Impact of non-oncological factors on tumor recurrence after liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Table 1 Studies with different basal immunosuppression schedules for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantationv

Ref.	Year	Immunosuppressor type	Evaluated parameters	Recurrence rate	P value
Rodríguez-Perálvarez et al[10]	2013	CNI	Low exposure 1stvs high exposure 1st	27.7% vs 14.7% at 5 yr	0.007
Vivarelli et al[16]	2005	CSA	Low exposure vs high exposure	0% vs 33.3%	< 0.001
Vivarelli et al[14]	2008	TAC	Low exposure vs high exposure	9.1% vs 50%	0.001
Menon et al[21]	2013	SRL and CNIs	SRL vs CNIs	4.9%-12.9% vs 17.3%-38.7%	NA
Cholongitas et al[22]	2014	CNIs and mTORi	CNIs vs mTORi	22% vs 44%	< 0.050

CNI: Calcineurin inhibitors; CsA: Cyclosporine A; TAC: Tacrolimus; SRL: Sirolimus; mTORi: The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors; NA: Not analyzed.

Table 2 Disadvantages and rates of tumor recurrence after living donor liver transplantation and piggyback liver transplantation compared to deceased donor liver transplantation and conventional orthotropic liver transplantation, respectively

Transplant type	Disadvantages	Rate of tumor recurrence
LDLT vs DDLT	The small-sized graft, the “fast-tracking effect”, the sparing of the inferior vena cava, and more extensive manipulation	28.6% vs 12.1%, P < 0.05[34]; 19.3% vs 6%, P < 0.05 (cumulative 5-yr)[32]
PB-LT vs CON-LT	The positive vena cava margin and greater manipulation of the diseased liver	6.3% vs 10.1%, P > 0.05[48]

LDLT: Living donor liver transplantation; DDLT: Deceased donor liver transplantation; PB-LT: Piggyback liver transplantation; CON-LT: Conventional orthotropic liver transplantation.

Table 3 Studies comparing the effects of recipient and donor characteristics on tumor recurrence among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation

Ref.	Year	Characteristics	Evaluated parameter	Recurrence rate	P value
Recipient
Mathur et al[59]	2014	Overweight or obese	Overweight vs obese vs non-obese	15% vs 15% vs 7%	< 0.050
Ballarin et al[70]	2011	Age	Elderly vs younger	7.1% vs 4.8%	> 0.050
Yang et al[73]	2014	Gender	Male vs female	NA	NA
Donor
Nagai et al[74]	2014	Ischemia times	CIT >10 h vs < 10 h and WIT > 50 min vs ≤ 50 min	NA	0.015
Sharma et al[85]	2012	Age	Median donor age for patients with HCC recurrence vs without HCC recurrence	NA	0.008
Miyagi et al[94]	2012	ABO-I graft	Strong imunosuppressive therapy vs other imunosuppressive therapy	NA	NA
Teng da et al[96]	2012	Steatosis donor liver	Grafts with no steatosis vs mild steatosis vs moderate-to-severe steatosis	15.8% vs 8.3% vs 33.3% at 1 yr; 28.7% vs 20.8% vs 50% at 3 yr	> 0.050

CIT: Cold ischemia times; WIT: Warm ischemia times; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; ABO-I: ABO-incompatible; NA: Not analyzed.