We evaluated the liver transplantation (LT) criteria in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), incorporating an urgent living-donor LT (LDLT) program. Critically ill patients with a Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (CLIF-C) ACLF score (CLIF-C_ACLF_score) ≥65, previously considered unsuitable for LT, were included to explore the excess mortality threshold of the CLIF-C_ACLF_score (CLIF-C_ACLF_score_threshold). We followed 854 consecutive patients with ACLF (276 ACLF grade 2 and 215 ACLF grade 3) over 10 years among 4432 LT recipients between 2008 and 2019. For advanced ACLF patients without immediate deceased-donor (DD) allocation, an urgent LDLT program was expedited. The CLIF-C_ACLF_score_threshold was determined by the metrics of transplant survival benefit: >60% 1-year and >50% 5-year survival rate. In predicting post-LT mortality, the CLIF-C_ACLF_score outperformed the (model for end-stage liver disease-sodium) MELD-Na and (model for end-stage liver disease) MELD-3.0 scores but was comparable to the Sundaram ACLF-LT-mortality score. A CLIF-C_ACLF_score ≥65 (n = 54) demonstrated posttransplant survival benefits, with 1-year and 5-year survival rates of 66.7% and 50.4% (P < .001), respectively. Novel CLIF-C_ACLF_score_threshold for 1-year and 5-year mortalities was 70 and 69, respectively. A CLIF-C_ACLF_score-based nomogram for predicting survival probabilities, integrating cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and donor type (LDLT vs DDLT), was generated. This study suggests reconsidering the criteria for unsuitable LT with a CLIF-C_ACLF_score ≥65. Implementing a timely salvage LT strategy, and incorporating urgent LDLT, can enhance survival rates.

OBJECTIVE: The National Liver Offering Scheme (NLOS) was introduced in the UK in 2018 to offer livers from deceased donors to patients on the national waiting list based, for most patients, on calculated transplant benefit. Before NLOS, livers were offered to transplant centres by geographic donor zones and, within centres, by estimated recipient need for a transplant.
METHODS: UK Transplant Registry data on patient registrations and transplants were analysed to build statistical models for survival on the list (M1) and survival post-transplantation (M2). A separate cohort of registrations - not seen by the models before - was analysed to simulate what liver allocation would have been under M1, M2 and a transplant benefit score (TBS) model (combining both M1 and M2), and to compare these allocations to what had been recorded in the UK Transplant Registry. The number of deaths on the waiting list and patient life years were used to compare the different simulation scenarios and to select the optimal allocation model. Registry data were monitored, pre- and post-NLOS, to understand the performance of the scheme.
RESULTS: The TBS was identified as the optimal model to offer donation after brain death (DBD) livers to adult and large paediatric elective recipients. In the first 2 years of NLOS, 68% of DBD livers were offered using the TBS to this type of recipient. Monitoring data indicate that mortality on the waiting list post-NLOS significantly decreased compared with pre-NLOS (p <0.0001), and that patient survival post-listing was significantly greater post- compared to pre-NLOS (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: In the first two years of NLOS offering, waiting list mortality fell while post-transplant survival was not negatively impacted, delivering on the scheme\'s objectives.
UNASSIGNED: The National Liver Offering Scheme (NLOS) was introduced in the UK in 2018 to increase transparency of the deceased donor liver offering process, maximise the overall survival of the waiting list population, and improve equity of access to liver transplantation. To our knowledge, it is the first scheme that offers organs based on statistical prediction of transplant benefit: the transplant benefit score. The results are important to the transplant community - from healthcare practitioners to patients - and demonstrate that, in the first two years of NLOS offering, waiting list mortality fell while post-transplant survival was not negatively impacted, thus delivering on the scheme\'s objectives. The scheme continues to be monitored to ensure that the transplant benefit score remains up-to-date and that signals that suggest the possible disadvantage of some patients are investigated.

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of HCC management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the first part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and surgical treatments of HCC.

In this debate, the authors consider whether patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumour thrombosis are candidates for liver transplantation (LT). The argument for LT in this context is based on the premise that, following successful downstaging treatment, LT confers a much greater clinical benefit in terms of survival outcomes than the available alternative (palliative systemic therapy). A major argument against relates to limitations in the quality of evidence for LT in this setting - in relation to study design, as well as heterogeneity in patient characteristics and downstaging protocols. While acknowledging the superior outcomes offered by LT for patients with portal vein tumour thrombosis, the counterargument is that expected survival in such patients is still below accepted thresholds for LT and, indeed, the levels achieved for other patients who receive transplants beyond the Milan criteria. Based on the available evidence, it seems too early for consensus guidelines to recommend such an approach, however, it is hoped that with higher quality evidence and standardised downstaging protocols, LT may soon be more widely indicated, including for this population with high unmet clinical need.

Introduction: In Australia and New Zealand, liver allocation is needs based (based on model for end-stage liver disease score). An alternative allocation system is a transplant benefit-based model. Transplant benefit is quantified by complex waitlist and transplant survival prediction models. Research Questions: To validate the UK transplant benefit score in an Australia and New Zealand population. Design: This study analyzed data on listings and transplants for chronic liver disease between 2009 and 2018, using the Australia and New Zealand Liver and Intestinal Transplant Registry. Excluded were variant syndromes, hepatocellular cancer, urgent listings, pediatric, living donor, and multi-organ listings and transplants. UK transplant benefit waitlist and transplant benefit score were calculated for listings and transplants, respectively. Outcomes were time to waitlist death and time to transplant failure. Calibration and discrimination were assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and C-statistics. Results: There were differences in the UK and Australia and New Zealand listing, transplant, and donor populations including older recipient age, higher recipient and donor body mass index, and higher incidence of hepatitis C in the Australia and New Zealand population. Waitlist scores were calculated for 2241 patients and transplant scores were calculated for 1755 patients. The waitlist model C-statistic at 5 years was 0.70 and the transplant model C-statistic was 0.56, with poor calibration of both models. Conclusion: The UK transplant benefit score model performed poorly, suggesting that UK benefit-based allocation would not improve overall outcomes in Australia and New Zealand. Generalizability of survival prediction models was limited by differences in transplant populations and practices.

The Lung Allocation Score (LAS) is used in the U.S. to prioritize lung transplant candidates. Selection bias, induced by dependent censoring of waitlisted candidates and prediction of posttransplant survival among surviving, transplanted patients only, is only partially addressed by the LAS. Recently, a modified LAS (mLAS) was designed to mitigate such bias. Here, we estimate the clinical impact of replacing the LAS with the mLAS.
We considered lung transplant candidates waitlisted during 2016 and 2017. LAS and mLAS scores were computed for each registrant at each observed organ offer date; individuals were ranked accordingly. Patient characteristics associated with better priority under the mLAS were investigated via logistic regression and generalized linear mixed models. We also determined whether differences in rank were explained more by changes in predicted pre- or posttransplant survival. Simulations examined how 1-year waitlist, posttransplant, and overall survival might change under the mLAS.
Diagnosis group, 6-minute walk distance, continuous mechanical ventilation, functional status, and age demonstrated the highest impact on differential allocation. Differences in rank were explained more by changes in predicted pretransplant survival than changes in predicted posttransplant survival, suggesting that selection bias has more impact on estimates of waitlist urgency. Simulations suggest that for every 1000 waitlisted individuals, 12.8 (interquartile range: 5.2-24.3) fewer waitlist deaths per year would occur under the mLAS, without compromising posttransplant and overall survival.
Implementing a mLAS that mitigates selection bias into clinical practice can lead to important differences in allocation and possibly modest improvement in waitlist survival.

The lung allocation system in the U.S. prioritizes lung transplant candidates based on estimated pre- and post-transplant survival via the Lung Allocation Scores (LAS). However, these models do not account for selection bias, which results from individuals being removed from the waitlist due to receipt of transplant, as well as transplanted individuals necessarily having survived long enough to receive a transplant. Such selection biases lead to inaccurate predictions.
We used a weighted estimation strategy to account for selection bias in the pre- and post-transplant models used to calculate the LAS. We then created a modified LAS using these weights, and compared its performance to that of the existing LAS via time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and Bland-Altman plots.
The modified LAS exhibited better discrimination and calibration than the existing LAS, and led to changes in patient prioritization.
Our approach to addressing selection bias is intuitive and can be applied to any organ allocation system that prioritizes patients based on estimated pre- and post-transplant survival. This work is especially relevant to current efforts to ensure more equitable distribution of organs.

The development of liver metastases in colon rectal cancer has a strong impact on the overall survival (OS) of the patient, with a 5-year survival rate of 5% with palliative treatment. Surgical resection combined with pharmacological treatment can achieve a 5-year OS rate of 31-58%. However, in only 20% of patients with colon rectal liver metastases (CRLMs), liver resection is feasible. In highly selected patients, recent trials and studies proved that liver transplantation (LT) for non-resectable CRLM is a surgical option with an excellent long-term OS. The paper aims to review the indications and outcome of LT for CRLMs, with a special focus on immunosuppressive therapy and the management of local and extrahepatic recurrence after LT.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused temporary drops in the supply of organs for transplantation, leading to renewed debate about whether T2 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients should receive priority during these times. The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative model to aid decision-making in liver transplantation for T2 HCC. We proposed a novel ethical framework where the individual transplant benefit for a T2 HCC patient should outweigh the harm to others on the waiting list, determining a \"net benefit\", to define appropriate organ allocation. This ethical framework was then translated into a quantitative Markov model including Italian averages for waiting list characteristics, donor resources, mortality, and transplant rates obtained from a national prospective database (n = 8567 patients). The net benefit of transplantation in a T2 HCC patient in a usual situation varied from 0 life months with a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score of 15, to 34 life months with a MELD score of 40, while it progressively decreased with acute organ shortage during a pandemic (i.e., with a 50% decrease in organs, the net benefit varied from 0 life months with MELD 30, to 12 life months with MELD 40). Our study supports the continuation of transplantation for T2 HCC patients during crises such as COVID-19; however, the focus needs to be on those T2 HCC patients with the highest net survival benefit.

Assessing the balance between survival and recurrence after transplantation for secondary liver tumours should be based on the type of cancer in question. For neuroendocrine liver metastases, high recurrence rates are clearly related to reduced long-term survival. For colorectal liver metastases, experience to date indicates that pulmonary recurrence alone has a modest impact on survival outcomes. Further studies focusing on this group of patients will be important for the development of this field of transplant oncology. Liver transplantation for secondary liver tumours should be implemented in accordance with stringent transplant criteria and preferably in the context of prospective trials. Expansion of the donor pool by utilising extended criteria donors and partial liver transplantation could be considered for this indication.