage, strict selection of suitable candidates is necessary. Dynamic criteria based on tumor biology provide a better prediction of individual oncological outcomes.
While liver transplantation was initially considered as a curative treatment modality only for hepatocellular carcinoma, the indication has been increasingly extended to other tumor entities over recent years, most recently to the treatment of non-resectable colorectal liver metastases. Although oncologic outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) are consistently good, organ shortage forces stringent selection of suitable candidates. Dynamic criteria based on tumor biology fulfill the prerequisite of an individual oncological prediction better than traditional morphometric criteria based on tumor burden. The availability of specific (neo-)adjuvant therapies and customized modern immunosuppression may further contribute to favorable post-transplantation outcomes on the one hand and simultaneously open the path to LT as a curative option for advanced stages of tumor patients. Herein, we provide an overview of the oncological LT indications, the selection process, and expected oncological outcome after LT.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available