Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 593

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Milan criteria in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: An evidence-based analysis of 15 years of experience

Open access
Mazzaferro, Vincenzo, Bhoori, Sherrie, Sposito, Carlo, Bongini, Marco, Langer, Martin, Miceli, Rosalba, Mariani, Luigi·2011·Liver Transplantation
DOI 10.1002/lt.22365
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the seventh most common cancer worldwide and the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths; the number of new cases per year is approaching 750,000.1 The magnitude of the incidence of HCC has discouraged any attempts to apply liver transplantation (LT) as the prevailing curative therapy for HCC worldwide because of the limited sources of donated organs (deceased and living donors) and the poor access to sophisticated health care systems in some geographical areas. If these limitations continue to prevail throughout the world, any attempt to significantly reduce HCC-related mortality rates through the application of LT will be delusional. International experiences have confirmed, however, the potential of LT to definitively cure HCC because it presents a unique opportunity to remove both the tumor (HCC is associated with 695,000 deaths per year1) and the underlying cirrhosis. Despite its limited access, LT has become the standard of care for patients with small HCCs and the main driving force for alternative strategies offered to patients with intermediate HCCs. In 1996, a prospective cohort study defined restrictive selection criteria that led to superior survival for transplant patients in comparison with any other previous experience with transplantation or other options for HCC.2 Since then, these selection criteria have become universally known as the Milan criteria (MC) in recognition of their origin. Ever since their adoption in clinical practice, the MC have helped doctors to single out early-stage HCC as a prognostic category of cancer presentation that is amenable to curative treatments. After their implementation, the favorable posttransplant outcomes that were observed in cohort series were so convincing that the MC immediately became the standard of care for early HCC, and further validation by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was prevented. After the passage of approximately a decade, researchers began to challenge the MC with other proposals designed to capture those patients not meeting the MC who could achieve similar posttransplant survival rates through the expansion of the accepted tumor limits for transplant eligibility. None of these expanded criteria have become the new reference standard for selecting LT candidates with HCC; any broadening of the selection criteria for transplantation is inevitably hampered by severe restrictions in donor availability. Consequently, the MC remain the benchmark for any transplant strategy involving patients with HCC and the cornerstone for decision making for other patients at any stage. Surprisingly, no systematic review of the available experiences with the MC has been published yet; the suboptimal quality of the literature and the poor application of evidence-based principles has prevented this exercise. The aim of this study was to fill the gap through a systematic review of the available evidence on the MC and the related issue of the position of LT in the treatment algorithm for HCC. AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; LT, liver transplantation; MC, Milan criteria; MELD, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease; mVI, microvascular invasion; NA, not applicable; n/n, number of studies/number of patients; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa scale; RCT, randomized controlled trial; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization. For the literature review, analysis, and discussion, the MC were defined as follows: a single HCC nodule with a maximum size of 5 cm or as many as 3 nodules with the largest not exceeding 3 cm and no macrovascular invasion.2 Is the posttransplant survival of patients influenced by the MC when they are assessed at the time of the explant pathology examination? Do the boundaries of the MC correlate with a reduced likelihood of detecting 2 pathology surrogates of tumor behavior: microvascular invasion (mVI) and poor differentiation (grade 3)? In addition, we also probed the literature to answer less stringent questions (eg, the role of pretransplant treatments in patients meeting or not meeting the MC at the time of wait listing). A review of the literature in English was performed with various search terms. A PubMed-, Embase-, and Scopus-based search strategy was used that combined text, keywords, and Medical Subject Headings terms for titles and abstracts. Manual cross-referencing was also used to find more relevant articles. This part of the search strategy was not restricted by date. The following search terms were used in various combinations: Milan criteria, primary liver cancer, primary liver tumor, hepatoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC, BCLC A, T1-T2, tumor size, tumor number, tumor burden, metastatic disease and metastases of HCC, transplantation, liver transplantation, liver substitution, orthotopic liver transplantation, OLT, LT, living donor liver transplantation, deceased donor liver transplantation, survival, overall survival, recur

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/lt.22365

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Cited by

See all 593

Metadata

Authors
Mazzaferro, V., Bhoori, S., Sposito, C., Bongini, M., Langer, M., Miceli, R., & Mariani, L.
Venue
Liver Transplantation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2011-10
Volume
17
Issue
Supplement 2
Pages
S44-S57
ISSN
1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/lt.22365
OpenAlex
W2008655007
Cited by
593
References
60
FWCI
18.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.