search for




 

Bridging therapies to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A bridge to nowhere?
Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2018 Feb;22(1):27-35
Published online February 28, 2018
Copyright © 2018 Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.

Chun Han Nigel Tan1,4, Yue Yu2, Yan Rui Nicholas Tan2, Boon Leng Kieron Lim3,4, Shridhar Ganpathi Iyer1,4, Krishnakumar Madhavan1,4, and Alfred Wei Chieh Kow1,4

1Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 2Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 3Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, National University Health System, 4National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore
Received March 21, 2017; Revised August 31, 2017; Accepted September 17, 2017.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims: Liver Transplantation (LT) is a recognized treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). The role of Bridging Therapies (BT) remains controversial. Methods: From January 2001 to October 2012, 192 patients were referred to the National University Hospital, Singapore for consideration of LT for HCC. Sixty-five patients (33.8%) were found suitable for transplant and were placed on the waitlist. Analysis was performed in these patients. Results: The most common etiology of HCC was Hepatitis B (n=28, 43.1%). Thirty-six patients (55.4%) received BT. Seventeen patients (47.2%) received TACE only, while 10 patients (27.8%) received radiofrequency ablation (RFA) only. The remaining patients received a combination of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and RFA. Baseline tumor and patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The overall dropout rate was 44.4% and 31.0% in the BT and non-BT groups, respectively (p=0.269). The dropout rate due to disease progression beyond criteria was 6.9% (n=2) in the non-bridged group and 22.2% (n=8) in the bridged group (p=0.089). Thirty-nine patients (60%) underwent LT, of which all patients who underwent Living Donor LT did not receive BT (n=4, 21.1%, p=0.030). The median time to LT was 180 days (range, 20-558 days) in the non-BT group and 291 days (range, 17-844 days) in the BT group (p=0.214). There was no difference in survival or recurrence between the BT and non-BT groups (p=0.862). Conclusions: BT does not influence the dropout rate or survival after LT but it should be considered in patients who are on the waitlist for more than 6 months. (Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2018;22:27-35)
Keywords : Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Bridging, Liver Transplantation

 

November 2018, 22 (4)