4.6 Article

Waitlist Priority for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Beyond Milan Criteria: A Potentially Appropriate Decision Without a Structured Approach

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 79-87

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12530

关键词

Exception points; hepatocellular carcinoma; Milan criteria; regional review boards; UCSF criteria

资金

  1. Bayer Healthcare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to the risk of waitlist dropout from tumor progression, liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within Milan criteria (MC) receive standardized exception points. An expansion of this process to candidates with HCC beyond MC has been proposed, though it remains controversial. This study sought to better define the utilization of exception points in candidates with HCC beyond MC and the associated outcomes. We reviewed all nonstandardized HCC applications that underwent formal regional review board evaluation between January 1, 2005 and March 2, 2011; 2184 initial HCC exception point applications were submitted. Of these, 41.9% fulfilled MC, 26.6% fulfilled University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) criteria and 17.6% exceeded UCSF criteria. The majority of applications were accepted: 89.8% within UCSF and 71.2% beyond UCSF. There was a significantly (p<0.001) higher risk of death on the waitlist or within 90 days of waitlist removal for candidates within UCSF (12.4%) or beyond UCSF (13.0%) criteria, compared to candidates with HCC within MC (6.0%). However, posttransplant outcomes were similar. While these results suggest increasing access to candidates with HCC beyond MC, comprehensive documentation of tumor characteristics and of successful downstaging is needed to ensure priority is restricted to those with the highest likelihood of favorable posttransplant outcome. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond Milan criteria demonstrate high waitlist dropout but satisfactory posttransplant outcomes, opening the discussion on a potential expansion of the current standardized exception point process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据