An Outcome-Based Approach to Assign MELD Exception Points for Patients With Hepatocellular Cancer

被引:5
|
作者
Kensinger, Clark D. [1 ]
Feurer, Irene D. [1 ,2 ]
Karp, Seth J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Vanderbilt Univ, Dept Surg, Med Ctr, Vanderbilt Transplant Ctr, Nashville, TN 37240 USA
[2] Vanderbilt Univ, Sch Med, Dept Biostat, Nashville, TN 37212 USA
关键词
STAGE LIVER-DISEASE; TRANSPLANT WAITING-LIST; UNITED-STATES; CARCINOMA; MODEL; SURVIVAL; ALLOCATION; RATES; CANDIDATES; DISPARITY;
D O I
10.1097/TP.0000000000001812
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background Current Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception points provided to patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) are not based on outcome data and advantage these patients compared to those listed based on laboratory values (LABMELD). We sought to develop a data-based assignment for exception points for patients with HCC that equalizes outcomes among HCC and LABMELD patients. Methods We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to compare patients listed with HCC who received exception points versus patients listed with LABMELD. Nation- and region-specific data were examined for (1) a composite outcome for adverse events of death, delisting, or becoming ineligible for transplant; and (2) transplant rate. We also determined MELD progression rates for LABMELD patients. Candidates listed with LABMELD scores were compared with those listed with 22 exception points for HCC (HCC22) to determine the LABMELD for which statistical parity was achieved for our composite outcome. Results HCC22 candidates time to adverse event were comparable to LABMELD scores of 16 (LABMELD16) candidates (range, 15-19), whereas time to transplant was comparable to LABMELD22 candidates (range, 21-23). LABMELD22 candidates had 2.1 times greater risk of adverse event compared with HCC22 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-2.4; range, 1.5-2.4). Progression among LABMELD16 candidates whose scores did not improve was similar across regions and averaged 0.94 points/month (95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.99, range 0.80-1.04). Conclusions To equalize the occurrence of an adverse outcome, the proper listing MELD for patients with HCC is 16, with approximately 1 additional point/month. These results provide a data-driven algorithm to increase fairness in listing priority.
引用
收藏
页码:2056 / 2061
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Impact of True MELD on Post-Transplant Outcome in Patients Listed with Exception MELD HCC Points
    Porrett, P.
    Cui, R.
    Sonnad, S.
    Ottmann, S.
    Drazek, D.
    Hoteit, M.
    Olthoff, K.
    Shaked, A.
    Levine, M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2011, 11 : 63 - 63
  • [2] An Outcome-Based Approach to Domiciliary Care
    Sawyer, Lucianne
    JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED CARE, 2005, 13 (03) : 20 - 25
  • [3] Variability in False-Positive Rates of Hepatocellular Carcinoma among Transplant Recipients with MELD Exception Points
    Bauer, Christina M.
    Goldberg, David S.
    HEPATOLOGY, 2015, 62 : 424A - 425A
  • [4] Impact of Revised Policy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma MELD Exception Points on Recurrence after Liver Transplantation.
    Le, P.
    McClelland, L.
    Knapp, K.
    Xu, T.
    Pelletier, S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2019, 19 : 988 - 989
  • [5] Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Meld Priority Points Are Advantaged over Non-Exception Candidates with Equivalent Listing Priority in Argentina.
    Cejas, Nora G.
    Villamil, Federico G.
    Lendoire, Javier C.
    Tagliafichi, Viviana
    Lopez, Arturo
    Hansen Krogh, Daniela
    Soratti, Carlos A.
    Bisigniano, Liliana
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2013, 19 : S156 - S157
  • [6] Impact of the MELD era in liver allocation in Chile: Are candidates with hepatocellular carcinomas been beneficiated due to the exception points?
    Diaz, L.
    Norero, B.
    Urzua, A.
    Mezzano, G.
    Humeres, R.
    Innocenti, F.
    Castro, L.
    Pavez, C.
    Derosas, C.
    Rojas, J.
    Elgueta, S.
    Wolff, R.
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2019, 103 (08) : 384 - 384
  • [7] Stakeholder risk assessment: An outcome-based approach
    Woolridge, Richard W.
    McManus, Denise J.
    Hale, Joanne E.
    IEEE SOFTWARE, 2007, 24 (02) : 36 - +
  • [8] Embracing an outcome-based approach to cyber security
    Brucciani P.
    Network Security, 2023, 2023 (10)
  • [9] NCDs and an outcome-based approach to global health
    Bollyky, Thomas J.
    Emanuel, Ezekiel J.
    Goosby, Eric P.
    Satcher, David
    Shalala, Donna E.
    Thompson, Tommy G.
    LANCET, 2014, 384 (9959): : 2003 - 2004
  • [10] PRO: Patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure should receive MELD exception points
    Dong, Victor
    Cardoso, Filipe S.
    Karvellas, Constantine J.
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2024, 30 (12) : 1316 - 1319