Twenty years after: from Milan criteria to a “blended” approach
Editorial

Twenty years after: from Milan criteria to a “blended” approach

Giovanni Battista Levi Sandri1*, Quirino Lai2*

1Division of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation, San Camillo Hospital, Rome, Italy; 2Hepato-bilio-pancreatic and Liver Transplant Unit, Department of Surgery, Umberto I Hospital, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

*These authors contributed equally to this work.

Correspondence to: Giovanni Battista Levi Sandri, MD. Division of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation, San Camillo Hospital, Rome, Italy. Email: gblevisandri@gmail.com.

Received: 27 June 2017; Accepted: 28 June 2017; Published: 21 July 2017.

doi: 10.21037/tgh.2017.07.01


When Milan criteria (MC) were first proposed in 1996, they rapidly became the cornerstone for the selection of patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) waiting for liver transplantation (LT) (1). The use of the MC consented to very well select patients at low risk for post-LT recurrence, thus obtaining excellent survival rates (2). However, twenty years later, it is now clear that the MC are a too restrictive selection criterion, unfortunately excluding too many patients from the potentially curative strategy of LT. Several innovations have been recently introduced in the specific field of tumor oncology and transplant, putting the bases for the creation of new and more refined allocation and selection processes (3).

For example, several enlarged criteria have been proposed in the last years, all aimed at improving the ability to select patients. Apart criteria based on morphology only (4), new scores combining radiological and biological aspects are now presenting a growing interest for the scientific community: alpha-fetoprotein (5), inflammatory markers (6), and des-gamma carboxy-prothrombin (7) all represent recent and promising areas of research.

The improved ability of loco-regional therapies has been contemporaneously reported in the last decade, with the introduction of innovative strategies like the trans-arterial radio-embolization (TARE). TARE looks to be able not only to more efficaciously treat advanced HCCs (8), but also to consent to downstage and then transplant initially excluded HCC cases with macrovascular invasion (9).

The combination of sorafenib with other strategies has been also largely investigated in recent years, with the intent to better clarify if its use in a neo-adjuvant or adjuvant fashion should be of some utility: until now, discordant data have been shown (10), and new and more solid results are awaited.

Immunosuppression (IS) represents another field in which no definitive data have been produced: new studies are required aimed at identifying both the connection of IS with the risk of recurrence or specific protocols able to protect against tumor progression (11,12).

Finally, several technological evolutions in the field of surgery have been done in this latter period, all aimed at improving our ability to manage HCC patients. For example, the implementation of the laparoscopic hepatic resection (13), the more liberal use of living-donor LT, even in Western countries (14), or finally the growing use of perfusion machines with the intent to improve the use of marginal grafts (15) all represent new opportunities for the physicians involved in the management of HCC patients waiting for LT.

Twenty years after the MC introduction, the time is arrived for a new revolution based on a “blended” management and selection approach (16).


Acknowledgements

None.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

  1. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 1996;334:693-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Mazzaferro V, Bhoori S, Sposito C, et al. Milan criteria in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an evidence-based analysis of 15 years of experience. Liver Transpl 2011;17 Suppl 2:S44-57. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Cillo U, Burra P, Mazzaferro V, et al. A Multistep, Consensus-Based Approach to Organ Allocation in Liver Transplantation: Toward a "Blended Principle Model". Am J Transplant 2015;15:2552-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Mazzaferro V, Llovet JM, Miceli R, et al. Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:35-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Lai Q, Nicolini D, Inostroza Nunez M, et al. A Novel Prognostic Index in Patients With Hepatocellular Cancer Waiting for Liver Transplantation: Time-Radiological-response-Alpha-fetoprotein-INflammation (TRAIN) Score. Ann Surg 2016;264:787-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Halazun KJ, Najjar M, Abdelmessih RM, et al. Recurrence After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A New MORAL to the Story. Ann Surg 2017;265:557-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Lai Q, Iesari S, Levi Sandri GB, et al. Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin in hepatocellular cancer patients waiting for liver transplant: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Biol Markers 2017. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, et al. Radioembolization results in longer time-to-progression and reduced toxicity compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2011;140:497-507. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Levi Sandri GB, Ettorre GM, Colasanti M, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma with macrovascular invasion treated with yttrium-90 radioembolization prior to transplantation. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2017;6:44-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Borentain P, Gregoire E, Louis G, et al. Successful liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma following down-staging using sorafenib single therapy. Liver Int 2016;36:1393. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Benítez C, Londoño MC, Miquel R, et al. Prospective multicenter clinical trial of immunosuppressive drug withdrawal in stable adult liver transplant recipients. Hepatology 2013;58:1824-35. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Geissler EK, Schnitzbauer AA, Zülke C, et al. Sirolimus Use in Liver Transplant Recipients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Phase 3 Trial. Transplantation 2016;100:116-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Levi Sandri GB, de Werra E, Mascianà G, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic approach for hepatocellular carcinoma-state of the art. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2016;5:478-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Pinheiro RS, Cruz-Jr RJ, Andraus W, et al. Preoperative computed tomography volumetry and graft weight estimation in adult living donor liver transplantation. Arq Bras Cir Dig 2017;30:38-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Franzini M, Ghinolfi D, Pezzati D, et al. Development of a normothermic extracorporeal liver perfusion system toward improving viability and function of human extended criteria donor livers. Liver Transpl 2016;22:1615-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Mazzaferro V. Squaring the circle of selection and allocation in liver transplantation for HCC: An adaptive approach. Hepatology 2016;63:1707-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
doi: 10.21037/tgh.2017.07.01
Cite this article as: Levi Sandri GB, Lai Q. Twenty years after: from Milan criteria to a “blended” approach. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2:62.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.