Page 878 - Read Online
P. 878

Feier. Hepatoma Res 2020;6:75                                    Hepatoma Research
               DOI: 10.20517/2394-5079.2020.68




               Perspective                                                                   Open Access


               Should selection criteria for HCC be the same (or
               different) between LDLT and DDLT?



               Flavia Feier 1,2

               1 Liver Transplantation Department, Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre 90035-903, Brazil.
               2 Pediatric Liver Transplantation Department, Irmandade Santa Casa de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre 90020-090, Brazil.
               Correspondence to: Dr. Flavia Feier, Liver Transplantation Department, Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Rua Ramiro Barcelos
               2350, Porto Alegre 90035-903, Brazil. E-mail: flavia.feier@gmail.com
               How to cite this article: Feier, F. Should selection criteria for HCC be the same (or different) between LDLT and DDLT? Hepatoma
               Res 2020;6:75. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2020.68
               Received: 19 Jul 2020    First Decision: 8 Sep 2020    Revised: 9 Sep 2020    Accepted: 14 Sep 2020    Published: 6 Nov 2020

               Academic Editor: Nobuhisa Akamatsu    Copy Editor: Cai-Hong Wang    Production Editor: Jing Yu


               Abstract
               Since the Milan Criteria (MC) were adopted in many countries as the allocation policy criteria for patients with
 Received:     First Decision:     Revised:     Accepted:    Published:
               hepatocellular carcinoma to be transplanted, many groups started to expand it to provide a chance for patients
 Science Editor:     Copy Editor:     Production Editor: Jing Yu   with tumors outside the MC who could achieve similar survival rates. With the scarcity of deceased donors,
               Asian countries improved the results with living donor liver transplantation, allowing patients outside MC to be
               transplanted with a living donor. Newer prognostic models and a more profound understanding of tumor behavior
               are targeting better patient selection. Currently, patients are unevenly selected for liver transplantation and mostly
               separated into those fulfilling the MC and transplanted with a deceased donor and those with expanded criteria
               and transplanted with a living donor. In this paper, insight is brought into this debate.


               Keywords: Living donor, hepatocellular carcinoma, alpha-fetoprotein




               Liver transplantation (LT) is considered a curative treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
               (HCC) not amenable to surgical resection or ablative curative therapies. HCC was the indication for LT in
                                                                   [2]
                                                   [1]
               20.4% of the recipients in the USA in 2018 , 14.4% in Europe  and 7.6% and 19% for patients transplanted
                                                                    [2]
               with deceased donors and living donors, respectively, in Japan .
               To provide a real chance for these patients to be transplanted with a deceased donor, exception points
               (outside the MELD score) have been given all over the world. However, in countries with organ shortage,

                           © The Author(s) 2020. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
                           International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
                sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long
                as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
                and indicate if changes were made.


                                                                                                                                                        www.hrjournal.net
   873   874   875   876   877   878   879   880   881   882   883