Abstract:Currently, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide; 82% of the cases occur in developing countries, with 55% occurring in China [1]. Liver transplantation (LT), a potentially curative thera peutic modality of HCC, allows radical extirpation of the cancer and restores normal liver function. There is increasing evidence that, in the long term, LT will be the best therapeutic option for cirrhosis-associated HCC [2]. Unfortunately, the recurrence rate is high in HCC patients who undergo LT, which markedly reduces the longterm and medium-term survival of HCC patients [3]. Therefore, risk estimation of post-transplant tumor recurrence is an essential element in selecting a subset of HCC patients for LT. In clinical practice, this risk estimation is based on the number and size of the nodules, and microscopic/macroscopic vascular invasion; and selection criteria for LT have been established to select HCC patients according to these clinical features. The Milan criteria proposed by Mazzaferro and his colleagues – a single lesion of 5 cm or smaller in diameter, or three lesions each smaller than 3 cm in diameter, and without macroscopic vascular invasion – have been accepted worldwide for identifying candidates with good prognosis and low recurrence rates [4]. The Milan criteria were chosen in an attempt to minimize the difference in outcomes between transplanted HCC patients and those who did not have HCC, and these criteria have been adopted for organ allocation in the USA and in Europe [5,6]. Despite their proven utility, many recent data have suggested that these criteria are too restrictive, and many patients with tumor burdens outside the Milan criteria may potentially benefit from LT. Moreover, limiting LT to HCC patients within the Milan criteria may be unjust for those outside of the criteria who could have a favorable outcome with LT. Several expansions of the Milan criteria have been proposed. Yao and coworkers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF; CA, USA) reported that LT candidates with a solitary tumor of 6.5 cm in diameter or smaller, or three or fewer nodules with the largest lesion no larger than 4.5 cm in diameter, and a total tumor diameter no larger than 8 cm (the so-called UCSF criteria) achieved excellent results following LT that were not different from those for HCC patients within the Milan criteria [7]. Although the UCSF criteria have been validated by several groups [8], these criteria have not been accepted unanimously, which may be related to the results of a large multi center study that suggested the UCSF criteria to be associated with a 5-year survival rate of less than 50% when applied to preoperative evaluation [9]. In addition, the UCSF criteria allow LT for large tumors, which have been proven to be associated with post-transplant metastatic recurrence [10]. Lastly, both the Milan and the UCSF criteria exclude those patients with more than three nodules, who may obtain good outcomes if the tumors are of a reasonable size. Toso and his colleagues proposed an expansion of the current allocation criteria Zhi Dai, PhD Liver Cancer Institute, Shanghai 200032, PR China dai.zhi@zs-hospital.sh.cn

Downstaging Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma to the Milan Criteria May Provide a Comparable Outcome to Conventional Milan Criteria

Downstaging treatment for patients with hepatocelluar carcinoma before transplantation

Downstaging of hepatocellular cancer before liver transplant: Long‐term outcome compared to tumors within Milan criteria

Hangzhou Criteria Are More Accurate Than Milan Criteria in Predicting Long-Term Survival after Liver Transplantation for HCC in Germany

Hangzhou criteria as downstaging criteria in hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation: A multicenter study from China

Transplantation Vs Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Compensated Liver Function after Downstaging Therapy.

Comparison Between Living Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients Who Met the Milan and UCSF Criteria after Successful Downstaging Therapies

Liver-directed combined radiotherapy for downstaging beyond-Milan hepatocellular carcinoma to liver transplantation

Outcome Comparisons among the Hangzhou, Chengdu, and UCSF Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Liver Transplantation after Successful Downstaging Therapies.

Multidisciplinary approaches to downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma: present and future

[Selection Criteria for Liver Transplantation Recipients of Hepatocellular Carcinoma].

Downstaging of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma followed by liver transplantation using immune checkpoint inhibitors: Where do we stand?

Immediate Radical Therapy or Conservative Treatments When Meeting the Milan Criteria for Advanced HCC Patients After Successful TACE

Results of hepatocellular carcinoma downstaging through hepatic transarterial chemoembolization in liver transplantation

Liver Transplantation Outcomes in a U.S. Multicenter Cohort of 789 Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Presenting Beyond Milan Criteria

Downstaging Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy Improves Access to Curative Liver Transplant

Comparison of Survival and Tumor Recurrence Rates in Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation for Hepatitis B-related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Milan, Shanghai Fudan and Hangzhou Criteria.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Patients Who Underwent Deceased-Donor or Living-Donor Liver Transplantation after Successful Downstaging Therapy

Molecular Markers and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Lending a Helping Hand in Liver Transplantation?

Surgical Resection Versus Open-Approach Radiofrequency Ablation for Small Hepatocellular Carcinomas Within Milan Criteria after Successful Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria