Faculty Bibliography

The impact of liver transplant allocation policy using acuity circles (ACs) on interactions between race and gender on waitlist mortality or receipt of deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) is unknown. Using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), we examined adults listed for DDLT from April 3, 2017, to October 4, 2022 (30 months pre- and post-AC). Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard model explored AC indicators by race and gender interactions and their effect on receipt of DDLT or waitlist mortality. Also explored was AC's impact on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis and receipt of DDLT or waitlist mortality. 59 592 patients (30 202 pre-AC, 29 390 post-AC) included. For both receipt of DDLT and waitlist mortality, there were no 3-way (AC by race by gender) interactions, indicating that the effects of race and gender on DDLT or waitlist mortality were consistent pre- and post-AC. Irrespective of AC implementation, Black and Hispanic women were less likely to receive DDLT and had an increased risk of waitlist mortality compared to White women. White, Black, and Hispanic men had lower waitlist mortality risk and greater likelihood of receiving DDLT compared to their female race/ethnic counterparts. Patients with HCC had a significantly greater chance for DDLT than non-HCC, although post-AC this effect was attenuated. Patients with HCC were also at greater risk of waitlist mortality pre- and post-AC compared to those without HCC however, the waitlist mortality post-AC was attenuated only for those patients without HCC. To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the interaction of gender and race on waitlist mortality and access to transplantation since the implementation of AC, showing continued disparate outcomes for women both within and across racial groups.

BACKGROUND:Best practices in psychosocial evaluation and care of living donor candidates and donors are not well established. METHODS:We surveyed 195 living kidney donor (LKD) transplant centers in United States from October 2021 to April 2022 querying (1) composition of psychosocial teams, (2) evaluation processes including clinical tools and domains assessed, (3) selection criteria, and (4) psychosocial follow-up post-donation. RESULTS:We received 161 responses from 104 programs, representing 53% of active LKD programs and 67% of LKD transplant volume in 2019. Most respondents (63%) were social workers/independent living donor advocates. Over 90% of respondents indicated donor candidates with known mental health or substance use disorders were initially evaluated by the psychosocial team. Validated psychometric or transplant-specific tools were rarely utilized but domains assessed were consistent. Active suicidality, self-harm, and psychosis were considered absolute contraindications in >90% of programs. Active depression was absolute contraindication in 50% of programs; active anxiety disorder was excluded 27%. Conditions not contraindicated to donation include those in remission: anxiety (56%), depression (53%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (41%). There was acceptance of donor candidates using alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis recreationally, but not if pattern met criteria for active use disorder. Seventy-one percent of programs conducted post-donation psychosocial assessment and use local resources to support donors. CONCLUSIONS:There was variation in acceptance of donor candidates with mental health or substance use disorders. Although most programs conducted psychosocial screening post-donation, support is not standardized and unclear if adequate. Future studies are needed for consensus building among transplant centers to form guidelines for donor evaluation, acceptance, and support.

With the increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in both the United States and globally, the role of liver transplantation in management continues to be an area of active conversation as it is often considered the gold standard in the treatment of HCC. The use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and the indications in the setting of malignancy, both generally and in HCC specifically, are frequently debated. In terms of both overall survival and recurrence-free survival, LDLT is at least equivalent to DDLT, especially when performed for disease within Milan criteria. Emerging and compelling evidence suggests that LDLT is superior to DDLT in treating HCC as there is a significant decrease in waitlist mortality. As the oncologic indications for liver transplantation continue to expand and the gap between organ demand and organ availability continues to worsen, high volumes centers should consider using LDLT to shrink the ever-expanding waitlist.

We surveyed living donor liver transplant programs in the United States to describe practices in the psychosocial evaluation of living donors focused on (1) composition of psychosocial team; (2) domains, workflow, and tools of the psychosocial assessment; (3) absolute and relative mental health-related contraindications to donation; and (4) postdonation psychosocial follow-up. We received 52 unique responses, representing 33 of 50 (66%) of active living donor liver transplant programs. Thirty-one (93.9%) provider teams included social workers, 22 (66.7%) psychiatrists, and 14 (42.4%) psychologists. Validated tools were rarely used, but domains assessed were consistent. Respondents rated active alcohol (93.8%), cocaine (96.8%), and opioid (96.8%) use disorder, as absolute contraindications to donation. Active suicidality (97%), self-injurious behavior (90.9%), eating disorders (87.9%), psychosis (84.8%), nonadherence (71.9%), and inability to cooperate with the evaluation team (78.1%) were absolute contraindications to donation. There were no statistically significant differences in absolute psychosocial contraindications to liver donation between geographical areas or between large and small programs. Programs conduct postdonation psychosocial follow-up (57.6%) or screening (39.4%), but routine follow-up of declined donors is rarely conducted (15.8%). Psychosocial evaluation of donor candidates is a multidisciplinary process. The structure of the psychosocial evaluation of donors is not uniform among programs though the domains assessed are consistent. Psychosocial contraindications to living liver donation vary among the transplant programs. Mental health follow-up of donor candidates is not standardized.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of patients post-living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) within and outside standard transplantation selection criteria and the added value of the incorporation of the New York-California (NYCA) score. BACKGROUND:LDLT offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplantation waitlist, reduce waitlist mortality, and expand selection criteria for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS:Primary adult LDLT recipients between October 1999 and August 2019 were identified from a multicenter cohort of 12 North American centers. Posttransplantation and recurrence-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS:Three hundred sixty LDLTs were identified. Patients within Milan criteria (MC) at transplantation had a 1, 5, and 10-year posttransplantation survival of 90.9%, 78.5%, and 64.1% versus outside MC 90.4%, 68.6%, and 57.7% ( P = 0.20), respectively. For patients within the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, respective posttransplantation survival was 90.6%, 77.8%, and 65.0%, versus outside UCSF 92.1%, 63.8%, and 45.8% ( P = 0.08). Fifty-three (83%) patients classified as outside MC at transplantation would have been classified as either low or acceptable risk with the NYCA score. These patients had a 5-year overall survival of 72.2%. Similarly, 28(80%) patients classified as outside UCSF at transplantation would have been classified as a low or acceptable risk with a 5-year overall survival of 65.3%. CONCLUSIONS:Long-term survival is excellent for patients with HCC undergoing LDLT within and outside selection criteria, exceeding the minimum recommended 5-year rate of 60% proposed by consensus guidelines. The NYCA categorization offers insight into identifying a substantial proportion of patients with HCC outside the MC and the UCSF criteria who still achieve similar post-LDLT outcomes as patients within the criteria.

BACKGROUND:Whole-exome sequencing (WES) is an effective tool for diagnosis in patients who remain undiagnosed despite a comprehensive clinical work-up. While WES is being used increasingly in pediatrics and oncology, it remains underutilized in non-oncological adult medicine, including in patients with liver disease, in part based on the faulty premise that adults are unlikely to harbor rare genetic variants with large effect size. Here, we aim to assess the burden of rare genetic variants underlying liver disease in adults at two major tertiary referral academic medical centers. METHODS:WES analysis paired with comprehensive clinical evaluation was performed in fifty-two adult patients with liver disease of unknown etiology evaluated at two US tertiary academic health care centers. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Exome analysis uncovered a definitive or presumed diagnosis in 33% of patients (17/52) providing insight into their disease pathogenesis, with most of these patients (12/17) not having a known family history of liver disease. Our data shows that over two-thirds of undiagnosed liver disease patients attaining a genetic diagnosis were being evaluated for cholestasis or hepatic steatosis of unknown etiology. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:This study reveals an underappreciated incidence and spectrum of genetic diseases presenting in adulthood and underscores the clinical value of incorporating exome sequencing in the evaluation and management of adults with liver disease of unknown etiology. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:S.V. is supported by the NIH/NIDDK (K08 DK113109 and R01 DK131033-01A1) and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Grant #2019081. This work was supported in part by NIH-funded Yale Liver Center, P30 DK34989.

The practice of LDLT currently delivers limited impact in western transplant centers. The American Society of Transplantation organized a virtual consensus conference in October 2021 to identify barriers and gaps to LDLT growth, and to provide evidence-based recommendations to foster safe expansion of LDLT in the United States. This article reports the findings and recommendations regarding innovations and advances in approaches to donor-recipient matching challenges, the technical aspects of the donor and recipient operations, and surgical training. Among these themes, the barriers deemed most influential/detrimental to LDLT expansion in the United States included: (1) prohibitive issues related to donor age, graft size, insufficient donor remnant, and ABO incompatibility; (2) lack of acknowledgment and awareness of the excellent outcomes and benefits of LDLT; (3) ambiguous messaging regarding LDLT to patients and hospital leadership; and (4) a limited number of proficient LDLT surgeons across the United States. Donor-recipient mismatching may be circumvented by way of liver paired exchange. The creation of a national registry to generate granular data on donor-recipient matching will guide the practice of liver paired exchange. The surgical challenges to LDLT are addressed herein and focuses on the development of robust training pathways resulting in proficiency in donor and recipient surgery. Utilizing strong mentorship/collaboration programs with novel training practices under the auspices of established training and certification bodies will add to the breadth and depth of training.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur. METHODS:In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier. RESULTS:Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs. CONCLUSIONS:Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can help address the growing organ shortage in the United States, yet little is known about the current practice patterns in the medical evaluation of living liver donors. We conducted a 131-question survey of all 53 active LDLT transplant programs in the United States to assess current LDLT practices. The response rate was 100%. Donor acceptance rate was 0.33 with an interquartile range of 0.33-0.54 across all centers. Areas of high intercenter agreement included minimum age cutoff of 18 years (73.6%) and the exclusion of those with greater than Class 1 obesity (body mass index, 30.0-34.9 m/kg² ) (88.4%). Diabetes mellitus was not an absolute exclusion at most centers (61.5%). Selective liver biopsies were performed for steatosis or iron overload on imaging (67.9% and 62.3%, respectively) or for elevated liver enzymes (60.4%). Steatohepatitis is considered an exclusion at most centers (84.9%). The most common hypercoagulable tests performed were factor V Leiden (FVL) (88.5%), protein C (73.1%), protein S (71.2%), antithrombin III (71.2%) and prothrombin gene mutation (65.4%). At 41.5% of centers, donors were allowed to proceed with donation with FVL heterozygote status. Most programs discontinue oral contraceptive pills at least 28 days prior to surgery. At most centers, the need for cardiovascular ischemic risk testing is based on age (73.6%) and the presence of one or more cardiac risk factors (68.0%). Defining areas of practice consensus and variation underscores the need for data generation to develop evidence-based guidance for the evaluation and risk assessment of living liver donors.