Cited by 38Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes

Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma using the LiTES-HCC score

Open access
Goldberg, David, Mantero, Alejandro, Newcomb, Craig, Delgado, Cindy, Forde, Kimberly A., Kaplan, David E., John, Binu, Nuchovich, Nadine +3 more·2021·Journal of Hepatology

Abstract

Background & aims Liver transplant priority in the US and Europe follows the 'sickest-first' principle. However, for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), priority is based on binary tumor criteria to expedite transplant for patients with 'acceptable' post-transplant outcomes. Newer risk scores developed to overcome limitations of these binary criteria are insufficient to be used for waitlist priority as they focus solely on HCC-related pre-transplant variables. We sought to develop a risk score to predict post-transplant survival for patients using HCC- and non-HCC-related variables.Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using national registry data on adult deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients with HCC from 2/27/02-12/31/18. We fit Cox regression models focused on 5- and 10-year survival to estimate beta coefficients for a risk score using manual variable selection. We then calculated absolute predicted survival time and compared it to available risk scores.Results Among 6,502 adult DDLT recipients with HCC, 11 variables were selected in the final model. The AUCs at 5- and 10-years were: 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67 and 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.72, which was not statistically significantly different to the Metroticket and HALT-HCC scores. The LiTES-HCC score was able to discriminate patients based on post-transplant survival among those meeting Milan and UCSF criteria.Conclusion We developed and validated a risk score to predict post-transplant survival for patients with HCC. By including HCC- and non-HCC-related variables (e.g., age, chronic kidney disease), this score could allow transplant professionals to prioritize patients with HCC in terms of predicted survival. In the future, this score could be integrated into survival benefit-based models to lead to meaningful improvements in life-years at the population level.Lay summary We created a risk score to predict how long patients with liver cancer will live if they get a liver transplant. In the future, this could be used to decide which waitlisted patients should get the next transplant.

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 · 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.12.021

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Despite the MELD score's many benefits, about 15 to 20% of patients' survival cannot be reliably predicted by the MELD score.

    “Despite the MELD score’s many benefits, about 15 to 20% of patients’ survival cannot be reliably predicted by the MELD score.”

    From Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence Technology in E-Health (2021) · cites this paper as Goldberg et al. 2021

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldberg, D., Mantero, A., Newcomb, C., Delgado, C., Forde, K. A., Kaplan, D. E., John, B., Nuchovich, N., Dominguez, B., Emanuel, E., & Reese, P. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Philadelphia VA Medical Center (US)
  • Bruce W. Carter VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Goldberg, David
Venue
Journal of Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
74
Issue
6
Pages
1398-1406
ISSN
0168-8278 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3120206188
Cited by
38
References
50
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Gilead Sciences
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01 DK120561)
  • AbbVie
  • Pfizer
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Merck
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Organ Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Keywords
hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, post-transplant survival, risk score, deceased donor liver transplantation, Milan criteria, UCSF criteria, chronic kidney disease, survival prediction
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Humans, Liver Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Prognosis, Registries, Research Design, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Tissue Donors, Waiting Lists, Survival Rate, Liver Transplantation, Treatment Outcome, Transplant Recipients

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