• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

共享35规则对肝细胞癌患者等待名单和肝移植结果的影响。

Effects of the Share 35 Rule on Waitlist and Liver Transplantation Outcomes for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

作者信息

Croome Kristopher P, Lee David D, Harnois Denise, Taner C Burcin

机构信息

Department of Transplant, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 Jan 25;12(1):e0170673. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170673. eCollection 2017.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0170673
PMID:28122003
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5266291/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have investigated the effects following the implementation of the "Share 35" policy; however none have investigated what effect this policy change has had on waitlist and liver transplantation (LT) outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC).

METHODS

Data were obtained from the UNOS database and a comparison of the 2 years post-Share 35 with data from the 2 years pre-Share 35 was performed.

RESULTS

In the pre-Share35 era, 23% of LT were performed for HCC exceptions compared to 22% of LT in the post-Share35 era (p = 0.21). No difference in wait-time for HCC patients was seen in any of the UNOS regions between the 2 eras. Competing risk analysis demonstrated that HCC candidates in post-Share 35 era were more likely to die or be delisted for "too sick" while waiting (7.2% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.005) within 15 months. A higher proportion of ECD (p<0.001) and DCD (p<0.001) livers were used for patients transplanted for HCC, while lower DRI organs were used for those patients transplanted with a MELD≥35 between the 2 eras (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

No significant change to wait-time for patients listed for HCC was seen following implementation of "Share 35". Transplant program behavior has changed resulting use of higher proportion of ECD and DCD liver grafts for patients with HCC. A higher rate of wait list mortality was observed in patients with HCC in the post-Share 35 era.

摘要

引言

多项研究调查了“共享35分”政策实施后的影响;然而,尚无研究调查这一政策变化对肝细胞癌(HCC)等待名单和肝移植(LT)结果产生了何种影响。

方法

数据取自器官共享联合网络(UNOS)数据库,并将“共享35分”政策实施后的两年数据与该政策实施前两年的数据进行了比较。

结果

在“共享35分”政策实施前的时代,23%的肝移植是针对肝癌例外情况进行的,而在“共享35分”政策实施后的时代,这一比例为22%(p = 0.21)。在两个时代之间,UNOS的任何地区,肝癌患者的等待时间均无差异。竞争风险分析表明,在“共享35分”政策实施后的时代,肝癌候选患者在等待期间(15个月内)更有可能因“病情过重”而死亡或被从等待名单中除名(7.2%对5.3%;p = 0.005)。在两个时代之间,更高比例的边缘供肝(ECD)(p<0.001)和心死亡后供肝(DCD)(p<0.001)被用于肝癌移植患者,而较低供肝风险指数(DRI)的器官则被用于终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分≥35分的移植患者(p = 0.007)。

结论

“共享35分”政策实施后,肝癌等待患者的等待时间没有显著变化。移植项目行为发生了改变,导致更高比例的ECD和DCD肝移植用于肝癌患者。在“共享35分”政策实施后的时代,肝癌患者等待名单上的死亡率更高。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9764/5266291/bfcc287b71b7/pone.0170673.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9764/5266291/84b292903134/pone.0170673.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9764/5266291/f6f724a2a848/pone.0170673.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9764/5266291/5ff9cf5f20a6/pone.0170673.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9764/5266291/bfcc287b71b7/pone.0170673.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9764/5266291/84b292903134/pone.0170673.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9764/5266291/f6f724a2a848/pone.0170673.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9764/5266291/5ff9cf5f20a6/pone.0170673.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9764/5266291/bfcc287b71b7/pone.0170673.g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Effects of the Share 35 Rule on Waitlist and Liver Transplantation Outcomes for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.共享35规则对肝细胞癌患者等待名单和肝移植结果的影响。
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 25;12(1):e0170673. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170673. eCollection 2017.
2
The race to liver transplantation: a comparison of patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma from listing to post-transplantation.肝移植竞赛:肝细胞癌患者与非肝细胞癌患者从列入名单到移植后情况的比较
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Jun;220(6):1001-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.050. Epub 2015 Jan 21.
3
Lower rates of receiving model for end-stage liver disease exception and longer time to transplant among nonalcoholic steatohepatitis hepatocellular carcinoma.非酒精性脂肪性肝炎肝细胞癌患者接受终末期肝病模型例外情况的比例较低,且移植等待时间较长。
Liver Transpl. 2016 Oct;22(10):1356-66. doi: 10.1002/lt.24507.
4
A method for establishing allocation equity among patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma on a common liver transplant waiting list.一种在共同的肝移植等待名单上为肝癌患者和非肝癌患者分配公平性的方法。
J Hepatol. 2014 Feb;60(2):290-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.10.010. Epub 2013 Oct 23.
5
A novel waitlist dropout score for hepatocellular carcinoma - identifying a threshold that predicts worse post-transplant survival.一种用于肝细胞癌的新的候补者退出评分 - 确定一个可预测移植后生存状况更差的阈值。
J Hepatol. 2021 Apr;74(4):829-837. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.10.033. Epub 2020 Nov 11.
6
Effect of Mandatory 6-Month Waiting Period on Waitlist and Transplant Outcomes in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma.强制性 6 个月等待期对肝癌患者等待名单和移植结果的影响。
Hepatology. 2020 Dec;72(6):2051-2062. doi: 10.1002/hep.31223. Epub 2020 Oct 22.
7
Outcomes utilizing imported liver grafts for recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma.使用进口肝移植治疗肝细胞癌患者的疗效。
Liver Transpl. 2017 Mar;23(3):299-304. doi: 10.1002/lt.24709.
8
MELDEQ : An alternative Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.MELDEQ:一种用于肝细胞癌患者的终末期肝病评分替代模型。
Liver Transpl. 2015 May;21(5):612-22. doi: 10.1002/lt.24098. Epub 2015 Apr 15.
9
Increasing Liver Transplantation Wait-List Dropout for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Widening Geographical Disparities: Implications for Organ Allocation.肝癌导致肝移植候补者不断退出,且地域差异不断扩大:对器官分配的影响。
Liver Transpl. 2018 Oct;24(10):1346-1356. doi: 10.1002/lt.25317.
10
Unfair Advantages for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Listed for Liver Transplant in Short-Wait Regions Following 2015 Hepatocellular Carcinoma Policy Change.2015 年肝癌政策改变后,在短等待期区域等待肝移植的肝细胞癌患者获得不公平优势。
Liver Transpl. 2020 May;26(5):662-672. doi: 10.1002/lt.25701.

引用本文的文献

1
Liver Transplantation for Cancer-Current Challenges and Emerging Solutions.癌症的肝移植——当前挑战与新出现的解决办法
J Clin Med. 2025 Jul 29;14(15):5365. doi: 10.3390/jcm14155365.
2
Liver Transplantation: Protocol for Recipient Selection, Evaluation, and Assessment.肝移植:受体选择、评估与评定方案
J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2023 Sep-Oct;13(5):841-853. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2023.04.002. Epub 2023 Apr 17.
3
Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Alpha Fetoprotein, and Liver Allocation for Transplantation: Past, Present and Future.肝细胞癌、甲胎蛋白与肝移植供肝分配:过去、现在与未来。

本文引用的文献

1
The new lottery ticket: Share 35.新彩票:分享35。
Liver Transpl. 2016 Apr;22(4):393-5. doi: 10.1002/lt.24420.
2
The impact of broader regional sharing of livers: 2-year results of "Share 35".扩大肝脏区域共享的影响:“共享35”的两年结果
Liver Transpl. 2016 Apr;22(4):399-409. doi: 10.1002/lt.24418.
3
The Use of Donation After Cardiac Death Allografts Does Not Increase Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.使用心跳停止供体移植物不会增加肝细胞癌的复发。
Curr Oncol. 2022 Oct 8;29(10):7537-7551. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29100593.
4
National experience with living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.全国范围内活体供肝肝移植治疗肝细胞癌的经验。
Liver Transpl. 2022 Jul;28(7):1144-1157. doi: 10.1002/lt.26439. Epub 2022 Apr 16.
5
Lower Likelihood of Post-transplant Graft Failure, Death, and Retransplantation in the Era of Direct-Acting Antivirals.在直接作用抗病毒药物时代,移植后移植物失败、死亡和再次移植的可能性降低。
J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2020 Nov-Dec;10(6):581-589. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2020.02.003. Epub 2020 Feb 21.
6
The Changing Landscapes in DCD Liver Transplantation.脑死亡后器官捐献肝脏移植领域的变化态势
Curr Transplant Rep. 2020;7(3):194-204. doi: 10.1007/s40472-020-00283-1. Epub 2020 Jul 13.
7
Donation After Circulatory Death Is Associated With Similar Posttransplant Survival in All but the Highest-Risk Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients.在几乎所有除高危肝癌患者之外的患者中,心跳停止后捐献器官与移植后相似的生存结果相关。
Liver Transpl. 2020 Sep;26(9):1100-1111. doi: 10.1002/lt.25819. Epub 2020 Jul 21.
8
Liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: Evolving trends over the last three decades.美国的肝细胞癌肝移植:过去三十年的演变趋势。
Am J Transplant. 2020 Jan;20(1):220-230. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15576. Epub 2019 Oct 11.
9
Transplantation Versus Resection for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: An Argument for Shifting Treatment Paradigms for Resectable Disease.肝门部胆管癌的移植与切除:可切除疾病治疗模式转变的理由。
Ann Surg. 2018 May;267(5):797-805. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002574.
10
Improved posttransplant mortality after share 35 for liver transplantation.肝脏移植共享35方案后移植后死亡率得到改善。
Hepatology. 2018 Jan;67(1):273-281. doi: 10.1002/hep.29301. Epub 2017 Nov 13.
Am J Transplant. 2015 Oct;15(10):2704-11. doi: 10.1111/ajt.13306. Epub 2015 May 12.
4
The race to liver transplantation: a comparison of patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma from listing to post-transplantation.肝移植竞赛:肝细胞癌患者与非肝细胞癌患者从列入名单到移植后情况的比较
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Jun;220(6):1001-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.050. Epub 2015 Jan 21.
5
Early changes in liver distribution following implementation of Share 35.实施Share 35后肝脏分布的早期变化。
Am J Transplant. 2015 Mar;15(3):659-67. doi: 10.1111/ajt.13099.
6
Delayed hepatocellular carcinoma model for end-stage liver disease exception score improves disparity in access to liver transplant in the United States.终末期肝病例外评分的延迟肝细胞癌模型改善了美国肝移植获取方面的差异。
Hepatology. 2015 May;61(5):1643-50. doi: 10.1002/hep.27704. Epub 2015 Feb 24.
7
Should a lower quality organ go to the least sick patient? Model for end-stage liver disease score and donor risk index as predictors of early allograft dysfunction.质量较低的器官应该给病情最轻的患者吗?终末期肝病评分和供体风险指数作为早期移植肝功能障碍预测指标的模型。
Transplant Proc. 2012 Jun;44(5):1303-6. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.01.115.
8
Increasing disparity in waitlist mortality rates with increased model for end-stage liver disease scores for candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma versus candidates without hepatocellular carcinoma.肝癌患者与非肝癌患者的终末期肝病模型评分增加导致等待名单死亡率差异增大。
Liver Transpl. 2012 Apr;18(4):434-43. doi: 10.1002/lt.23394.
9
MELD Exceptions and Rates of Waiting List Outcomes.MELD 例外和候补名单结果的比例。
Am J Transplant. 2011 Nov;11(11):2362-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03735.x. Epub 2011 Sep 15.
10
End-stage liver disease candidates at the highest model for end-stage liver disease scores have higher wait-list mortality than status-1A candidates.终末期肝病模型评分最高的候选者比状态 1A 候选者的等待名单死亡率更高。
Hepatology. 2012 Jan;55(1):192-8. doi: 10.1002/hep.24632. Epub 2011 Nov 15.