The role of liver transplant for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the UK NHSBT liver advisory group pilot programme
Abstract
Aim: Liver transplantation (LT) offers a potential curative treatment for non-metastatic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in patients with chronic liver disease who are not amenable to liver resection (LR). Recent evidence suggests that cirrhotic patients with “very early” iCCA (single tumour, ≤ 2 cm) might benefit the most from LT, with a 5-year survival as high as 73%. In view of these developments, NHS Blood and Transplant’s Liver Advisory Group (LAG) established a Fixed Term Working Group (FTWG) to determine whether iCCA in patients with background cirrhosis should be considered for LT in the United Kingdom.
Methods: The FTWG included cholangiocarcinoma/LT patient representatives, experts in cholangiocarcinoma surgery/oncology, LT surgery, hepatology, hepatobiliary radiology, hepatobiliary pathology, nuclear medicine, and representation from various national hepatobiliary/oncology and transplant professional bodies. The objective was to make recommendations on appropriate indications, patient selection criteria, referral criteria, radiological assessment, transplant listing pathways, data management, and overall quality assurance.
Results: The FTWG recommended LT for very early iCCA in cirrhotics, who are otherwise not suitable for LR. In this paper, we summarise the selection criteria, patient pathways, referral framework, pre-transplant assessment criteria, outcome measures, and dissemination strategy for implementing this new indication for LT in the UK.
Conclusion: The introduction and evaluation of this pilot programme is an important breakthrough for iCCA patients in the UK, marking a significant stride in the field of transplant oncology. The results of this service evaluation will describe the role of LT in iCCA and guide future programmes to optimise patient selection, management, and outcomes.
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), although rare, constitutes the second most common primary liver cancer after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)[1]. In the United Kingdom (UK), the incidence rate of iCCA has nearly doubled from 1.8 to 3.3 per 100,000 from 1997 to 2017, which is an average annual percentage change of 3.8% and this continues to increase[2]. Despite significant advances in early diagnosis, surgical techniques, and chemotherapy regimens, the 5-year overall survival (OS) remains dismal between
Early experience in LT for iCCA, including both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, resulted in poor 1- and 3-year OS rates of 19.4%-38% and 4.9%-10%, respectively[14,15]. However, some encouraging results from multicentre studies have led to a re-evaluation of iCCA as a potential indication for LT in a select patient group[16-23]. A significant proportion of these LTs are actually incidental iCCAs on explants, either because of an unrecognized lesion not visible on pre-transplant radiology or a lesion wrongly diagnosed as HCC[19,24,25]. Explant data from the UK of 40 iCCAs showed a median survival of 68.5 months (25.3-109.7 months), with a reassuring 5-year OS of 57.1%[25].
According to a recent study from the US, out of 13 patients with iCCA, those with well-differentiated tumours had no recurrence, while those with moderately differentiated tumours had a
According to a French multicentre study, cirrhotic patients with larger primary tumours may also benefit from LT. This retrospective study from three centres compared the outcomes of patients who underwent LT with incidental iCCA at explants (n = 49) with patients who underwent LR for iCCA (n = 26). At a median follow-up of 25 months, the LT patients had a better 3- and 5-year OS (76% and 67%, respectively) compared to 59% and 40% for patients who underwent LR. The LT patients enjoyed a significantly better RFS (recurrence-free survival) at 5 years (75% vs. 36% for LR patients). The size of the largest tumour and differentiation were identified as independent risk factors for recurrence. The study reported a similar 1-, 3- and 5-year OS for tumours ≤ 2 cm compared with tumours > 2-5 cm which had LT - 92%, 87%
CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA FIXED TERM WORKING GROUP
The International Liver Transplant Society (ILTS) Transplant Oncology Consensus Conference in 2019 reviewed the evidence for transplantation for iCCA and recommended two clear areas where this could be performed: (1) patients with very early disease (single tumour, ≤ 2 cm) with cirrhosis and who are not candidates for LR; (2) patients with advanced iCCA deemed unresectable in a noncirrhotic liver, if the disease remains stable for a period of 6 months after neoadjuvant chemotherapy[27,28].
As a result of these advancements, the Liver Advisory Group (LAG) of NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), the regulatory body responsible for overseeing all donation and transplant-related operations in the UK, created a Fixed Term Working Group (FTWG) in June 2021, the cholangiocarcinoma-orthotopic liver transplantation (CCA-OLT) Implementation group. The objective of the group was to develop guidelines, protocols and processes that would enable the implementation of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and iCCA as new indications for liver transplant in the UK. The FTWG recommendations for pCCA-OLT are not within the remits of this manuscript (this protocol is pending final approval and is not operational yet). Similar working group recommendations for unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and grade 1 and 2 well-differentiated unresectable liver metastatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) have been accepted as newer indications for LT in the UK and have been active since December 2022[29,30].
The FTWG included cholangiocarcinoma and LT patient representatives, experts in cholangiocarcinoma surgery, LT surgery, hepatology, oncology, hepatobiliary radiology, hepatobiliary pathology, and nuclear medicine. The group has representation from various professional bodies including British Association of the Study of the Liver (BASL), British Liver Transplant Group (BLTG), British Transplant Society (BTS), British Association of Surgical Oncology (BASO), Great Britain & Ireland Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association (GBIHPBA), British Society of Gastroenterology, and The British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (BSGAR). It also had representation from the LAG, NHSBT and NHS England (NHSE). AMMF, the largest cholangiocarcinoma charity in the UK and Europe and PSC Support (the UK PSC patient association) provided very valuable input from the patient and public perspective. The group also sought advice from the Medical Advisory Board of UK-PSC and the UK Digital Pathology Group.
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES
The group met at four weekly intervals to address the objectives set out in the initial outline. The main objectives were to conduct a literature review and provide recommendations on appropriate indications, patient selection criteria, referral criteria, assessment prior to listing, transplant listing pathways, data management, and overall quality assurance for the service evaluation. The group put forth the following guidelines.
LT as an intervention in ≤ 2 cm iCCA with background chronic liver disease should be implemented as a pilot service evaluation in all seven adult LT units in the UK.
A National Expert Review Panel (NERP) will be formed to manage this emerging indication. The panel will help with trouble shooting any service evaluation pathway issues, provide quality assurance, overview data collection and management and will be an access for a “second opinion” if required. The panel will be a reassurance to patient groups and to individual centres.
Each transplant centre develops a core group of healthcare professionals interested in managing these patients and complex pathways. This is in keeping with the already established practices seen with HCC and LT. It is important to get support from Cancer Nurse Specialists along with the traditional support provided by transplant coordinator teams at each centre. It is acknowledged that surgical management could be challenging with a learning curve, and it is important that all transplant surgeons are supported to develop their operative experience.
It is expected that over the first year, 6-8 iCCA ≤ 2 cm will be transplanted within the UK, commencing December 2022. In order to maintain access to LT for existing indications, the UK iCCA LT protocol has been designed to be more conservative. However, the protocol will be regularly reviewed by the NERP, consisting of members from the FTWG, to ensure that it strikes a balance between being restrictive and allowing enough patients to be assessed for this intervention. At the conclusion of one year, the pilot programme will undergo a comprehensive national audit to assess safety, graft outcomes, and oncological results.
As per the ILTS consensus, the FTWG deliberated on the potential benefits of LT for patients with advanced iCCA undergoing downstaging using improved chemotherapeutic agents[27]. However, currently, favourable survival outcomes are lacking, making it an unacceptable indication[20,21,26]. As ongoing clinical trials are exploring this possibility, the working group decided not to include it in the pilot programme. Once the programme establishes safety and acceptable oncological outcomes, there is a definite prospect of expanding the eligibility criteria.
PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA
To identify patients who would benefit the most from LT, the selection process would involve finding those with very early iCCA and cirrhosis. The group agreed with the following selection criteria:
Inclusion criteria
≤ 2 cm tumours with background chronic liver disease.
Resection is precluded because of underlying liver function or the location of the tumour.
Biopsy-proven and to exclude patients with mixed hepatocellular/cholangiocellular carcinoma (cHCC-CCA).
No signs of extrahepatic metastatic disease on imaging.
Good performance status; The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0 or 1.
Signed, informed consent.
Exclusion criteria
Patients with extrahepatic disease or multiple tumours or satellite lesions.
Patients with previous liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Patients not fit for LT due to other surgical or anaesthetic reasons.
Contraindications to liver resection
The FTWG recognised the importance of providing clear guidelines regarding the contraindications to liver resection, which include:
Patients with advanced liver cirrhosis.
Patient with inadequate functional liver remnant.
Inability to obtain a curative intent (R0) resection.
Presence of extrahepatic disease, lymph node metastases, or multicentric tumours.
The FTWG expressed concern that the number of patients diagnosed with biopsy-proven iCCA measuring ≤ 2 cm would be limited, owing to the difficulties in radiologically diagnosing nodules smaller than 2 cm in cirrhotic patients[31-34]. Solitary iCCA > 2-5 cm was discussed as a potential inclusion criterion. In fact, the French multicentre study showed that the outcomes in the > 2-5 cm group are comparable to the outcomes of tumours ≤ 2 cm very early iCCA, but this included patients with both iCCA (49%) and
Few studies have included patients with cHCC-CCA in iCCA, leading to significant heterogeneity[16-18,38]. The rationale for the latter grouping is that distinguishing between iCCA and cHCC-CCA for a definite presurgical diagnosis is challenging and may not be feasible and thus more consistent with real-life clinical practice. It is worth noting that these mixed-type tumours typically have a prognosis between pure HCC and pure CCA, hence may not reliably indicate the oncological outcomes with LT for iCCA[39].
While the role of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) in liver resection for iCCA is well documented[40], there is currently no evidence suggesting a specific threshold of CA 19-9 that is associated with poor outcomes following LT. As a result, this criterion has not been included in the evaluation process for liver transplant candidates.
RADIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
The diagnosis of iCCA is made by a combination of radiological appearances and tissue diagnosis. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (Primovist® in Europe/Eovist® in the US) is recommended as the standard cross-sectional imaging, as it is the most accurate modality for identification of satellite lesions and intrahepatic metastases, and provides better diagnostic performance and may even give prognostic information[41-43]. The staging would include a dual-phase computed tomography (CT) of chest, abdomen and pelvis and a positron emission tomography (PET) CT. If a patient has once been listed for transplant and waits more than 3 months from previous cross-sectional imaging, we recommended further re-assessment at that time point with a contrast MRI, a dual-phase CT and a PET CT. The group felt the need for extensive evaluation to exclude patients with nascent extrahepatic disease and adverse biology to maximise the outcomes from service evaluation. Those with poor renal function will get a non-contrast CT of chest, abdomen and pelvis, with contrast MRI.
FITNESS ASSESSMENT & TIMING OF TRANSPLANTATION
Fitness evaluation will be as per local practice for LT assessment. Patients with iCCA with no extrahepatic disease and considered fit for transplantation will be discussed at the local LT MDT and the cancer MDT, and if both MDTs confirm that the patient is suitable for LT, oncologically and physiologically, the patient will be counselled and listed for this indication [Figure 1].
Figure 1. Flowchart depicting the patient pathway for the liver transplantation for ≤ 2 cm iCCA. iCCA: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
The implementation group recommended that patients are transplanted within three months of listing, as this is a life-threatening malignancy, with a risk of progression and drop out/death on the waiting list. Unlike the technical complexity of transplantation for pCCA after radiotherapy, there is no plan for iCCA to receive local therapy. Hence, the working group recommended all graft types be open for the iCCA patients, including marginal grafts such as donation after circulatory death (DCD) and machine-perfused grafts. The living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was considered an ideal graft, as this would reduce the waiting time after completion of assessment and also avoid competing for precious resources with other patients on the waiting list.
ORGAN ALLOCATION AND PRIORITISATION
For elective adult LT in the UK, the patient selection criteria require a predicted 5-year survival rate of over 50% after transplantation, with an acceptable quality of life. Based on the published literature and a more conservative oncological approach, a similar survival rate cut-off would be reasonable for iCCA patients in this new service evaluation. An organ allocation system’s main goal should be to distribute donor organs fairly to patients who are on the waitlist, in line with ethical principles such as equity, utility, benefit, urgency, and fairness. The NHSBT implemented the National Liver Offering Scheme (NLOS) in 2018. This revised method for matching livers from deceased donors to adult patients on the liver transplant matching list operates at a national level, as opposed to a regional one. The NLOS aims to allocate the liver to chronic liver disease and HCC patients who could benefit most from the transplant. The new scheme is comprehensive and considers 21 recipient factors and 7 donor factors. The patient with the best match will be shown at the top of the list and will have the highest Transplant Benefit Score (TBS), thereby giving them the maximum “net benefit” (difference in predicted survival with and without transplant). The FTWG plan is to provide a graft within the “variant group” of the UK NLOS to the patients who are listed for LT for iCCA. The variant list is specifically for patients with UKELD score < 49, such as those with diuretic-resistant ascites, hepatopulmonary syndrome, chronic hepatic encephalopathy, and other indications of quality of life. The algorithm will consider the three-month oncological window for iCCA patients, and they will be given priority on the variant list, both at the local center and at national levels. In view of this short window from assessment to transplant, the FTWG did not feel there was a need to bridge the tumour with ablation or any other locoregional therapy on the waiting list. Any drop out/death on the waiting list will be notified to the NHSBT and appropriate root cause analysis will be performed.
SURGICAL PROTOCOL
Transplant surgery will be similar to transplantation for other indications. Unlike the pCCA patients, the FTWG did not recommend staging laparoscopy, as it is unlikely to add benefit in small iCCA tumours. The group discussed the pros and cons of routine lymphadenectomy. It was decided that formal lymphadenectomy is not recommended as a routine, as it is very unlikely that a ≤ 2 cm tumour will disseminate to the nodes. The lymph nodes that are part of the explant specimen will obviously be included for histological examination.
POST-TRANSPLANT IMMUNOSUPPRESSION AND FOLLOW-UP
The standard of care following LR for iCCA is adjuvant chemotherapy based on level 1 evidence[44,45]. For the service evaluation on LT for iCCA, patients will be managed with no adjuvant chemotherapy. The evidence for chemotherapy pre- and post-LT for iCCA is with tumours that were large and unresectable[20]. However, the published literature with good survival outcomes from very early tumours from the multicentre study and the UK data is without adjuvant therapy[17,18,25]. The current protocol on chemotherapy will be subject to review and these recommendations may evolve based on new evidence.
After LT for iCCA, the goal of immunosuppression is to maintain a balance between the risk of graft rejection and the risk of disease recurrence[3,46]. The FTWG recommends that for the first 6 weeks post-LT, the immunosuppressant protocol will be CNI-based, with either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine (AZT) as the second agent and a period of steroids for about six weeks. Sirolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi), has been found to have a positive impact on disease-free outcomes after LT in patients with HCC[47,48]. However, there are no such data available for CCA patients; hence, the FTWG did not feel any indication to convert CNI to mTORi. To facilitate renal sparing in the initial period, interleukin-2 (IL-2) inhibitors such as Basiliximab may be used at the discretion of individual units for induction and to maintain low CNI concentration. As no study has adequately evaluated either the role of post-LT immunosuppression in reducing the risk of recurrence or the effectiveness of adjuvant therapy in this setting, future studies should focus on identifying patients with high risk of recurrence who may benefit from adjuvant therapy[23].
Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) related cirrhosis who undergo LT will typically receive hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) in the peri-transplant period to prevent HBV reinfection of the transplanted liver. Additionally, they will be prescribed oral antiviral medications to suppress the replication of HBV and reduce the risk of post-transplant recurrence of the virus. Standard centre-based protocols will be followed for similar indications.
There are no clear guidelines regarding the duration and frequency of follow-up for surveillance after LT for iCCA[27]. The post-transplant surveillance recommended by the FTWG includes assessment of tumour marker (CA 19-9) at 3 monthly intervals for the first 3 years (to interpret the results using pre-LT values as the baseline) and cross-sectional imaging in the form of dual-phase CT of chest, abdomen and pelvis at 6 monthly intervals for the first 2 years. After 2 years, the cross-sectional imaging is recommended on an annual basis until the end of 5 years and the tumour markers are recommended at 6 monthly intervals, again until the end of 5 years [Figure 2]. The FTWG recommends that although the schedule may be too elaborate for a service evaluation, it must be adapted to have consistency in monitoring outcomes.
OUTCOME MEASURES AND DATA MANAGEMENT
The FTWG and LAG recognised the importance of having a set of triggers in the interim period till the service evaluation is completed. These triggers are to take stock of unexpected events and advise LAG and individual centres of necessary action points. These triggers may also mandate a re-evaluation of the protocol agreed upon by the FTWG.
The implementation group recommends analysis of the perioperative and cancer specific outcomes after recruitment and completion of treatment for 30 patients, including both iCCA and pCCA.
As the numbers are small, it was felt that trigger points should be based on events rather than percentage occurrence. The group agreed to label these as “adverse events of special interest”, which will include vascular thrombosis within 3 months, recurrent cancer within 6 months, cancer-related mortality within 12 months, and re-transplantation for any reason.
The group recommended that such events should be discussed with the NERP to facilitate improvements in outcomes rather than imposing a moratorium.
A moratorium will only be advised if the events are felt to be repetitive with a clear pattern behind the failures.
In cases where the waiting list outcomes demonstrate a high rate of dropouts or significant delays in transplant patients, the process of offering donors may be reviewed and revised accordingly.
It was acknowledged by the group that accurate and relevant data collection is fundamental for delivering and improving services for these new indications. It was felt that the database should include patients considered but not assessed, assessed for malignancy but not assessed for transplant, and patients assessed for transplant but not listed due to frailty and fitness. For the data collection and service evaluation, funding and staffing arrangements will be sought through AMMF, PSC Support, NHSBT research grants and other external funding applications.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
A multi-pronged approach is proposed to provide appropriate information on this new indication to both patients, families and clinicians. The FTWG recommended the following programme of promotional events and arrangements for referrers and targeted relevant clinical bodies across the UK to highlight the endorsement of iCCA as a newly accepted indication for LT.
A series of road shows facilitated by LAG.
NHSBT website.
AMMF, PSC Support, British Liver Trust.
Engagement with BTS, GBIHPBA, BASL, BLTG, BSG, and BASO (via Special Interest Groups in Transplant Oncology).
ONGOING CLINICAL TRIALS
At present, there are three ongoing trials that seek to investigate the potential for LT for iCCA patients who are not eligible for LR. These trials separately focus on early iCCA, primary or recurrent iCCA, and locally advanced diseases necessitating downstaging therapy.
The clinical trial NCT02878473 “Liver Transplantation for the Treatment of Early Stages of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma in Cirrhotics” is being conducted in Toronto, Canada at the University Health Network and in Barcelona, Spain at the Hospital Clinic. The study started recruitment in April 2018, with the estimated primary completion date of January 2026. The study aims to recruit a total of 30 patients and the primary outcome measure is the 5-year OS. The eligibility criteria are similar to the UK pilot proposal - biopsy-confirmed single ≤ 2 cm iCCA, with background cirrhosis, not eligible for
The clinical trial, NCT04195503 “Liver Transplant for Stable, Advanced Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma”. The study is being conducted at the University Health Network, Toronto and is designed as a single-group, open-label trial with an expected enrollment of 10 participants. The study started recruitment in December 2019, with the estimated primary completion date of December 2026. Primary endpoint is 5-year OS. To be eligible for this study, the patients must have > 6 months of disease stability or tumour regression on gemcitabine-based therapy and have at least one blood group compatible living donor who has stepped forward to donate[50].
The TESLA trial, NCT04556214 “Liver Transplantation in Locally-advanced, Unresectable, Non-metastatic Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a Prospective Exploratory Trial”. The study is being conducted at Oslo University in Norway and is designed as a single-group, open-label trial with an expected enrollment of 15 participants. The study started recruitment in June 2020, with the estimated primary completion date of May 2035. Primary endpoint is to study the OS, and the main inclusion criteria are unsuitable for LR due to tumour location or underlying liver dysfunction (cirrhosis), 12 months or more time from the diagnosis of iCCA and date of listing for LT, and could have received at least 6 months of chemotherapy or locoregional therapy[51].
The outcomes from these small but prospective studies would help in proving the oncological benefit of LT in iCCA and the patient selection protocols for the future.
CONCLUSION
The NHSBT LAG pilot proposal for liver transplantation in cirrhotic patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma ≤ 2 cm, which has been operational since December 2022, signifies a significant advancement in the treatment of this cancer. The proposal suggests that patients with biopsy-proven very early iCCA who meet specific criteria may be suitable candidates for LT, which could ultimately offer a cure and improve overall outcomes for iCCA. In this paper, the indication for LT in this setting, referral framework, recipient selection criteria, peri-transplant management, and oncology-specific outcome measures are described. These elements will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of LT in this context and to determine its potential benefits or limitations. The results of the pilot programme will demonstrate the feasibility of LT in this setting. While this proposal may raise questions about equity of access to limited transplant resources in the UK, it is important to emphasise that the selection process for potential transplant recipients will be rigorous and the outcomes will be closely monitored. The national registry will collect the data from the service evaluation study, and the survival outcomes will be assessed and made public. Transplantation for iCCA should be encouraged but needs to be evaluated as a clinical trial, such as our pilot programme, in order to understand the tumour biology better and overall improve outcomes with iCCA.
DECLARATIONS
Authors’ contributions
Participated in literature review, FTWG discussion and voting, article writing and editing, and critical review: Hakeem AR, Isaac J, Thorburn D, Heaton N, Prasad R, Walmsley M, Morement H, Watson S, Manas D, Bridgewater J, Hawkins M, Radhakrishna G, Dasari BVM, Attia M, Adair A, Gibbs P, Sharma D, Oppong K, Albazaz R, Malik H, Snowdon V, Aluvihare V, Crellin A, Valle J, Treanor D, Rushbrook S
The five authors were working group coordinators and contributed equally to the writing of the manuscript: Hakeem AR, Isaac J, Thorburn D, Heaton N, Prasad R
Agreed with the final version of the manuscript: Hakeem AR, Isaac J, Thorburn D, Heaton N, Prasad R, Walmsley M, Morement H, Watson S, Manas D, Bridgewater J, Hawkins M, Radhakrishna G, Dasari BVM, Attia M, Adair A, Gibbs P, Sharma D, Oppong K, Albazaz R, Malik H, Snowdon V, Aluvihare V, Crellin A, Valle J, Treanor D, Rushbrook S
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Financial support and sponsorship
None.
Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2023.
REFERENCES
1. Wang J, Qiu Y, Yang Y, et al. Impact of cirrhosis on long-term survival outcomes of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Med 2022;11:3633-42.
2. Burton A, Tataru D, Driver RJ, et al. HCC-UK/BASL/NCRAS Partnership Steering Group. Primary liver cancer in the UK: incidence, incidence-based mortality, and survival by subtype, sex, and nation. JHEP Rep 2021;3:100232.
3. Mazzaferro V, Gorgen A, Roayaie S, Droz Dit Busset M, Sapisochin G. Liver resection and transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol 2020;72:364-77.
4. Spolverato G, Kim Y, Ejaz A, et al. Conditional probability of long-term survival after liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multi-institutional analysis of 535 patients. JAMA Surg 2015;150:538-45.
5. Palmer WC, Patel T. Are common factors involved in the pathogenesis of primary liver cancers? a meta-analysis of risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol 2012;57:69-76.
6. Thakral N, Gonzalez T, Nano O, Shin SH, Samuels S, Hussein A. Cirrhosis in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic importance and impact on survival. BMC Gastroenterol 2023;23:151.
7. Tamandl D, Herberger B, Gruenberger B, Puhalla H, Klinger M, Gruenberger T. Influence of hepatic resection margin on recurrence and survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:2787-94.
8. de Jong MC, Nathan H, Sotiropoulos GC, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: an international multi-institutional analysis of prognostic factors and lymph node assessment. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3140-5.
9. Doussot A, Gonen M, Wiggers JK, et al. Recurrence patterns and disease-free survival after resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: preoperative and postoperative prognostic models. J Am Coll Surg 2016;223:493-505.e2.
10. Molina V, Ferrer-Fábrega J, Sampson-Dávila J, et al. Intention-to-treat curative liver resection in patients with "very early" intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2020;405:967-75.
11. van Keulen AM, Büttner S, Erdmann JI, et al. Major complications and mortality after resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery 2023;173:973-82.
12. Langella S, Russolillo N, Ossola P, et al. Recurrence after curative resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: how to predict the chance of repeat hepatectomy? J Clin Med 2021;10:2820.
13. Tsilimigras DI, Mehta R, Moris D, et al. A machine-based approach to preoperatively identify patients with the most and least benefit associated with resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: an international multi-institutional analysis of 1146 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:1110-9.
14. O'Grady JG, Polson RJ, Rolles K, Calne RY, Williams R. Liver transplantation for malignant disease. results in 93 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 1988;207:373-9.
15. Pichlmayr R, Weimann A, Tusch G, Schlitt HJ. Indications and role of liver transplantation for malignant tumors. Oncologist 1997;2:164-70.
16. Sapisochin G, C Rodríguez de Lope, Gastaca M, et al. "Very early" intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhotic patients: should liver transplantation be reconsidered in these patients? Am J Transplant 2014;14:660-7.
17. Sapisochin G, de Lope CR, Gastaca M, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or mixed hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in patients undergoing liver transplantation: a Spanish matched cohort multicenter study. Ann Surg 2014;259:944-52.
18. Sapisochin G, Facciuto M, Rubbia-Brandt L, et al. iCCA International Consortium. Liver transplantation for "very early" intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: international retrospective study supporting a prospective assessment. Hepatology 2016;64:1178-88.
19. De Martin E, Rayar M, Golse N, et al. Analysis of liver resection versus liver transplantation on outcome of small intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in the setting of cirrhosis. Liver Transpl 2020;26:785-98.
20. Lunsford KE, Javle M, Heyne K, et al. Methodist-MD Anderson Joint Cholangiocarcinoma Collaborative Committee (MMAJCCC). Liver transplantation for locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant therapy: a prospective case-series. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;3:337-48.
21. McMillan RR, Javle M, Kodali S, et al. Survival following liver transplantation for locally advanced, unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Transplant 2022;22:823-32.
22. Takahashi K, Obeid J, Burmeister CS, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the liver explant after liver transplantation: histological differentiation and prognosis. Ann Transplant 2016;21:208-15.
23. Ziogas IA, Giannis D, Economopoulos KP, et al. Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis and meta-regression of survival rates. Transplantation 2021;105:2263-71.
24. Jung DH, Hwang S, Song GW, et al. Clinicopathological features and prognosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after liver transplantation and resection. Ann Transplant 2017;22:42-52.
25. Safdar NZ, Hakeem AR, Faulkes R, et al. Outcomes after liver transplantation with incidental cholangiocarcinoma. Transpl Int 2022;35:10802.
26. Rayar M, Levi Sandri GB, Houssel-Debry P, Camus C, Sulpice L, Boudjema K. Multimodal Therapy including Yttrium-90 radioembolization as a bridging therapy to liver transplantation for a huge and locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2016;25:401-4.
27. Sapisochin G, Javle M, Lerut J, et al. Liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma and mixed hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: working group report from the ILTS transplant oncology consensus conference. Transplantation 2020;104:1125-30.
28. Akamatsu N, Sakamoto Y, Hasegawa K. Liver transplantation for the solitary intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma less than 2 cm in diameter. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2017;6:332-4.
29. Menon K, Vijayashanker A, Murphy J, et al. NHS Blood and Transplant Liver Transplantation for Colorectal Liver Metastases Fixed Term Working Group. Liver transplantation for isolated unresectable colorectal liver metastases - protocol for a service evaluation in the United Kingdom - UKCoMET study. HPB 2023;25:684-92.
30. NHS blood and transplant. (POL195/14) - liver transplantation: selection criteria and recipient registration. Available from: https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/27372/pol195-120822.pdf [Last accessed on 2 Aug 2023].
31. Liu Y, Wang B, Mo X, Tang K, He J, Hao J. A deep learning workflow for mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma classification based on MRI. Curr Oncol 2022;30:529-44.
32. Ni T, Shang XS, Wang WT, Hu XX, Zeng MS, Rao SX. Different MR features for differentiation of intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma according to tumor size. Br J Radiol 2018;91:20180017.
33. Jeon Y, Kwon SM, Rhee H, et al. Molecular and radiopathologic spectrum between HCC and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatology 2023;77:92-108.
34. Beetz O, Timrott A, Weigle CA, et al. Proposal of a new definition of "very early" intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-a retrospective single-center analysis. J Clin Med 2021;10:4073.
35. Pillai A. Mixed hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: is it time to rethink consideration for liver transplantation? Liver Transpl 2018;24:1329-30.
36. Ma KW, Chok KSH, She WH, et al. Hepatocholangiocarcinoma/intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: are they contraindication or indication for liver transplantation? a propensity score-matched analysis. Hepatol Int 2018;12:167-73.
37. Cannella R, Cunha GM, Catania R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of nonhepatocellular malignancies in chronic liver disease. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2021;29:404-18.
38. Lee DD, Croome KP, Musto KR, et al. Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Liver Transpl 2018;24:634-44.
39. Sapisochin G, Ivanics T, Heimbach J. Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: ready for prime time? Hepatology 2022;75:455-72.
40. Moro A, Mehta R, Sahara K, et al. The impact of preoperative CA19-9 and CEA on outcomes of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:2888-901.
41. Wu H, Liang Y, Wang Z, et al. Optimizing CT and MRI criteria for differentiating intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma. Acta Radiol 2023;64:926-35.
42. Min JH, Lee MW, Park HS, et al. LI-RADS version 2018 targetoid appearances on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance for the differentiation of HCC and Non-HCC malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2022;219:421-32.
43. Park S, Lee Y, Kim H, et al. Subtype classification of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma using liver MR imaging features and its prognostic value. Liver Cancer 2022;11:233-46.
44. Ma KW, Cheung TT, Leung B, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves oncological outcomes of resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. Medicine 2019;98:e14013.
45. Bridgewater J, Fletcher P, Palmer DH, et al. BILCAP study group. Long-term outcomes and exploratory analyses of the randomized phase III BILCAP study. J Clin Oncol 2022;40:2048-57.
46. Panayotova GG, Guarrera JV, Lunsford KE. Should we reevaluate liver transplantation as an alternative to resection for the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? Liver Transpl 2020;26:748-50.
47. Gül-Klein S, Schmitz P, Schöning W, et al. The role of immunosuppression for recurrent cholangiocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. Cancers 2022;14:2890.
48. Patkowski W, Stankiewicz R, Grąt M, Krasnodębski M, Kornasiewicz O, Krawczyk M. Poor outcomes after liver transplantation in patients with incidental cholangiocarcinoma irrespective of tumor localization. Transplant Proc 2014;46:2774-6.
49. NCT02878473- Liver transplantation for early intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (LT for iCCA). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02878473 [Last accessed on 2 Aug 2023].
50. NCT04195503- Liver transplant for stable advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04195503 [Last accessed on 2 Aug 2023].
51. NCT04556214- Liver transplantation for non-resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a prospective exploratory trial (TESLA Trial). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04556214 [Last accessed on 2 Aug 2023].
Cite This Article
How to Cite
Hakeem, A. R.; Isaac, J.; Thorburn, D.; Heaton, N.; Prasad, R.; Group† N. H. S. B. T. L. T. C. F. T. W. The role of liver transplant for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the UK NHSBT liver advisory group pilot programme. Hepatoma. Res. 2023, 9, 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2023.59
Download Citation
Export Citation File:
Type of Import
Tips on Downloading Citation
Citation Manager File Format
Type of Import
Direct Import: When the Direct Import option is selected (the default state), a dialogue box will give you the option to Save or Open the downloaded citation data. Choosing Open will either launch your citation manager or give you a choice of applications with which to use the metadata. The Save option saves the file locally for later use.
Indirect Import: When the Indirect Import option is selected, the metadata is displayed and may be copied and pasted as needed.
Comments
Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.