Conundrum of treatment for early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma: Radiofrequency ablation instead of liver transplantation as the first‐line treatment?

F. Yao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.23848

2014-03-01

Liver Transplantation

Abstract:Liver transplantation (LT) has had an enormous impact on the treatment of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for almost 2 decades, to the point where we no longer question the value of this lifesaving procedure but instead grapple with how to use the scarce resource of donor organs to best serve both HCC patients and those with end-stage liver disease without HCC. Since the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) allocation scheme for HCC was implemented in the United States in 2002, the proportion of patients receiving priority listing with HCC MELD exceptions has almost doubled from 10.5% to 19.4%. There is a growing body of evidence showing that patients with HCC are given an unfair advantage in organ allocation over non-HCC patients listed for LT on the basis of their calculated MELD scores. While LT is the only lifesaving treatment possible for listed patients with liver failure, there are alternative treatments for HCC that provide effective initial control of tumor progression, although the long-term outcomes are less favorable in comparison with LT. According to 2 recently updated guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver, surgical resection is the first-line treatment for patients with a small, solitary HCC and either no cirrhosis or Child A cirrhosis with no portal hypertension, whereas LT should be reserved for patients who are not resection candidates because of the presence of portal hypertension, hepatic dysfunction, or technical factors. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has emerged as another potentially curative treatment for HCC. Published data on percutaneous RFA have shown that patients with a solitary HCC and Child class A cirrhosis can achieve long-term survival comparable to that achieved with surgical resection, and 3 randomized trials comparing RFA with surgical resection have not provided unequivocal evidence for the superiority of one modality over the other. A major limitation of RFA is the high incidence of HCC recurrence (50%-80% at 5 years), which is mostly due to the emergence of new tumors rather than local tumor progression. A strategy that has recently been proposed is first to perform RFA for LT candidates with HCC and then to subject them to LT only if recurrence develops after RFA; this would reduce the burden of HCC patients on the LT waiting list. Who should be considered for this strategy? Ideally, we would select patients with the highest probability for a long-term cure after RFA and the lowest risk for HCC recurrence. However, HCC recurrence occurs in up to 80% of patients within 5 years after RFA, and thus a more clinically relevant question is what proportion of patients will remain candidates for salvage LT determined by size and number of the recurrent tumors still within acceptable LT criteria.