PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States (U.S.).1 The purpose of this review is to highlight published models that predict development of HCC and estimate risk of HCC recurrence after treatments. RECENT FINDINGS: There have been several models created for both de novo HCC and HCC recurrence, with the more recent models using a combination of age, sex, decompensation, and laboratory values (platelet count, albumin, bilirubin), and liver disease etiology to predict both 5 and 10-year HCC incidence. For chronic hepatitis C, sustained virologic response has been a useful component of understanding HCC risk reduction. BMI and diabetes have been utilized in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) models to predict HCC risk. For HCC recurrence after treatment (for both surgical resection and liver transplant), tumor size and number, vascular invasion, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are all components of HCC recurrence risk models. Although numerous HCC risk prediction models have been established over the last several years, challenges remain including how to best incorporate these models into clinical practice, improve surveillance for NAFLD-HCC development, and determine timing and duration of post-resection recurrence surveillance.

Since the Final Rule regarding transplantation was published in 1999, organ distribution policies have been implemented to reduce geographic disparity. While a recent change in liver allocation, termed acuity circles, eliminated the donor service area as a unit of distribution to decrease the geographic disparity of waitlisted patients to liver transplantation, recently published results highlight the complexity of addressing geographic disparity. From geographic variation in donor supply, as well as liver disease burden and differing model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores of candidates and MELD scores necessary to receive liver transplantation, to the urban-rural disparity in specialty care access, and to neighborhood deprivation (community measure of socioeconomic status) in liver transplant access, addressing disparities of access will require a multipronged approach at the patient, transplant center, and national level. Herein, we review the current knowledge of these disparities-from variation in larger (regional) to smaller (census tract or zip code) levels to the common etiologies of liver disease, which are particularly affected by these geographic boundaries. The geographic disparity in liver transplant access must balance the limited organ supply with the growing demand. We must identify patient-level factors that contribute to their geographic disparity and incorporate these findings at the transplant center level to develop targeted interventions. We must simultaneously work at the national level to standardize and share patient data (including socioeconomic status and geographic social deprivation indices) to better understand the factors that contribute to the geographic disparity. The complex interplay between organ distribution policy, referral patterns, and variable waitlisting practices with the proportion of high MELD patients and differences in potential donor supply must all be considered to create a national policy strategy to address the inequities in the system.

Background

Recent endeavors emphasize the importance of understanding early barriers to liver transplantation (LT) by consistently collecting data on patient demographics, socioeconomic factors, and geographic social deprivation indices.

Methods

In this retrospective single-center cohort study of 1657 adults referred for LT evaluation, we assessed the association between community-level vulnerability and individual socioeconomic status measures on the rate of waitlisting and transplantation. Patients' addresses were linked to Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) at the census tract-level to characterize community-level vulnerability. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics. Multivariable cause-specific HRs were used to assess the association between community-level vulnerability, individual measures of the socioeconomic status, and LT evaluation outcomes (waitlist and transplantation).

Results

Among the 1657 patients referred for LT during the study period, 54% were waitlisted and 26% underwent LT. A 0.1 increase in overall SVI correlated with an 8% lower rate of waitlisting (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.96, p < 0.001), with socioeconomic status, household characteristics, housing type and transportation, and racial and ethnic minority status domains contributing significantly to this association. Patients residing in more vulnerable communities experienced a 6% lower rate of transplantation (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91- 0.98, p = 0.007), with socioeconomic status and household characteristic domain of SVI significantly contributing to this association. At the individual level, both government insurance and employment status were associated with lower rates of waitlisting and transplantation. There was no association with mortality prior to waitlisting or mortality while on the waitlist.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that both individual and community measures of the socioeconomic status (overall SVI) are associated with LT evaluation outcomes. Furthermore, we identified individual measures of neighborhood deprivation associated with both waitlisting and transplantation.

Background

Most patients are listed for liver transplant (LT) following extensive workup as outpatients ("conventional evaluation"). Some patients undergo urgent evaluation as inpatients after being transferred to a transplant center ("expedited evaluation"). We hypothesized that expedited patients would have inferior survival due to disease severity at the time of transplant and shorter workup time.

Methods

Patients who underwent evaluation for LT at our institution between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The expedited and conventional cohorts were defined as above. Living donor LT recipients, combined liver-kidney recipients, acute liver failure patients, and re-transplant patients were excluded. We compared patient characteristics and overall survival between patients who received a transplant following expedited evaluation and those who did not, and between LT recipients based on expedited or conventional evaluation.

Results

Five-hundred and nine patients were included (110 expedited, 399 conventional). There was no difference in graft or patient survival at 1 year for expedited versus conventional LT recipients. In multivariable analysis of overall survival, only Donor Risk Index (HR 1.97, CI 1.04-3.73, P = .037, per unit increase) was associated with increased risk of death.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent expedited evaluation for LT had significant demographic and clinical differences from patients who underwent conventional evaluation, but comparable post-transplant survival.