Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37201081›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2023

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series.

Mark Rudolph, Shimul A Shah, Ralph Quillin, Kristina Lemon, Olugbenga Olowokure, Tahir Latif, Davendra Sohal

Open access · diamondAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark RudolphDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Shimul A ShahDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Ralph QuillinDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Kristina LemonDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Olugbenga OlowokureDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Tahir LatifDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Davendra SohalDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
University of Cincinnati · USNHS Blood and Transplant · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the setting of liver transplant (LT) pose a risk of rejection and hold unclear benefit in both the neoadjuvant (pre-transplant) and post-transplant salvage setting. In the pre-transplant setting, neoadjuvant ICIs may serve as a bridge to LT by downstaging disease burden to fit within transplant criteria. Outcomes in this setting include patients who had successful transplants without complications to patients who suffered severe complications, including fatal hepatic necrosis and graft failure requiring re-transplant. Some authors suggest having a period of three months between checkpoint inhibition and transplant may help mitigate adverse effects. In the post-LT setting, there are few treatment options if there is a recurrence of disease, which forces treatment teams to reconsider checkpoint inhibitors. Again, a longer period of time between transplant and checkpoint inhibition may reduce risk of rejection. Case reports of patients treated with ICIs post-transplant utilized either nivolumab or pembrolizumab. As combination atezolizumab/bevacizumab is a relatively new treatment option for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there are only three reported cases using this combination in the post-LT setting. While there were no cases of rejection, all three cases had progression of disease. As immunotherapy joins transplantation as a mainstay of treatment for HCC, it remains unclear how to best navigate when the treatment course involves both immune activation and immunosuppression. Case Description: Patients who had an LT and were treated with ICIs (pre or post LT) at the University of Cincinnati were included in this retrospective chart review. Conclusions: Fatal rejection remains a significant risk even 4 years after LT. Neoadjuvant ICIs also pose a risk for acute cellular rejection; however, this may not always be clinically significant. Graft versus host disease (GVHD) may be an additional, previously unreported risk of ICIs in the setting of LT. Prospective studies are needed to understand benefits and risks of checkpoint inhibitors in the LT setting.

Indexed as

case seriescholangiocarcinomahepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)Liver transplant (LT)

Identifiers

PMID37201081
PMCPMC10186520
OpenAlexW4362569299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.