Secondary non-resectable liver tumors: A single-center living-donor and deceased-donor liver transplantation case series.

BACKGROUND

During the last decades, deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) has gained a place in the therapeutic algorithm of well-selected patients harbouring non-resectable secondary liver tumors. Living-donor LT (LDLT) might represent a valuable means to further expand this indication for LT.

METHODS

Between 1985 and 2016, twenty-two adults were transplanted because of neuroendocrine (n = 18, 82%) and colorectal metastases (n = 4, 18%); 50% received DDLT and 50% LDLT. In LDLT, 4 (36%) right and 7 (64%) left grafts were used; the median graft-to-recipient-weight ratios (GRWR) were 1.03% (IQR 0.86%-1.30%) and 0.59% (IQR 0.51%-0.91%), respectively. Median post-LT follow-up was 64 months (IQR 17-107) in the DDLT group and 40 months (IQR 35-116) in the LDLT group. DDLT and LDLT recipients were compared in terms of overall survival, graft survival, postoperative complications and recurrence.

RESULTS

The 1- and 5-year actuarial patient survivals were 82% and 55% after DDLT, 100% and 100% after LDLT, respectively (P < 0.01). One- and 5-year actuarial graft survivals were 73% and 36% after DDLT, 91% and 91% after LDLT (P < 0.01). The outcomes of right or left LDLT were comparable. Donor hepatectomy proved safe, and one donor experienced a Clavien IIIb complication. Bilirubin peak was significantly lower after left hepatectomy compared with that after right hepatectomy [1.3 (IQR 1.2-2.2) vs. 3.3 (IQR 2.3-5.2) mg/dL; P = 0.02].

CONCLUSIONS

The more recent LDLT series compared favorably to our DDLT series in the treatment of secondary liver malignancies. The absence of portal hypertension and the use of smaller left grafts make recipient and donor surgeries safe. The safety of the procedures and lack of interference with the scarce allograft pool are expected to lead to a more frequent use of LDLT in the field of transplant oncology.