Abstract
Purpose of Review
Accumulating evidence suggest that selected patients with nonresectable liver only metastases from colorectal cancer can be offered liver transplantation with acceptable outcome. This review provides an update on the scientific literature.
Recent Findings
The SECA-I study showed an estimated 5-year survival of 60% in a heterogenous patient population and guided the development of the first clinical selection criteria. In the sequel SECA-II trial, an estimated 5-year survival of 83% was obtained. A recent study shows that an Oslo score of 0–2, a metabolic tumor volume below 70 cm3 on PET-CT or Fong score of 0–2 at time of listing, can stratify patients with superior survival. Recurrence is common, but about 70% are slow-growing lung metastases, whereof the majority are resectable.
Summary
Liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastasis is an option in highly selected patients. Futile use of grafts can be avoided by applying stringent selection criteria.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy worldwide with a particular high prevalence in the developed countries [1]. For the last decennials, there has been an increase in cases in the younger age groups [2, 3].
Almost 50% of CRC patients will develop metastasis, and the liver is the most often involved organ. The only treatment option providing potential long-term survival for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) is hepatic resection. The outcomes in terms of overall survival rates (OS) following liver resection are variable, ranging from about 30 to 60% at 5 years. Prognostic factors influencing OS are metastatic tumor load in terms of number of liver metastases and maximal size of the largest lesion, plasma CEA levels, mutational status of the RAS oncogenes, node status of the primary, presence of extrahepatic metastases, and sideness (right sided versus left sided) of the primary tumor [4,5,6,7,8]. Well-selected patients may obtain a 5-year survival rate between 50 and 60% [9].
Criteria for resectability have changed over time by the introduction of efficient chemotherapy for downstaging and techniques like two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) [8, 10]. Furthermore, the size of the future liver remnant (FLR) may be augmented by portal vein embolization (PVE) or associating liver partition and staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) to increase resectability [11]. Nevertheless, only 20–25% of patients with CRLM are suitable for resection during the course of the disease [12]. Hence, the standard treatment option for most patients remains palliative chemotherapy and the 5-year overall survival rates are about 10% [13].
The idea of LT to treat hepatic malignances is as old as transplant itself [14], but the early enthusiasm was curbed by dismal results. In 1991 the Vienna Group reported an OS at 5 years of 12% and recurrence rate over 60% for LT in patients with unresectable CRLM [15]. In the same era, according to European Liver Transplant Registry data, 45 patients underwent LT because of CRLM and 3- and 5-year OS rates were only 32% and 19%, respectively [16, 17]. Based on these experiences, CRLM were considered a contraindication for LT and for many years the Vienna study remained an isolated experience.
Study Outcomes
The first proof of concept trial, the SEcondary CAncer (SECA) I study, was started in Oslo in 2006 [18] The outcomes reported in 21 patients were beyond expectations for unresectable CRLM with estimated OS of 95%, 68%, and 60% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The recurrence rate was, however, high, with disease-free survival (DFS) as low as 35% at 1 year. Most recurring patients developed slow-growing lung metastases, and a large proportion of these were resectable. Due to aggressive policy of resection of all possible recurrences, a favorable overall survival was obtained despite the short DFS. Based on the SECA-1 trial, the following risk factors for poor outcome were identified [18]: maximal tumor diameter > 5.5 cm, time from primary cancer surgery < 2 years, CEA levels > 80 μg/L, and progression disease after chemotherapy at the time of LT. Assigning 1 point to each adverse factor led to the development of the so-called Oslo Score for risk stratification.
In the sequel trial (SECA-II), the Oslo score was not applied prospectively, but the more stringent inclusion criteria resulted in selection of a cohort with an Oslo score of 0–2 [19••]. As anticipated, with stricter patient selection, survival improved accordingly. The estimated 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS was 100%, 83%, and 83%, respectively. Median DFS was 13.7 months with 1-, 2-, and 3-year DFS of 53%, 44%, and 35%. Nevertheless, survival after relapse at 1, 2, and 4 years was 100%, 73%, and 73%, respectively. Again, about 70% of the recurrences observed were lung metastases and the majority were resected.
A comparison between patients transplanted for CRLM- and HCC shows that patients with nonresectable CRLM with a pre-transplant Oslo score of 0–2 had a 5-year survival rate better than or similar to patients with HCC [20]. Even though HCC patients have much better DFS, HCC recurrence after transplant is associated with a dismal prognosis for almost all patients since there is a lack of effective salvage treatment, while the 2-year OS rate after relapse is 86% in well-selected CRLM patients.
The Controversy of Resectability of CRLM
The whole experience with LT for CRLM has been based on patients with unresectable disease. The concept of resectability of liver tumors has however changed considerably during the last 20 years.
A systematic review of the literature on TSH [21] reports a median 5-year OS of 42% while 5-year DFS was reported only in three studies of the aforementioned meta-analyses at values of 13%, 14%, and 20%, respectively. Furthermore, only 77% of the patients completed the two stages. More recently, Regimbeau [22] analyzed the data from the international LiverMetSurvey registry. The scheduled TSH plan was completed in 71.9% of the study population. The 5-year OS rate after resection was 23%. No patient that failed to complete the two stages survived for 5 years according to this study.
The overall perioperative safety seems to be better following TSH compared to ALPPS, but oncological outcomes including recurrence-free and overall survival are comparable [23]. The first randomized controlled trial, comparing traditional TSH with the ALPPS procedure, shows that the resectability rate was significantly higher with ALPPS than with TSH, with similar rates of severe complications, mortality, and negative surgical margins in the liver [11]. Even if resectability rate can be greatly improved by extended techniques like TSH and ALPPS, the outcomes are mostly inferior compared to upfront resectable patients.
The concept of tumor burden score was introduced by Sasaki et al. [24]. Based on this concept, Oshi et al. [25] demonstrate that the more the TBS increases, the less significant the margin status is for DSF and OS, while biological factors, like KRAS status, CEA level and response to pre-operative chemotherapy, gain significance accordingly. Thus, there may be a threshold of tumor load for which liver resection can yield acceptable outcomes, independent of technique. One might hypothesize whether LT could provide far better outcomes than liver resection in a subset of patients with borderline resectable disease. In fact, some of the best outcomes after LT for CRLM have been in patients previously resected but finally becoming unresectable due to recurrence in the liver. The concept of including a small subset of resectable patients is however highly controversial and still merely an untested hypothesis. To our knowledge, no data are available on this topic but this might be a possible extension when LT for CRLM gains broader acceptance.
The Impact of Recurrence
An Achilles heel of LT for CRLM may be the high recurrence rate and relatively short DFS. Toso et al. reported a DFS of 56% ± 14%, 38% ± 15%, and 38% ± 15% at 1, 3, and 5 years respectively [26•]. The OSLO experience, from the SECA II trial is very similar [19••]. The median time to recurrence was 6 months, and the lung was the first single site of recurrence in majority of cases [27]. It is noteworthy that the pattern of recurrence is vastly different between liver transplantation and liver resection. In the transplant scenario, 68% were lung metastases and liver was affected only in 5% of cases. Thirteen (62%) patients had lungs as first metastatic site, and 50% of these did not develop other metastases. Both patients treated with lung resection and those not resected were alive at the end of follow-up. The 5-year survival of patients with lung recurrence after LT was 72%. By retrospectively backtracking pre-transplant thoracic CT scans, the presence of lung metastases at the time of LT did not seem to seriously affect survival negatively and immunosuppression does not seem to accelerate their growth [28]. In contrast, liver recurrence after LT was seen only as part of disseminated disease and had a very poor prognosis [27].
In liver resection cohorts, the overall recurrence rate is about 50–70% and about half of the relapses are new liver metastases [29,30,31]. The 5-year OS after pulmonary recurrence in resected patients has been reported to be 40% [29]. Nonetheless, treatment of recurrence has proven to improve survival after hepatic resection for CRLM [32, 33]; likewise, the same strategy is effective for relapse after LT [19, 27]. There seems to be a low correlation between DFS and OS in LT for CRLM. Consequently, DFS is not an optimal outcome parameter to assess the efficacy of LT in CRLM [20, 34].
Strategies for Improving Access to Liver Transplantation for CRLM
The limiting factor for a broader implementation of liver transplantation for CRLM remains the scarcity of liver grafts. To overcome this problem, we need to move in two directions: improve patient selection and expand the donor pool.
Essentially, improved patient selection implies a better understanding of the tumor biology to improve outcomes and avoid the futile use of liver grafts. Within the Oslo Criteria, the CEA level and the response to chemotherapy are surrogates for the biological behavior of the disease. A Fong Clinical Risk Score of 0–2 has also been shown to be associated with superior long-term survival, and this score shares some factors with the Oslo Score [5, 35]. Some other factors are distinctly associated with inferior survival: right-sided primary tumor location [35, 36] and a metabolic tumor volume (MTV) exceeding 70 cm3 on pre-transplant 18F–FDG PET/CT [37] are both strong predictors of inferior outcome. Moreover, patients that, on quality of life assessment with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire version 3.0 (EORTC QLQ-C30) prior to transplant, display a high score, and in particularly those that have loss of appetite, have significantly worse survival [38••]. An overview of factors important to patient selection is summarized in Fig. 1.
Dependent on which criteria are applied, the impact on the transplant waiting list will vary accordingly. Based on stringent selection, calculated based on SECA-studies and Norwegian population, only 0.24 to 0.51 patient per 1 million people per year would be eligible, representing 1 to 2% of yearly liver transplants (based on US population) [35••], meaning that the required resources do not necessarily negatively impact the patients with conventional indications for LT.
Regarding the donor pool expansion, a logical solution would be to use extended criteria donors (ECDs) for CRLM patients [36••], assuming that these recipients will tolerate ECD grafts better due to the absence of hepatic failure and portal hypertension. Another, potentially promising approach is based on split liver technique and auxiliary transplantation. The novel concept of RAPID (Resection And Partial Liver Segment 2/3 Transplantation With Delayed Total Hepatectomy) technique [39] allows maintenance of adequate metabolic liver mass during which a small auxiliary graft can regenerate to allow delayed second stage hepatectomy. Augmented regeneration of the graft is facilitated by diverting portal blood flow from the liver remnant, but importantly, this should be done under pressure guidance to avoid small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) damage to the graft [40]. As soon as the graft has obtained a size approaching 0.8% of body weight (or 35 to 40% of recipient standard liver volume), the second stage hepatectomy of the native liver remnant is completed within 3 weeks. The concept has been further developed by retrieving the left lateral graft from living donors. To date, 6 two-stage hepatectomies with auxiliary partial orthotopic liver transplantation from a living donor (named LD-RAPID) have been reported: 5 in Germany [41, 42] and 1 in Belgium [43]. The first results are promising, but still the experience with the RAPID concept is limited and does not yet allow firm conclusions.
Finally, conventional living donor liver transplantation could be an option for centers that offer this option, and studies are currently ongoing within this area (Table 1).
Conclusion
Selected patients with CRLM with low Oslo score or low Fong Clinical risk score at listing can be offered liver transplantation with survival outcomes comparable to conventional indications for liver transplantation. Stringent selection criteria are important to avoid futile use of grafts. Expansion of the donor pool may be obtained through increased use of ECD grafts, the RAPID technique, and living donor liver transplantation. To further improve the outcomes based upon shared best practices, all transplants for this indication should be part of prospective clinical trials.
Data Availability
Not applicable.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer. 2019;144:1941–53.
Chambers AC, Dixon SW, White P, Williams AC, Thomas MG, Messenger DE. Demographic trends in the incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Br J Surg. 2020;107:595–605.
Vuik FE, Nieuwenburg SA, Bardou M, et al. Increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in young adults in Europe over the last 25 years. Gut. 2019;68:1820–6.
Allard MA, Adam R, Giuliante F, et al. Long-term outcomes of patients with 10 or more colorectal liver metastases. Br J Cancer. 2017;117:604–11.
Fong Y, Fortner J, Sun RL, Brennan MF, Blumgart LH. Clinical score for predicting recurrence after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. 1999;230:309–21.
Brudvik KW, Jones RP, Giuliante F, et al. RAS mutation clinical risk score to predict survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002319.
Missiaglia E, Jacobs B, D’Ario G, et al. Distal and proximal colon cancers differ in terms of molecular, pathological, and clinical features. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1995–2001.
Adam R, Delvart V, Pascal G, et al. Rescue surgery for unresectable colorectal liver metastases downstaged by chemotherapy. Trans . Meet Am Surg Assoc. 2004;CXXII:242–56.
Taylor A, Primrose LW, Kelsh MF, Alexander D, Choti M, Poston G, et al. Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Clin Epidemiol. 2012;283.
Adam R, Laurent A, Azoulay D, Castaing D, Bismuth H, Buchler M, et al. Two-stage hepatectomy: a planned strategy to treat irresectable liver tumors. Ann Surg. 2000;232:777–85.
Sandström P, Røsok BI, Sparrelid E, et al. ALPPS improves resectability compared with conventional two-stage hepatectomy in patients with advanced colorectal liver metastasis: results from a Scandinavian multicenter randomized controlled trial (LIGRO Trial). Ann Surg. 2018;267:833–40.
Kopetz S, Chang GJ, Overman MJ, Eng C, Sargent DJ, Larson DW, et al. Improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is associated with adoption of hepatic resection and improved chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3677–83.
Masi G, Vasile E, Loupakis F, et al. Randomized trial of two induction chemotherapy regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer: an updated analysis. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:21–30.
Starzl TE, Groth CG, Brettschneider L, Penn I, Fulginiti VA, Moon JB, et al. Orthotopic homotransplantation of the human liver. Ann Surg. 1968;168:392–415.
Mühlbacher F, Huk I, Steininger R, Gnant M, Götzinger P, Wamser P, et al. Is orthotopic liver transplantation a feasible treatment for secondary cancer of the liver? Transplant Proc. 1991;23:1567–8.
Foss A, Adam R, Dueland S. Liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastases: revisiting the concept. Transpl Int. 2010;23:679–85.
Hoti E, Adam R. Liver transplantation for primary and metastatic liver cancers. Transpl Int. 2008;21:1107–17.
Hagness M, Foss A, Line P-D, et al. Liver transplantation for nonresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;257:800–6.
•• Dueland S, Syversveen T, Solheim JM, Solberg S, Grut H, Bjørnbeth BA, et al. Survival following liver transplantation for patients with nonresectable liver-only colorectal metastases. Ann Surg. 2020;271(2):212–8 SECA-II trial demonstrating the impact of stringent selection criterial on the survival after liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastasis.
Dueland S, Foss A, Solheim JM, Hagness M, Line PD. Survival following liver transplantation for liver-only colorectal metastases compared with hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2018;105:736–42.
Lam VWT, Laurence JM, Johnston E, Hollands MJ, Pleass HCC, Richardson AJ. A systematic review of two-stage hepatectomy in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases. HPB. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00607.x.
Regimbeau JM, Cosse C, Kaiser G, Hubert C, Laurent C, Lapointe R, et al. Feasibility, safety and efficacy of two-stage hepatectomy for bilobar liver metastases of colorectal cancer: a LiverMetSurvey analysis. Hpb. 2017;19:396–405.
Moris D, Ronnekleiv-Kelly S, Kostakis ID, Tsilimigras DI, Beal EW, Papalampros A, et al. Operative results and oncologic outcomes of associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) versus two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-anal. World J Surg. 2018;42:806–15.
Sasaki K, Morioka D, Conci S, et al. The Tumor Burden Score: a new “metro-ticket” prognostic tool for colorectal liver metastases based on tumor size and number of tumors. Ann Surg. 2018;267:132–41.
Oshi M, Margonis GA, Sawada Y, et al. Higher tumor burden neutralizes negative margin status in hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:593–603.
• Toso C, Pinto Marques H, Andres A, Castro Sousa F, Adam R, Kalil A, et al. Liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastasis: survival without recurrence can be achieved. Liver Transplant. 2017;23:1073–6 Multicenter experience with excellent results providing evidences of prognostic factors.
Hagness M, Foss A, Egge TS, Dueland S. Patterns of recurrence after liver transplantation for nonresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1323–9.
Grut H, Solberg S, Seierstad T, Revheim ME, Egge TS, Larsen SG, et al. Growth rates of pulmonary metastases after liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg. 2018;105:295–301.
Buisman FE, Galjart B, van der Stok EP, et al. Recurrence patterns after resection of colorectal liver metastasis are modified by perioperative systemic chemotherapy. World J Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05121-9.
Lee AJ, Loyer EM, Kang HC, Aloia TA, Tzeng C-WD, Vauthey J-N, et al. Intrahepatic recurrence patterns predict survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:275–81.
D’Angelica M, Kornprat P, Gonen M, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Blumgart LH, et al. Effect on outcome of recurrence patterns after hepatectomy for colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1096–103.
Lillemoe HA, Kawaguchi Y, Passot G, et al. Surgical resection for recurrence after two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases is feasible, is safe, and improves survival. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:84–92.
Imai K, Benitez CC, Allard M-A, Vibert E, Cunha AS, Cherqui D, et al. Impact of surgical treatment for recurrence after 2-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases, on patient outcome. Ann Surg. 2019;269:322–30.
Dueland S, Hagness M, Line PD, Guren TK, Tveit KM, Foss A. Is liver transplantation an option in colorectal cancer patients with nonresectable liver metastases and progression on all lines of standard chemotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2195–200.
•• Dueland S, Grut H, Syversveen T, Hagness M, Line P. Selection criteria related to long-term survival following liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastasis. Am J Transplant. 2019;20(2):530–7 Impact of 3 different selection criteria on long-term survival after liver transplantation for CRLM.
•• Smedman TM, Line P-D, Hagness M, Syversveen T, Grut H, Dueland S. Liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases in patients and donors with extended criteria ( SECA-II arm D study). BJS Open. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50278Impact of factors related to primary tumor and tumor load on the the prognosis after liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastasis).
Grut H, Dueland S, Line PD, Revheim ME. The prognostic value of 18F–FDG PET/CT prior to liver transplantation for nonresectable colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:218–25.
•• Dueland S, Line P-D, Hagness M, Foss A, Andersen MH. Long-term quality of life after liver transplantation for non-resectable colorectal metastases confined to the liver. BJS Open. 2019;3:180–5 The effect of performance-status factors on prognosis after liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastasis).
Line PD, Hagness M, Berstad AE, Foss A, Dueland S. A novel concept for partial liver transplantation in nonresectable colorectal liver metastases: The RAPID concept. Ann Surg. 2015;262:e5–9.
Allard M-A, Adam R, Bucur P-O, Termos S, Cunha AS, Bismuth H, et al. Posthepatectomy portal vein pressure predicts liver failure and mortality after major liver resection on noncirrhotic liver. Ann Surg. 2013;258:822–30.
Rauchfuß F, Nadalin S, Königsrainer A, Settmacher U. Living donor liver transplantation with two-stage hepatectomy for patients with isolated, irresectable colorectal liver - The LIVER-T(W)O-HEAL study 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1103 Clinic. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17:1–8.
Königsrainer A, Templin S, Capobianco I, Königsrainer I, Bitzer M, Zender L, et al. Paradigm shift in the management of irresectable colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg. 2019;270:327–32.
Coubeau L, Iesari S, Ciccarelli O, Bonaccorsi-Riani E, Dahlqvist G, Reding R. Two-stage recipient hepatectomy and left-liver transplantation to minimize risks in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: new concepts. Liver Transplant lt. 2019:25683.
Acknowledgements
Open Access funding provided by University of Oslo (incl Oslo University Hospital).
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Jacopo Lanari performed the literature search and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Pål-Dag Line and Svein Dueland critically revised the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Jacopo Lanari, Svein Dueland, and Pål-Dag Line declare no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Machine Preservation of the Liver
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lanari, J., Dueland, S. & Line, PD. Liver Transplantation for Colorectal Liver Metastasis. Curr Transpl Rep 7, 311–316 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40472-020-00298-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40472-020-00298-8