Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-Life Comparison of Milan Criteria and AFP Model
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-Life Comparison of Milan Criteria and AFP Model
Do you wish to request the book?
Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-Life Comparison of Milan Criteria and AFP Model
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-Life Comparison of Milan Criteria and AFP Model
2021
Overview
Purpose: To compare the agreement for the criteria on the explant and the results of liver transplantation (LT) before and after adoption of the AFP (α-fetoprotein) model. Methods: 523 patients consecutively listed in five French centers were reviewed to compare results of the Milan criteria period (MilanCP, n = 199) (before 2013) and the AFP score period (AFPscP, n = 324) (after 2013). (NCT03156582). Results: During AFPscP, there was a significantly longer waiting time on the list (12.3 vs. 7.7 months, p < 0.001) and higher rate of bridging therapies (84 vs. 75%, p = 0.012) compared to the MilanCP. Dropout rate was slightly higher in the AFPscP (31 vs. 24%, p = 0.073). No difference was found in the histological AFP score between groups (p = 0.838) with a global agreement in 88% of patients. Post-LT recurrence was 9.2% in MilanCP vs. 13.2% in AFPscP (p = 0.239) and predictive factors were AFP > 2 on the last imaging, downstaging policy and salvage transplantation. Post-LT survival was similar (83 vs. 87% after 2 years, p = 0.100), but after propensity score analysis, the post-listing overall survival (OS) was worse in the AFPscP (HR 1.45, p = 0.045). Conclusions: Agreement for the AFP model on explant analysis (≤2) did not significantly change. AFP score > 2 was the major prognostic factor for recurrence. Graft allocation policy has a major impact on prognosis, with a post-listing OS significantly decreased, probably due to the increase in waiting time, increase in bridging therapies, downstaging policy and salvage transplantation.
