Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29167827›Full record

ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2017

Hepatocellular cancer and recurrence after liver transplantation: what about the impact of immunosuppression?

Jan Lerut, Samuele Iesari, Maxime Foguenne, Quirino Lai

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jan LerutStarzl Unit Abdominal Transplantation, University Hospitals Saint Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Samuele IesariGeneral Surgery and Organ Transplantation, Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Maxime FoguenneStarzl Unit Abdominal Transplantation, University Hospitals Saint Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Quirino LaiHepato-bilio-pancreatic and Liver Transplant Unit, Department of Surgery, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BESapienza University of Rome · ITUCLouvain · BEUniversity of L'Aquila · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liver transplantation (LT) has originally been designed to treat hepatobiliary malignancies. The initial results of LT for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) were, however, dismal this mainly due to the poor patient selection procedure. Better surgical and perioperative care and, especially, the refinement of selection criteria led to a major improvement of results, making HCC nowadays (again!) one of the leading indications for LT. This evolution is clearly shown by the innumerable reports aiming to further extend inclusion criteria for LT in HCC patients. Nonetheless, the vast majority of papers only deals with morphologic (tumour diameter and number) and (only recently) biologic (tumour markers and response to locoregional treatment) parameters to do so. Curiously enough, the role of both the immune competent state of the recipient as well as the impact of both immunosuppression (IS) type and load has been very poorly addressed in this context, even if it has been shown for a long time, based on both basic and clinical research, that they all play a key role in the outcome of any oncologic treatment and in the development of de novo as well as recurrent tumours. This chapter aims to give, after a short introductive note about the currently used inclusion criteria of HCC patients for LT and about the role of IS in carcinogenesis, a comprehensive overview of the actual literature related to the impact of different immunosuppressive drugs and schemes on outcome of LT in HCC recipients. Unfortunately, up to now solid conclusions cannot be drawn due to the lack of high-level evidence studies caused by the heterogeneity of the studied patient cohorts and the lack of prospectively designed and randomized studies. Based on long-term personal experience with immunosuppressive handling in LT some proposals for further clinical research and practice are put forward. The strategy of curtailing and minimising IS should be explored in the growing field of transplant oncology taking thereby into account the immunological privilege of the liver allograft. These strategies will become more and more compelling when further extending the indications in which adjuvant chemotherapy will probably become an inherent part of the therapeutic scheme of HCC liver recipients.

Indexed as

antimetabolitesazathioprine (AZA)calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)cyclosporine A (CyA)everolimus (EVL)hepatocellular cancer (HCC)immunosuppression (IS)IS minimizationliver cancerLiver transplantation (LT)mTOR inhibitormycophenolic acid (MPA)sirolimus (SRL)steroid avoidancesteroidstacrolimus (TAC)tumour recurrence

Identifiers

PMID29167827
PMCPMC5676205
OpenAlexW2762353311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.