Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Role of inflammatory and immunological state on recurrence and prognosis

doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i48.9174

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 19, Issue 48

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (6033)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Tables (1-2) series.

Item

Count

PDF

521

HTML

4037

Tables (1-2)

243

Sum=4801

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

666

Download

566

Sum=1232

Dec 28, 2013 (publication date) through Sep 20, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (40)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Topic Highlight

World J Gastroenterol. Dec 28, 2013; 19(48): 9174-9182
Published online Dec 28, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i48.9174

Table 2 Studies reporting the effect of different basal immunosuppression schedules on the outcome of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Ref.	Evaluatedimmunosuppressor	Evaluated parameter	Patients (n)	Overall recurrence rate	Outcome parameters	Pvalue
Vivarelli et al[24]	CsA cumulative dosage 1^st yr	Low dosage 1^st yr vs high dosage 1^st yr	39 vs 30	12.20%	5 yr RFS: 93% vs 5 yr RFS: 76%	0.0100
Kneteman et al[25]	SRL	in MC vs out MC	19 vs 21	12.50%	4 yr RFS: 81.1% vs 4 yr RFS: 76.8%	0.4800
Vivarelli et al[26]	CsA	Low exposure vs high exposure	49 vs 21	10.00%	RR: 0% vs RR: 33.3%	< 0.0010
Decaens et al[27]	CNI	CsA vs TAC	264 vs 119	31.80%	5 yr RFS: 52.5% vs 5 yr RFS: 70.8%	0.0030
Decaens et al[27]	ATG/OKT3	Not administered vs administered	356 vs 55	31.80%	5 yr RFS: 58.8% vs 5 yr RFS: 45.4%	0.0200
Vivarelli et al[7]	TAC	Low exposure vs high exposure	44 vs 16	20.00%	RR: 9.1% vs RR: 50%	0.0010
Zhou et al[28]	TAC and SRLin patients outMC	TAC vs SRL	46 vs 27	27.40%	2 yr OS: 50.9% vs 2 yr OS: 80.6%	0.0110
Zimmerman et al[29]	TAC and SRL	TAC + MMF vs TAC + SRL	52 vs 45	12.40%	5 yr RFS: 54.0% vs 5 yr RFS: 78.8%	-
Chinnakotla et al[8]	TAC and SRL	TAC + MMF vs SRL	106 vs 121	11.00%	5 yr RFS: 60% vs 5 yr RFS: 80%	0.0001
Vivarelli et al[30]	TAC and SRL	TAC vs TAC + SRL	31 vs 31	25.80%	3 yr RFS: 56% vs 3 yr RFS: 86%	0.0400
Toso et al[31]	SRL	Not administered vs administered	2382 vs 109	-	5 yr OS: 68.7% vs 5 yr OS: 83.1%	≤ 0.0500
Xing et al[32]	Basiliximab and steroids in patients in MC	TAC + MMF + basiliximab vs TAC + MMF + steroids	28 vs 36	-	5 yr OS: 88.9% vs 5 yr OS: 57.4%	0.0220
Rodríguez-Perálvarez et al[33]	CNI	Low exposure 1^st mo vs high exposure 1^st mo	171 vs 48	16.40%	5 yr RR: 14.7% vs 5 yr RR: 27%	0.0070

LT: Liver transplantation; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; CsA: Cyclosporine A; RFS: Recurrence free survival; SRL: Sirolimus; MC: Milan criteria; RR: Recurrence rate; CNI: Calcineurin inhibitors; TAC: Tacrolimus; ATG: Anti-thymocyte globulins; OS: Overall survival; MMF: Mycophenolate mofetil.

Citation: Cescon M, Bertuzzo VR, Ercolani G, Ravaioli M, Odaldi F, Pinna AD. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Role of inflammatory and immunological state on recurrence and prognosis. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(48): 9174-9182
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v19/i48/9174.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i48.9174