Lower rates of receiving model for end-stage liver disease exception and longer time to transplant among nonalcoholic steatohepatitis hepatocellular carcinoma

被引:24
|
作者
Young, Kellie [1 ,3 ]
Aguilar, Maria [2 ]
Gish, Robert [4 ]
Younossi, Zobair [5 ,6 ]
Saab, Sammy [7 ,8 ]
Bhuket, Taft [2 ]
Liu, Benny [2 ]
Ahmed, Aijaz [4 ]
Wong, Robert J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Sch Med, San Francisco, CA USA
[2] Alameda Hlth Syst, Highland Hosp, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Oakland, CA USA
[3] Santa Clara Valley Med Ctr, Dept Med, San Jose, CA 95128 USA
[4] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
[5] Ctr Liver Dis, Dept Med, Falls Church, VA USA
[6] Inova Hlth Syst, Betty & Guy Beatty Ctr Integrated Res, Falls Church, VA USA
[7] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Med, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[8] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Surg, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
关键词
UNITED-STATES; ALLOCATION SYSTEM; WAITING-LIST; HEPATITIS-C; MELD; MORTALITY; SURVIVAL; IMPACT; SCORE; CANDIDATES;
D O I
10.1002/lt.24507
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Receiving Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception status for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) improves wait-list survival and probability of liver transplantation (LT). We aim to evaluate etiology-specific disparities in MELD exception, LT wait-list times, and post-LT outcomes among patients with HCC listed for LT. Using United Network for Organ Sharing 2004-2013 data, we evaluated adults (age>18 years) with HCC secondary to hepatitis C virus (HCV), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), alcoholic cirrhosis (EtOH), hepatitis B virus (HBV), combined EtOH/HCV, and combined HBV/HCV. Multivariate regression models evaluated etiology-specific odds of active exception, probability of receiving LT, and post-LT survival. In total, 10,887 HCC patients were listed for LT from 2004 to 2013. Compared with HCV-HCC patients (86.8%), patients with NASH-HCC (67.7%), and EtOH-HCC (64.4%) had a lower proportion with active MELD exception (P<0.001). On multivariate regression, NASH-HCC and EtOH-HCC patients had significantly lower odds of active MELD exception compared with HCV-HCC (NASH-HCCodds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.93; P=0.01; EtOH-HCCOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89; P=0.002). Compared with HCV-HCC patients, NASH-HCC (HR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.76-0.90; P<0.001), EtOH-HCC (HR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.81-0.96; P=0.002), and EtOH/HCV-HCC (HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99; P=0.03) were less likely to receive LT if they had active exception. Without active exception, these discrepancies were more significant (NASH-HCCHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18-0.27; P<0.001; EtOH-HCCHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18-0.26; P<0.001; EtOH/HCV-HCCHR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.22-0.32; P<0.001). In conclusion, among US adults with HCC listed for LT, patients with NASH-HCC, EtOH-HCC, and EtOH/HCV-HCC were significantly less likely to have active MELD exception compared with HCV-HCC, and those without active exception had a lower likelihood of receiving LT. More research is needed to explore why NASH-HCC patients were less likely to have active MELD exception. Liver Transplantation 22 1356-1366 2016 AASLD.
引用
收藏
页码:1356 / 1366
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception for severe pruritus
    Washburn, W. Kenneth
    Gish, Robert G.
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2006, 12 (12) : S119 - S119
  • [22] Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception for primary hyperoxaluria
    Horslen, Simon
    Gish, Robert G.
    McDonald, Ruth
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2006, 12 (12) : S117 - S118
  • [23] Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception for hepatopulmonary syndrome
    Fallon, Michael B.
    Mulligan, David C.
    Gish, Robert G.
    Krowka, Michael J.
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2006, 12 (12) : S105 - S107
  • [24] The Effect of Acuity Circles on Deceased Donor Transplant and Offer Rates Across Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores and Exception Statuses
    Wey, Andrew
    Noreen, Samantha
    Gentry, Sommer
    Cafarella, Matt
    Trotter, James
    Salkowski, Nicholas
    Segev, Dorry
    Israni, Ajay
    Kasiske, Bertram
    Hirose, Ryutaro
    Snyder, Jon
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2022, 28 (03) : 363 - 375
  • [25] Impact of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease on Patient Survival and Disease-Free Survival in Patients Receiving Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Moonka, D.
    Castillo, E.
    Kumer, S.
    Abouljoud, M.
    Divine, G.
    Pelletier, S.
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2009, 41 (01) : 216 - 218
  • [26] Lipoatrophic diabetes and end-stage liver disease secondary to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with recurrence after liver transplantation
    Cauble, MS
    Gilroy, R
    Sorrell, MF
    Mailliard, ME
    Sudan, DL
    Anderson, JC
    Wisecarver, JL
    Balakrishnan, S
    Larsen, JL
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2001, 71 (07) : 892 - 895
  • [27] MELDEQ: An Alternative Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Marvin, Michael R.
    Ferguson, Nicole
    Cannon, Robert M.
    Jones, Christopher M.
    Brock, Guy N.
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2015, 21 (05) : 612 - 622
  • [28] Model for end-stage liver disease score predicts survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
    Contreras, C. M.
    Behrens, J.
    Cho, C. S.
    Mahvi, D. M.
    Rikkers, L. F.
    Weber, S. M.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2007, 14 (02) : 96 - 96
  • [29] International Liver Transplantation Consensus Statement on End-stage Liver Disease Due to Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Liver Transplantation
    Tsochatzis, Emmanuel
    Coilly, Audrey
    Nadalin, Silvio
    Levistky, Josh
    Tokat, Yaman
    Ghobrial, Mark
    Klinck, John
    Berenguer, Marina
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2019, 103 (01) : 45 - 56
  • [30] Evaluating the validity of model for end-stage liver disease exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with multiple nodules &lt;2 cm
    Samoylova, Mariya L.
    Dodge, Jennifer L.
    Mehta, Neil
    Yao, Francis Y.
    Roberts, John P.
    CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, 2015, 29 (01) : 52 - 59