Yadav Dipesh Kumar, Chen Wei, Bai Xueli, Singh Alina, Li Guogang, Ma Tao, Yu Xiazhen, Xiao Zhi, Huang Bingfeng, Liang Tingbo
Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China (mainland).
Department of Surgery, Bir Hospital, National Academy of Medical Science (NAMS), Kanti Path, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Ann Transplant. 2018 Aug 3;23:524-545. doi: 10.12659/AOT.908623.
The strategy of salvage liver transplantation (SLT) originated for initially resectable and transplantable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to preclude upfront transplantation, with SLT in the case of recurrence. However, SLT remains a controversial approach in comparison to primary liver transplant (PLT). The aim of our study was to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis to assess the short-term outcomes, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) between SLT and PLT for patients with HCC, stratifying results according to the Milan criteria and donor types. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies comparing SLT and PLT. A fixed effects model and a random effects model meta-analysis were conducted to assess the short-term outcomes, OS, and DFS based on the evaluation of heterogeneity. SLT had superior 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS and DFS compared with that of PLT. After classifying data according to donor type and Milan criteria, our meta-analysis revealed: that for deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients, there were no significant differences in 1-year and 3-year OS rate between the SLT group and the PLT group. However, the 5-year OS rate was superior in the SLT group compared to the PLT group. Similarly, SLT had superior 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS rate compared to PLT in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients. Moreover, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year DFS were also superior in SLT compared to PLT in both the DDLT and LDLT recipients. In patients within Milan criteria there were no statistically significant differences in 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS and DFS between the SLT group and the PLT group. Similarly, in patients beyond Milan criteria, both SLT and PLT showed no significant difference for 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS rate. Our meta-analysis included the largest number of studies comparing SLT and PLT, and SLT was found to have significantly better OS and DFS. Moreover, this meta-analysis suggests that SLT has comparable postoperative complications to that of PLT, and thus, SLT may be a better treatment strategy for recurrent HCC patients and patients with compensated liver, whenever feasible, considering the severe organ limitation and the safety of SLT. However, PLT can be referred as a treatment strategy for HCC patients with cirrhotic and decompensated liver.
挽救性肝移植(SLT)策略最初是为了应对可切除且可移植的肝细胞癌(HCC),避免直接进行移植,而是在复发时进行SLT。然而,与原位肝移植(PLT)相比,SLT仍然是一种存在争议的方法。我们研究的目的是进行一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估SLT和PLT治疗HCC患者的短期结局、总生存期(OS)和无病生存期(DFS),并根据米兰标准和供体类型对结果进行分层。检索了PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆,以确定比较SLT和PLT的研究。基于异质性评估,采用固定效应模型和随机效应模型进行荟萃分析,以评估短期结局、OS和DFS。与PLT相比,SLT的1年、3年和5年OS及DFS更优。根据供体类型和米兰标准对数据进行分类后,我们的荟萃分析显示:对于尸体供肝肝移植(DDLT)受者,SLT组和PLT组的1年和3年OS率无显著差异。然而,SLT组的5年OS率优于PLT组。同样,在活体供肝肝移植(LDLT)受者中,与PLT相比,SLT的1年、3年和5年OS率更优。此外,在DDLT和LDLT受者中,SLT的1年、3年和5年DFS也优于PLT。在符合米兰标准的患者中,SLT组和PLT组的1年、3年和5年OS及DFS无统计学显著差异。同样,在超出米兰标准的患者中,SLT和PLT的1年、3年和5年OS率均无显著差异。我们的荟萃分析纳入了最多数量的比较SLT和PLT的研究,发现SLT的OS和DFS明显更好。此外,这项荟萃分析表明,SLT的术后并发症与PLT相当,因此,考虑到严重的器官限制和SLT的安全性,只要可行,SLT可能是复发HCC患者和肝功能代偿患者更好的治疗策略。然而,PLT可作为肝硬化和肝功能失代偿HCC患者的治疗策略。