Propensity-matched analysis of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or mixed hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing a liver transplant

• Autor(a) principal: Brandao, Ajacio Bandeira de Mello
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Rodríguez, Santiago, Fleck Júnior, Alfeu de Medeiros, Marroni, Claudio Augusto, Wagner, Mario Bernardes, Horbe, Alex Finger, Fernandes, Matheus Vanzin, Cerski, Carlos Thadeu Schmidt, Coral, Gabriela Perdomo
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/266990
• topic: Transplante de fígado; Prognóstico; Carcinoma hepatocelular; Colangiocarcinoma; Cholangiocarcinoma; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver; Prognosis; Recurrence; Survival analysis; Transplantation

BACKGROUND Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) is a rare tumor that arises from the epithelium of the bile ducts. It is classified according to anatomic location as intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal. Intrahepatic CC (ICC) is rare in patients with cirrhosis due to causes other than primary sclerosing cholangitis. Mixed hepatocellular carcinoma-CC (HCC-CC) is a rare neoplasm that shows histologic findings of both HCC and ICC within the same tumor mass. Due to the difficulties in arriving at the correct diagnosis, patients eventually undergo liver transplantation (LT) with a presumptive diagnosis of HCC on imaging when, in fact, they have ICC or HCC-CC. AIM To evaluate the outcomes of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or mixed hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma on pathological examination after liver transplant. METHODS Propensity score matching was used to analyze tumor recurrence (TR), overall mortality (OM), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in LT recipients with pathologically confirmed ICC or HCC-CC matched 1:8 to those with HCC. Progression-free survival and overall mortality rates were computed with the Kaplan-Meier method using Cox regression for comparison. RESULTS Of 475 HCC LT recipients, 1.7% had the diagnosis of ICC and 1.5% of HCC-CC on pathological examination of the explant. LT recipients with ICC had higher TR (46% vs 11%; P = 0.006), higher OM (63% vs 23%; P = 0.002), and lower RFS (38% vs 89%; P = 0.002) than those with HCC when matched for pretransplant tumor characteristics, as well as higher TR (46% vs 23%; P = 0.083), higher OM (63% vs 35%; P = 0.026), and lower RFS (38% vs 59%; P = 0.037) when matched for posttransplant tumor characteristics. Two pairings were performed to compare the outcomes of LT recipients with HCC-CC vs HCC. There was no significant difference between the outcomes in either pairing. CONCLUSION Patients with ICC had worse outcomes than patients undergoing LT for HCC. The outcomes of patients with HCC-CC did not differ significantly from those of patients with HCC.