Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Oct 15, 2018; 10(10): 336-343
Published online Oct 15, 2018. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i10.336
Table 1 Morphological criteria used in selection of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation
Ref.YearSize and number
Milan[5]19961 lesion ≤ 5 cm, or 2 to 3 lesions each ≤ 3
University of California San Francisco[6]20011 lesion ≤ 6.5 cm, 2-3 lesions each ≤ 4.5 cm with total tumor diameter ≤ 8 cm
Tokyo University[8]2008Up to 5 tumors, each < 5 cm
Asan Medical Center[9]2008The largest tumor diameter < 5 cm, tumor number ≤ 6
Alberta[10]2008Total tumor volume < 115 cm
Valencia[11]2008Up to 3 tumors, each < 5 cm, and a cumulative tumor burden ≤ 10 cm
Up-to-seven[7]20097 as the sum of the size of the largest tumor and total number of tumors
Table 2 The use of biomarkers with expanded morphological criteria
Ref.YearNo. of patientsCriteriaOverall survival
Within criteriaBeyond criteria
Kyoto[21]2007136Up to 10 tumors, all ≤ 5 cm; DCP ≤ 400 ng/mL87% (5-yr)37% (5-yr)
Kyushu[22]200740Any number, tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm; DCP < 300 ng/mL77% (3-yr)40% (3-yr)
Seoul[23]2007140Any number, tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm; AFP ≤ 400 ng/mL87% (5-yr)23% (5-yr)
Hangzhou[24]2008195Total tumor diameter ≤ 8 cm; or total tumor diameter > 8 cm and grade I/II and AFP ≤ 400 ng/mL71% (5-yr)19% (5-yr)
Table 3 The criteria used for prediction of biological behavior of hepatocellular carcinoma in the pre-transplant setting
Biomarkers (AFP, DCP)[21-24]
The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio[27]
Pre-transplant liver biopsy[12]
Response to loco-regional therapy[19]
Test of time (3-mo waiting period)[19,26]
Dynamic evaluation (tumor doubling time and change in AFP)[19]
FDG-PET scan
Table 4 The standardized uptake values used to define clinically significant 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography positivity for hepatocellular carcinoma
Ref.YearNo. of patientsStudy modelSUV values
SUVmaxTSUVmax-to-LSUVmaxTSUVmax-to-LSUVmean
Lee et al[34]200959LT31.151.35
Song et al[35]201283LRT41.451.9
Lee et al[36]2015280LDLT4.4
Hsu et al[37]2016147LDLT4.82
Hong et al[38]2016123LDLT1.1
Boussouar et al[39]201628LT1.15
Bailly et al[40]201634LT1.15
Lin et al[41]201765LT3.81.491.69
Table 5 The use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in predicting post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma recurrences
Ref.YearFollow-up (mo)Recurrence
Disease-free survivalRisk of recurrence (95%CI)
PET/CT (+)PET/CT (-)
Yang et al[28]20061913/825/32-yr, 46.1% vs 85.1%OR = 7.6 (1.9-28.9)
Kornberg et al[56]200911.519/936/13-yr, 46.9% vs 93.3%OR = 23.9 (2.1-268.5)
Lee et al[34]201326.155/22136/163-yr, 57.1% vs 86.8%HR = 3.9 (1.1-13.0)
Hsu et al[37]201625.830/9117/95-yr, 68.3 vs 84.8%HR = 13.5 (4.7-38.2)
Kornberg et al[57]20177441/2475/55-yr, 38.1% vs 93.3%HR = 22.8 (6.3-83.0)
Ye et al[63]201725.778/4625/75-yr, 21.9% vs 76%HR = 3.6 (1.3-9.6)