File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Living donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation for early unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: same criteria, different outcome

TitleLiving donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation for early unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: same criteria, different outcome
Authors
Issue Date2005
PublisherInforma Healthcare. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1365182X.asp
Citation
European Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association (EHPBA) European Congress 2005. How to Cite?
AbstractINTRODUCTIONANDAIM: Hypothetical studies that supported the role of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for early unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) assumed the same outcome as deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).Wetested this assumption with a clinical study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 60 consecutive patients who met the Milan or UCSF criteria on pretransplant imaging and underwent LDLT (LD group, n=43) or DDLT (DD group, n=17). RESULTS: Compared to the DD group, the LD group had fewer incidental tumors or pretransplant transarterial chemoembolization but more salvage transplantation for recurrence. There was a shorter waiting time and lower graft-weight-to-standard-liver-weight (GW/SLW) ratio. The perioperative course was the same in terms of transfusion, morbidity, mortality and hospital stay. Histopathologic analysis showed similar tumor size, number, grade, and stage. At a median follow-up of 28 months (range: 4–111), 7 (16%) patients of the LD group and none (0%) of the DD group recurred. The 1-, and 5-year cumulative recurrence rate was 9%, and 25%, respectively, for the LD group, and all 0%, for the DD group (p=0.05). The corresponding patient survival was 97% and 55%, respectively, for the LD group, and 94% and 94%, respectively, for the DD group (p=0.279). Apart from tumor factors including vascular permeation, tumor nodules 43, and a pathologic stage beyond UCSF criteria, GW/SLW ratio 50.6 and salvage transplantation were also risk factors for recurrence. CONCLUSION: Despite standard selection criteria, patients who undergo LDLT for early unresectable HCC have different clinical characteristics and inferior oncologic outcome.
DescriptionH P B: the official journal of the IHPBA, v. 7 n. Suppl 1, p. 54 Abstract no. 33
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/88589
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.918
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.586

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLo, CMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorFan, STen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLiu, CLen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChan, SCen_HK
dc.contributor.authorNg, IOLen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, Jen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T09:45:22Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T09:45:22Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_HK
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association (EHPBA) European Congress 2005.en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1365-182Xen_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/88589-
dc.descriptionH P B: the official journal of the IHPBA, v. 7 n. Suppl 1, p. 54 Abstract no. 33-
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTIONANDAIM: Hypothetical studies that supported the role of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for early unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) assumed the same outcome as deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).Wetested this assumption with a clinical study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 60 consecutive patients who met the Milan or UCSF criteria on pretransplant imaging and underwent LDLT (LD group, n=43) or DDLT (DD group, n=17). RESULTS: Compared to the DD group, the LD group had fewer incidental tumors or pretransplant transarterial chemoembolization but more salvage transplantation for recurrence. There was a shorter waiting time and lower graft-weight-to-standard-liver-weight (GW/SLW) ratio. The perioperative course was the same in terms of transfusion, morbidity, mortality and hospital stay. Histopathologic analysis showed similar tumor size, number, grade, and stage. At a median follow-up of 28 months (range: 4–111), 7 (16%) patients of the LD group and none (0%) of the DD group recurred. The 1-, and 5-year cumulative recurrence rate was 9%, and 25%, respectively, for the LD group, and all 0%, for the DD group (p=0.05). The corresponding patient survival was 97% and 55%, respectively, for the LD group, and 94% and 94%, respectively, for the DD group (p=0.279). Apart from tumor factors including vascular permeation, tumor nodules 43, and a pathologic stage beyond UCSF criteria, GW/SLW ratio 50.6 and salvage transplantation were also risk factors for recurrence. CONCLUSION: Despite standard selection criteria, patients who undergo LDLT for early unresectable HCC have different clinical characteristics and inferior oncologic outcome.-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherInforma Healthcare. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1365182X.aspen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofH P B: the official journal of the IHPBAen_HK
dc.rightsH P B: the official journal of the IHPBA. Copyright © Informa Healthcare.en_HK
dc.titleLiving donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation for early unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: same criteria, different outcomeen_HK
dc.typeConference_Paperen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1365-182X&volume=7&issue=Suppl 1&spage=54 Abstract no. 33&epage=&date=2005&atitle=Living+donor+versus+deceased+donor+liver+transplantation+for+early+unresectable+hepatocellular+carcinoma:+same+criteria,+different+outcomeen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLo, CM: chungmlo@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailFan, ST: stfan@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailLiu, CL: clliu@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailNg, IOL: iolng@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailWong, J: jwong@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLo, CM=rp00412en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityFan, ST=rp00355en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityWong, J=rp00322en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros98166en_HK
dc.identifier.volume7-
dc.identifier.issueSuppl 1-
dc.identifier.spage54 Abstract no. 33-
dc.identifier.epage54 Abstract no. 33-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats