Waitlist priority for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond milan criteria: A potentially appropriate decision without a structured approach

American Journal of Transplantation

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 79-87

  Bittermann, T ^a   Niu, B ^a   Hoteit, M A ^a   Goldberg, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; LIVER GRAFT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION;

EXCEPTION POINTS; HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA; MILAN CRITERIA; REGIONAL REVIEW BOARDS; UCSF CRITERIA;

ADULT; CARCINOMA, HEPATOCELLULAR; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PATIENT SELECTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 84890972634     PISSN: 16006135     EISSN: 16006143     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12530     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Wiesner RH, Freeman RB, Mulligan DC., Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: The impact off the MELD allocation policy. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: S261-S267.
2. Ioannou GN, Perkins JD, Carithers RL Jr., Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Impact of the MELD allocation system and predictors of survival. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1342-1351.
3. Volk ML, Vijan S, Marrero JA., A novel model measuring the harm of transplanting hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding Milan criteria. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 839-846.
4. Schmitt TM, Kumer SC, Shah N, Argo CK, Northup PG., Liver transplantation for T3 lesions has higher waiting list mortality but similar survival compared to T1 and T2 lesions. Ann Hepatol 2010; 9: 390-396.
5. Berry K, Ioannou GN., Serum alpha-fetoprotein level independently predicts posttransplant survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl 2013; 19: 634-645.
6. Goldberg D, French B, Trotter J, et al. Underreporting of liver transplant waitlist removals due to death or clinical deterioration: Results at four major centers. Transplantation 2013; 96: 211-216.
7. Feng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg-Gresham JL, et al. Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: The concept of a donor risk index. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 783-790.
8. Kim WR, Therneau TM, Benson JT, et al. Deaths on the liver transplant waiting list: An analysis of competing risks. Hepatology 2006; 43: 345-351.
9. Satagopan JM, Ben-Porat L, Berwick M, Robson M, Kutler D, Auerbach AD., A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 1229-1235.
10. Fine JP, Gray RJ., A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999; 94: 496-509.
11. French B, Heagerty PJ., Analysis of longitudinal data to evaluate a policy change. Stat Med 2008; 27: 5005-5025.
12. Pomfret EA, Washburn K, Wald C, et al. Report of a national conference on liver allocation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. Liver Transpl 2010; 16: 262-278.
13. Guiteau JJ, Cotton RT, Washburn WK, et al. An early regional experience with expansion of Milan criteria for liver transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 2092-2098.
14. Clavien PA, Lesurtel M, Bossuyt PM, et al. Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: An international consensus conference report. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: e11-e22.