Transplant

In the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are not eligible for stem cell transplant or are transplant-deferred, adding subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) significantly improves minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes among patients, the first results from the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial showed.

“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.

“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”

For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.

However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.

For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).

In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.

The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.

Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.

The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).

Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).

A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.

A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).

There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.

Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.

The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.

In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.

Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.

Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.

“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”

Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.

“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.

“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”

He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”

Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”

“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.

“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are not eligible for stem cell transplant or are transplant-deferred, adding subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) significantly improves minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes among patients, the first results from the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial showed.

“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.

“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”

For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.

However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.

For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).

In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.

The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.

Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.

The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).

Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).

A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.

A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).

There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.

Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.

The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.

In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.

Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.

Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.

“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”

Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.

“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.

“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”

He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”

Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”

“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.

“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are not eligible for stem cell transplant or are transplant-deferred, adding subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) significantly improves minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes among patients, the first results from the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial showed.

“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.

“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”

For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.

However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.

For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).

In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.

The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.

Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.

The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).

Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).

A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.

A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).

There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.

Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.

The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.

In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.

Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.

Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.

“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”

Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.

“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.

“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”

He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”

Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”

“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.

“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

RIO DE JANEIRO — The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) significantly improves rates of achieving minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and progression-free survival (PFS) among patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM), new research showed.

“To date, no randomized trial has directly compared daratumumab-based maintenance therapy vs standard of care lenalidomide maintenance, which is the focus of our trial,” said first author Ashraf Z. Badros, MD, a professor of medicine at the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, in presenting the findings at the International Myeloma Society (IMS) 2024.

“These results support the addition of daratumumab not only to induction/consolidation but also to standard of care lenalidomide maintenance for these patients,” he said of the study, which was published concurrently in the journal Blood.

Despite ongoing advancements in regimens for induction, consolidation, and maintenance posttransplant, most patients with MM eventually relapse, driving continuing efforts to optimize treatment strategies and improve long-term outcomes.

While daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, is approved in induction and consolidation with ASCT for patients with newly diagnosed MM, the authors sought to investigate the potential benefits of adding it to the standard-of-care therapy lenalidomide in maintenance therapy.

For the phase 3 AURIGA trial, they recruited 200 patients with newly diagnosed MM within 12 months of induction therapy and 6 months of ASCT.

The patients, who were all anti-CD38 naive, received at least four induction cycles, had at least a very good partial response, and were MRD positive following ASCT.

They were randomized 1:1 to receive 28-day lenalidomide maintenance cycles either with (n = 99) or without (n = 101) subcutaneous daratumumab for at least 36 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal.

The patients had similar baseline demographic characteristics; their median age was about 62 years, and 25.3% in the daratumumab and 23.5% in the no-daratumumab group had ISS stage III disease. At the time of diagnosis, 23.9% and 16.9%, respectively, had high cytogenic risk.

Overall, patients received a median of five induction cycles prior to entering the study.

For the primary endpoint, the rate of conversion from MRD positive to MRD negative (at a sensitivity of 10-5 using next-generation sequencing) by 12 months was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the lenalidomide-only group, at 50.5% vs 18.8% (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P < .0001).

A similar benefit with the daratumumab group was observed across all clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk disease.

The MRD-negative conversion rate was similar at the 10-6 threshold (23.2% vs 5%; OR, 5.97; P = .0002).

At a median follow-up of 32.3 months, the overall rates of MRD negativity were 60.6% and 27.7%, with and without daratumumab, respectively (OR, 4.12; P < .0001)

The achievement of complete response or better also was significantly greater with daratumumab (75.8% vs 61.4%; OR, 2.00; P = .0255).

Likewise, PFS favored daratumumab (hazard ratio, 0.53), and the estimated 30-month PFS rates were 82.7% and 66.4%, respectively.

The daratumumab group received more maintenance cycles than the lenalidomide-only group (median of 33 vs 21.5), and it had higher rates of completion of 12 cycles (88.5% vs 78.6%). Dr. Badros noted that the main reason for discontinuation of therapy in the no-daratumumab arm was disease progression.

Consistent with previous studies, daratumumab was associated with more grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), occurring in 74.0% patients vs 67.3% patients not receiving daratumumab, including infections (18.8% vs 13.3%), cytopenia (54.2% vs 46.9%), and neutropenia (46.9% vs 41.8%). Dr. Badros noted the significantly longer time of treatment in the daratumumab arm (30 months vs 20 months).

Serious TEAEs occurred in 30.2% daratumumab patients and 22.4% no-daratumumab patients, and fatal TEAEs occurred in 2.1% and 1.0% patients, respectively.

“Overall, there were no new safety concerns for daratumumab,” he said.

The authors noted that the requirement that patients be anti-CD38 naive was partially because of “the D-VRd [daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone] regimen gaining popularity and increased utilization in the myeloma community for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, even before the publication of the long-term results of the randomized GRIFFIN and PERSEUS studies.”

A key question, remarked Joseph Mikhael, MD, who is chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, from the audience, is how applicable the findings are in the modern environment, where most patients now have indeed had prior anti-CD38 treatment.

In response, Dr. Badros explained that “I think this is an important study because it is probably one of the few studies that separates the impact of daratumumab-lenalidomide without prior daratumumab use.”

Dr. Badros noted that results from the PERSEUS trial, of D-VRd, show MRD-positive to MRD-negative conversion rates that are similar to the current trial; “therefore, I really don’t think that using daratumumab up front will prevent using it as maintenance,” he said. “If anything, it actually improves outcomes.”

The findings from continuous treatment “are an important reminder that high-risk patients do not do well if you stop treatment,” he said.

Further commenting on the research at the meeting, María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Salamanca in Spain, noted that “the unmet need in maintenance is to upgrade the quality of the response and to increase the conversion of MRD-positivity to MRD negative in order to delay the progression of the disease and prolong the overall survival.”

Regarding the AURIGA trial, “this is very interesting data about the role of daratumumab-lenalidomide maintenance in patients who are MRD positive after autologous stem cell transplantation.”

“What is more important is we are progressing in response-adaptive therapy, and we are generating very useful information to possibly make the majority of patients become MRD negative.

“Developing early endpoints as surrogate markers for long-term outcomes and overall survival is critically important,” she added. “Otherwise, trials may continue for more than 15 years.”

The study was sponsored by Janssen Biotech. Dr. Badros reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Roche, Jansen, and GSK. Mateos disclosed ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Kite, Johnson & Johnson, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

RIO DE JANEIRO — The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) significantly improves rates of achieving minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and progression-free survival (PFS) among patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM), new research showed.

“To date, no randomized trial has directly compared daratumumab-based maintenance therapy vs standard of care lenalidomide maintenance, which is the focus of our trial,” said first author Ashraf Z. Badros, MD, a professor of medicine at the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, in presenting the findings at the International Myeloma Society (IMS) 2024.

“These results support the addition of daratumumab not only to induction/consolidation but also to standard of care lenalidomide maintenance for these patients,” he said of the study, which was published concurrently in the journal Blood.

Despite ongoing advancements in regimens for induction, consolidation, and maintenance posttransplant, most patients with MM eventually relapse, driving continuing efforts to optimize treatment strategies and improve long-term outcomes.

While daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, is approved in induction and consolidation with ASCT for patients with newly diagnosed MM, the authors sought to investigate the potential benefits of adding it to the standard-of-care therapy lenalidomide in maintenance therapy.

For the phase 3 AURIGA trial, they recruited 200 patients with newly diagnosed MM within 12 months of induction therapy and 6 months of ASCT.

The patients, who were all anti-CD38 naive, received at least four induction cycles, had at least a very good partial response, and were MRD positive following ASCT.

They were randomized 1:1 to receive 28-day lenalidomide maintenance cycles either with (n = 99) or without (n = 101) subcutaneous daratumumab for at least 36 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal.

The patients had similar baseline demographic characteristics; their median age was about 62 years, and 25.3% in the daratumumab and 23.5% in the no-daratumumab group had ISS stage III disease. At the time of diagnosis, 23.9% and 16.9%, respectively, had high cytogenic risk.

Overall, patients received a median of five induction cycles prior to entering the study.

For the primary endpoint, the rate of conversion from MRD positive to MRD negative (at a sensitivity of 10-5 using next-generation sequencing) by 12 months was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the lenalidomide-only group, at 50.5% vs 18.8% (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P < .0001).

A similar benefit with the daratumumab group was observed across all clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk disease.

The MRD-negative conversion rate was similar at the 10-6 threshold (23.2% vs 5%; OR, 5.97; P = .0002).

At a median follow-up of 32.3 months, the overall rates of MRD negativity were 60.6% and 27.7%, with and without daratumumab, respectively (OR, 4.12; P < .0001)

The achievement of complete response or better also was significantly greater with daratumumab (75.8% vs 61.4%; OR, 2.00; P = .0255).

Likewise, PFS favored daratumumab (hazard ratio, 0.53), and the estimated 30-month PFS rates were 82.7% and 66.4%, respectively.

The daratumumab group received more maintenance cycles than the lenalidomide-only group (median of 33 vs 21.5), and it had higher rates of completion of 12 cycles (88.5% vs 78.6%). Dr. Badros noted that the main reason for discontinuation of therapy in the no-daratumumab arm was disease progression.

Consistent with previous studies, daratumumab was associated with more grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), occurring in 74.0% patients vs 67.3% patients not receiving daratumumab, including infections (18.8% vs 13.3%), cytopenia (54.2% vs 46.9%), and neutropenia (46.9% vs 41.8%). Dr. Badros noted the significantly longer time of treatment in the daratumumab arm (30 months vs 20 months).

Serious TEAEs occurred in 30.2% daratumumab patients and 22.4% no-daratumumab patients, and fatal TEAEs occurred in 2.1% and 1.0% patients, respectively.

“Overall, there were no new safety concerns for daratumumab,” he said.

The authors noted that the requirement that patients be anti-CD38 naive was partially because of “the D-VRd [daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone] regimen gaining popularity and increased utilization in the myeloma community for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, even before the publication of the long-term results of the randomized GRIFFIN and PERSEUS studies.”

A key question, remarked Joseph Mikhael, MD, who is chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, from the audience, is how applicable the findings are in the modern environment, where most patients now have indeed had prior anti-CD38 treatment.

In response, Dr. Badros explained that “I think this is an important study because it is probably one of the few studies that separates the impact of daratumumab-lenalidomide without prior daratumumab use.”

Dr. Badros noted that results from the PERSEUS trial, of D-VRd, show MRD-positive to MRD-negative conversion rates that are similar to the current trial; “therefore, I really don’t think that using daratumumab up front will prevent using it as maintenance,” he said. “If anything, it actually improves outcomes.”

The findings from continuous treatment “are an important reminder that high-risk patients do not do well if you stop treatment,” he said.

Further commenting on the research at the meeting, María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Salamanca in Spain, noted that “the unmet need in maintenance is to upgrade the quality of the response and to increase the conversion of MRD-positivity to MRD negative in order to delay the progression of the disease and prolong the overall survival.”

Regarding the AURIGA trial, “this is very interesting data about the role of daratumumab-lenalidomide maintenance in patients who are MRD positive after autologous stem cell transplantation.”

“What is more important is we are progressing in response-adaptive therapy, and we are generating very useful information to possibly make the majority of patients become MRD negative.

“Developing early endpoints as surrogate markers for long-term outcomes and overall survival is critically important,” she added. “Otherwise, trials may continue for more than 15 years.”

The study was sponsored by Janssen Biotech. Dr. Badros reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Roche, Jansen, and GSK. Mateos disclosed ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Kite, Johnson & Johnson, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

RIO DE JANEIRO — The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) significantly improves rates of achieving minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and progression-free survival (PFS) among patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM), new research showed.

“To date, no randomized trial has directly compared daratumumab-based maintenance therapy vs standard of care lenalidomide maintenance, which is the focus of our trial,” said first author Ashraf Z. Badros, MD, a professor of medicine at the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, in presenting the findings at the International Myeloma Society (IMS) 2024.

“These results support the addition of daratumumab not only to induction/consolidation but also to standard of care lenalidomide maintenance for these patients,” he said of the study, which was published concurrently in the journal Blood.

Despite ongoing advancements in regimens for induction, consolidation, and maintenance posttransplant, most patients with MM eventually relapse, driving continuing efforts to optimize treatment strategies and improve long-term outcomes.

While daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, is approved in induction and consolidation with ASCT for patients with newly diagnosed MM, the authors sought to investigate the potential benefits of adding it to the standard-of-care therapy lenalidomide in maintenance therapy.

For the phase 3 AURIGA trial, they recruited 200 patients with newly diagnosed MM within 12 months of induction therapy and 6 months of ASCT.

The patients, who were all anti-CD38 naive, received at least four induction cycles, had at least a very good partial response, and were MRD positive following ASCT.

They were randomized 1:1 to receive 28-day lenalidomide maintenance cycles either with (n = 99) or without (n = 101) subcutaneous daratumumab for at least 36 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal.

The patients had similar baseline demographic characteristics; their median age was about 62 years, and 25.3% in the daratumumab and 23.5% in the no-daratumumab group had ISS stage III disease. At the time of diagnosis, 23.9% and 16.9%, respectively, had high cytogenic risk.

Overall, patients received a median of five induction cycles prior to entering the study.

For the primary endpoint, the rate of conversion from MRD positive to MRD negative (at a sensitivity of 10-5 using next-generation sequencing) by 12 months was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the lenalidomide-only group, at 50.5% vs 18.8% (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P < .0001).

A similar benefit with the daratumumab group was observed across all clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk disease.

The MRD-negative conversion rate was similar at the 10-6 threshold (23.2% vs 5%; OR, 5.97; P = .0002).

At a median follow-up of 32.3 months, the overall rates of MRD negativity were 60.6% and 27.7%, with and without daratumumab, respectively (OR, 4.12; P < .0001)

The achievement of complete response or better also was significantly greater with daratumumab (75.8% vs 61.4%; OR, 2.00; P = .0255).

Likewise, PFS favored daratumumab (hazard ratio, 0.53), and the estimated 30-month PFS rates were 82.7% and 66.4%, respectively.

The daratumumab group received more maintenance cycles than the lenalidomide-only group (median of 33 vs 21.5), and it had higher rates of completion of 12 cycles (88.5% vs 78.6%). Dr. Badros noted that the main reason for discontinuation of therapy in the no-daratumumab arm was disease progression.

Consistent with previous studies, daratumumab was associated with more grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), occurring in 74.0% patients vs 67.3% patients not receiving daratumumab, including infections (18.8% vs 13.3%), cytopenia (54.2% vs 46.9%), and neutropenia (46.9% vs 41.8%). Dr. Badros noted the significantly longer time of treatment in the daratumumab arm (30 months vs 20 months).

Serious TEAEs occurred in 30.2% daratumumab patients and 22.4% no-daratumumab patients, and fatal TEAEs occurred in 2.1% and 1.0% patients, respectively.

“Overall, there were no new safety concerns for daratumumab,” he said.

The authors noted that the requirement that patients be anti-CD38 naive was partially because of “the D-VRd [daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone] regimen gaining popularity and increased utilization in the myeloma community for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, even before the publication of the long-term results of the randomized GRIFFIN and PERSEUS studies.”

A key question, remarked Joseph Mikhael, MD, who is chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, from the audience, is how applicable the findings are in the modern environment, where most patients now have indeed had prior anti-CD38 treatment.

In response, Dr. Badros explained that “I think this is an important study because it is probably one of the few studies that separates the impact of daratumumab-lenalidomide without prior daratumumab use.”

Dr. Badros noted that results from the PERSEUS trial, of D-VRd, show MRD-positive to MRD-negative conversion rates that are similar to the current trial; “therefore, I really don’t think that using daratumumab up front will prevent using it as maintenance,” he said. “If anything, it actually improves outcomes.”

The findings from continuous treatment “are an important reminder that high-risk patients do not do well if you stop treatment,” he said.

Further commenting on the research at the meeting, María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Salamanca in Spain, noted that “the unmet need in maintenance is to upgrade the quality of the response and to increase the conversion of MRD-positivity to MRD negative in order to delay the progression of the disease and prolong the overall survival.”

Regarding the AURIGA trial, “this is very interesting data about the role of daratumumab-lenalidomide maintenance in patients who are MRD positive after autologous stem cell transplantation.”

“What is more important is we are progressing in response-adaptive therapy, and we are generating very useful information to possibly make the majority of patients become MRD negative.

“Developing early endpoints as surrogate markers for long-term outcomes and overall survival is critically important,” she added. “Otherwise, trials may continue for more than 15 years.”

The study was sponsored by Janssen Biotech. Dr. Badros reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Roche, Jansen, and GSK. Mateos disclosed ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Kite, Johnson & Johnson, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a groundbreaking procedure, a team of surgeons from New York University Langone Health successfully performed the first combined face and eye transplant on a patient with extensive craniofacial tissue loss after an electrical accident.

The highly complex surgery lasted for 21 hours and involved more than 140 surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals under the leadership of Eduardo D. Rodriguez. MD. It not only restored the patient’s facial features, but also integrated a functional eyeball, potentially setting a new standard for future treatments in similar cases.

The transplant took place in May 2023, and the case report was published on September 5 this year in JAMA.

The 46-year-old man lost a large part of his craniofacial tissue and his left eyeball. The approach was highly specialized. Advanced microsurgical techniques such as anastomoses of microscopic vessels and delicate suturing techniques were crucial for the transplant’s success.

Moreover, customized surgical devices, specific implants, and tissue manipulation tools were developed specifically for this case, thus ensuring the viability of the transplant and adequate perfusion of the transplanted ocular tissue.

The initial results are encouraging. Retinal arterial perfusion has been maintained, and retinal architecture has been preserved, as demonstrated by optical coherence tomography. Electroretinography confirmed retinal responses to light, suggesting that the transplanted eye may eventually contribute to the patient’s visual perception. These results are comparable to those of previous facial tissue transplants, but with the significant addition of ocular functionality, which is a notable advance.

“The successful revascularization of the transplanted eye achieved in this study may serve as a step toward the goal of globe transplant for restoration of vision,” wrote the authors.

The complexity of the combined transplant required a deep understanding of facial and ocular anatomy, as well as tissue preservation techniques. The surgical team reported significant challenges, including the need to align delicate anatomical structures and ensure immunological compatibility between the donor and recipient. Meticulous planning from donor selection to postoperative follow-up was considered essential to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk for allograft rejection.

The patient will now be continuously monitored and receive treatment with immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus and prednisone, adjusted according to his response to the transplant. According to the researchers, further studies will be needed to assess the long-term functionality of the transplanted eye and its integration with the central nervous system.

Despite being the fifth facial transplant surgery performed under Dr. Rodriguez’s leadership, this is the first record of a whole-eye transplant. “The mere fact that we have successfully performed the first whole-eye transplant along with a face transplant is a tremendous achievement that many believed to be impossible,” the doctor said in a statement. “We have taken a giant step forward and paved the way for the next chapter in vision restoration.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a groundbreaking procedure, a team of surgeons from New York University Langone Health successfully performed the first combined face and eye transplant on a patient with extensive craniofacial tissue loss after an electrical accident.

The highly complex surgery lasted for 21 hours and involved more than 140 surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals under the leadership of Eduardo D. Rodriguez. MD. It not only restored the patient’s facial features, but also integrated a functional eyeball, potentially setting a new standard for future treatments in similar cases.

The transplant took place in May 2023, and the case report was published on September 5 this year in JAMA.

The 46-year-old man lost a large part of his craniofacial tissue and his left eyeball. The approach was highly specialized. Advanced microsurgical techniques such as anastomoses of microscopic vessels and delicate suturing techniques were crucial for the transplant’s success.

Moreover, customized surgical devices, specific implants, and tissue manipulation tools were developed specifically for this case, thus ensuring the viability of the transplant and adequate perfusion of the transplanted ocular tissue.

The initial results are encouraging. Retinal arterial perfusion has been maintained, and retinal architecture has been preserved, as demonstrated by optical coherence tomography. Electroretinography confirmed retinal responses to light, suggesting that the transplanted eye may eventually contribute to the patient’s visual perception. These results are comparable to those of previous facial tissue transplants, but with the significant addition of ocular functionality, which is a notable advance.

“The successful revascularization of the transplanted eye achieved in this study may serve as a step toward the goal of globe transplant for restoration of vision,” wrote the authors.

The complexity of the combined transplant required a deep understanding of facial and ocular anatomy, as well as tissue preservation techniques. The surgical team reported significant challenges, including the need to align delicate anatomical structures and ensure immunological compatibility between the donor and recipient. Meticulous planning from donor selection to postoperative follow-up was considered essential to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk for allograft rejection.

The patient will now be continuously monitored and receive treatment with immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus and prednisone, adjusted according to his response to the transplant. According to the researchers, further studies will be needed to assess the long-term functionality of the transplanted eye and its integration with the central nervous system.

Despite being the fifth facial transplant surgery performed under Dr. Rodriguez’s leadership, this is the first record of a whole-eye transplant. “The mere fact that we have successfully performed the first whole-eye transplant along with a face transplant is a tremendous achievement that many believed to be impossible,” the doctor said in a statement. “We have taken a giant step forward and paved the way for the next chapter in vision restoration.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a groundbreaking procedure, a team of surgeons from New York University Langone Health successfully performed the first combined face and eye transplant on a patient with extensive craniofacial tissue loss after an electrical accident.

The highly complex surgery lasted for 21 hours and involved more than 140 surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals under the leadership of Eduardo D. Rodriguez. MD. It not only restored the patient’s facial features, but also integrated a functional eyeball, potentially setting a new standard for future treatments in similar cases.

The transplant took place in May 2023, and the case report was published on September 5 this year in JAMA.

The 46-year-old man lost a large part of his craniofacial tissue and his left eyeball. The approach was highly specialized. Advanced microsurgical techniques such as anastomoses of microscopic vessels and delicate suturing techniques were crucial for the transplant’s success.

Moreover, customized surgical devices, specific implants, and tissue manipulation tools were developed specifically for this case, thus ensuring the viability of the transplant and adequate perfusion of the transplanted ocular tissue.

The initial results are encouraging. Retinal arterial perfusion has been maintained, and retinal architecture has been preserved, as demonstrated by optical coherence tomography. Electroretinography confirmed retinal responses to light, suggesting that the transplanted eye may eventually contribute to the patient’s visual perception. These results are comparable to those of previous facial tissue transplants, but with the significant addition of ocular functionality, which is a notable advance.

“The successful revascularization of the transplanted eye achieved in this study may serve as a step toward the goal of globe transplant for restoration of vision,” wrote the authors.

The complexity of the combined transplant required a deep understanding of facial and ocular anatomy, as well as tissue preservation techniques. The surgical team reported significant challenges, including the need to align delicate anatomical structures and ensure immunological compatibility between the donor and recipient. Meticulous planning from donor selection to postoperative follow-up was considered essential to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk for allograft rejection.

The patient will now be continuously monitored and receive treatment with immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus and prednisone, adjusted according to his response to the transplant. According to the researchers, further studies will be needed to assess the long-term functionality of the transplanted eye and its integration with the central nervous system.

Despite being the fifth facial transplant surgery performed under Dr. Rodriguez’s leadership, this is the first record of a whole-eye transplant. “The mere fact that we have successfully performed the first whole-eye transplant along with a face transplant is a tremendous achievement that many believed to be impossible,” the doctor said in a statement. “We have taken a giant step forward and paved the way for the next chapter in vision restoration.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At a conference on hematologic oncology, two sickle cell experts faced off in a debate about whether gene therapy or alternative stem-cell transplant is the best option for patients who don’t have an available matched sibling donor. 

“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.

“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”

But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.

“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”

As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.

“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.

“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”

Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.

As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.

In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.

The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.

“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”

Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.

The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At a conference on hematologic oncology, two sickle cell experts faced off in a debate about whether gene therapy or alternative stem-cell transplant is the best option for patients who don’t have an available matched sibling donor. 

“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.

“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”

But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.

“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”

As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.

“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.

“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”

Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.

As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.

In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.

The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.

“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”

Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.

The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At a conference on hematologic oncology, two sickle cell experts faced off in a debate about whether gene therapy or alternative stem-cell transplant is the best option for patients who don’t have an available matched sibling donor. 

“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.

“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”

But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.

“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”

As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.

“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.

“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”

Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.

As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.

In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.

The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.

“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”

Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.

The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.

This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.

Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.

Sexual dysfunction is a common and significant late effect among CCS. The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
 

Characteristics and Mechanisms

Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.

As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.

Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.

Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects. 
 

Sexual Function in CCS

A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.

The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.

Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.

In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.

The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
 

Factors Influencing Sexual Function

The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.

Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.

Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.

Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.

The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.

Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.

Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.

Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.

This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.

Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.

Sexual dysfunction is a common and significant late effect among CCS. The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
 

Characteristics and Mechanisms

Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.

As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.

Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.

Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects. 
 

Sexual Function in CCS

A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.

The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.

Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.

In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.

The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
 

Factors Influencing Sexual Function

The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.

Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.

Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.

Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.

The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.

Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.

Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.

Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.

This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.

Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.

Sexual dysfunction is a common and significant late effect among CCS. The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
 

Characteristics and Mechanisms

Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.

As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.

Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.

Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects. 
 

Sexual Function in CCS

A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.

The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.

Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.

In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.

The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
 

Factors Influencing Sexual Function

The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.

Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.

Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.

Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.

The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.

Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.

Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.

Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Liver transplant improved progression-free survival (PFS) in carefully selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis; however, the overall survival and recurrence rate benefits did not reach statistical significance.

METHODOLOGY:

• Research has shown promising results for well-selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis undergoing liver transplant; however, the absence of a suitable comparison group makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this treatment method. 
• Researchers evaluated 33 patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastasis (mean age, 43.5 years; 52% women) who were eligible for liver transplants, according to validated selection criteria. 
• Of these, 20 patients (61%) underwent a liver transplant, while 13 (39%) declined transplantation and received alternative therapy. 
• Patients who received liver transplants did not undergo regular chemotherapy until recurrence, whereas those in the alternative therapy group continued systemic chemotherapy, with hepatic artery infusion pump placement (n = 5), liver resections (n = 6), and locoregional therapies (n = 6). 
• The main outcomes of the study were overall survival and PFS. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The median follow-up duration was 986 days in the liver transplant group and 657 days in the alternative therapy group. 
• Patients who underwent liver transplant showed higher PFS rates at 1 year (90.0% vs 41.7%), 2 years (72.7% vs 10.4%), and 3 years (36.4% vs 10.4%). The PFS gains were statistically significant (P < .01). 
• Overall survival was also higher in the transplant group — 100% vs 83.9% at 1 year, and 90.0% vs 73.4% at both 2 and 3 years. The differences, however, did not reach significance (P = .12). 
• Liver transplant was associated with a lower recurrence rate (5% vs 23%), which also did not reach significance (P = .28) possibly because of the small patient population. 

IN PRACTICE:

“This study represents the best available data for evaluating alternatives to [liver transplant],” the authors wrote, adding that the patients should be “referred for multidisciplinary evaluation to transplant oncology centers with strict criteria.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew M. Byrne, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The patient population was small, making it difficult to interpret statistical significance. The inclusion of patients with financial and social support might limit generalizability. The survival was calculated from the date of transplant or dropout. Additionally, the study did not explore sex-based differences in treatment choice.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported holding shares with HistoSonics, not related to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Liver transplant improved progression-free survival (PFS) in carefully selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis; however, the overall survival and recurrence rate benefits did not reach statistical significance.

METHODOLOGY:

• Research has shown promising results for well-selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis undergoing liver transplant; however, the absence of a suitable comparison group makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this treatment method. 
• Researchers evaluated 33 patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastasis (mean age, 43.5 years; 52% women) who were eligible for liver transplants, according to validated selection criteria. 
• Of these, 20 patients (61%) underwent a liver transplant, while 13 (39%) declined transplantation and received alternative therapy. 
• Patients who received liver transplants did not undergo regular chemotherapy until recurrence, whereas those in the alternative therapy group continued systemic chemotherapy, with hepatic artery infusion pump placement (n = 5), liver resections (n = 6), and locoregional therapies (n = 6). 
• The main outcomes of the study were overall survival and PFS. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The median follow-up duration was 986 days in the liver transplant group and 657 days in the alternative therapy group. 
• Patients who underwent liver transplant showed higher PFS rates at 1 year (90.0% vs 41.7%), 2 years (72.7% vs 10.4%), and 3 years (36.4% vs 10.4%). The PFS gains were statistically significant (P < .01). 
• Overall survival was also higher in the transplant group — 100% vs 83.9% at 1 year, and 90.0% vs 73.4% at both 2 and 3 years. The differences, however, did not reach significance (P = .12). 
• Liver transplant was associated with a lower recurrence rate (5% vs 23%), which also did not reach significance (P = .28) possibly because of the small patient population. 

IN PRACTICE:

“This study represents the best available data for evaluating alternatives to [liver transplant],” the authors wrote, adding that the patients should be “referred for multidisciplinary evaluation to transplant oncology centers with strict criteria.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew M. Byrne, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The patient population was small, making it difficult to interpret statistical significance. The inclusion of patients with financial and social support might limit generalizability. The survival was calculated from the date of transplant or dropout. Additionally, the study did not explore sex-based differences in treatment choice.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported holding shares with HistoSonics, not related to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Liver transplant improved progression-free survival (PFS) in carefully selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis; however, the overall survival and recurrence rate benefits did not reach statistical significance.

METHODOLOGY:

• Research has shown promising results for well-selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis undergoing liver transplant; however, the absence of a suitable comparison group makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this treatment method. 
• Researchers evaluated 33 patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastasis (mean age, 43.5 years; 52% women) who were eligible for liver transplants, according to validated selection criteria. 
• Of these, 20 patients (61%) underwent a liver transplant, while 13 (39%) declined transplantation and received alternative therapy. 
• Patients who received liver transplants did not undergo regular chemotherapy until recurrence, whereas those in the alternative therapy group continued systemic chemotherapy, with hepatic artery infusion pump placement (n = 5), liver resections (n = 6), and locoregional therapies (n = 6). 
• The main outcomes of the study were overall survival and PFS. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The median follow-up duration was 986 days in the liver transplant group and 657 days in the alternative therapy group. 
• Patients who underwent liver transplant showed higher PFS rates at 1 year (90.0% vs 41.7%), 2 years (72.7% vs 10.4%), and 3 years (36.4% vs 10.4%). The PFS gains were statistically significant (P < .01). 
• Overall survival was also higher in the transplant group — 100% vs 83.9% at 1 year, and 90.0% vs 73.4% at both 2 and 3 years. The differences, however, did not reach significance (P = .12). 
• Liver transplant was associated with a lower recurrence rate (5% vs 23%), which also did not reach significance (P = .28) possibly because of the small patient population. 

IN PRACTICE:

“This study represents the best available data for evaluating alternatives to [liver transplant],” the authors wrote, adding that the patients should be “referred for multidisciplinary evaluation to transplant oncology centers with strict criteria.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew M. Byrne, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The patient population was small, making it difficult to interpret statistical significance. The inclusion of patients with financial and social support might limit generalizability. The survival was calculated from the date of transplant or dropout. Additionally, the study did not explore sex-based differences in treatment choice.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported holding shares with HistoSonics, not related to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uterus transplants in women with absolute uterine-factor infertility resulted in a 70% success rate of women later giving birth.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 20 women with uterine-factor infertility, a condition in which women do not have a uterus or have one that is not functional; each patient had at least one functioning ovary and uterine abnormalities.
• All patients underwent womb transplantation at a large US specialized care center between 2016 and 2019.
• The transplant was performed using grafts from 18 living donors and two deceased donors.
• Patients received anti-rejection medication until the transplanted uterus was removed following one or two live births or graft failure.
• Researchers measured uterus graft survival and subsequent live births.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the 20 participants, 14 (70%) had successful uterus transplants and all 14 gave birth to at least one healthy infant.
• Half of the successful pregnancies had complications, which included gestational hypertension (14%), cervical insufficiency (14%), and preterm labor (14%).
• None of the 16 live-born infants had congenital malformations, and no developmental delays were observed as of May 2024.
• Four of the 18 living donors experienced grade 3 complications, including ureteral obstruction and thermal injury to the ureters.

IN PRACTICE:

“Uterus transplant was technically feasible and was associated with a high live birth rate following successful graft survival,” wrote the authors of the study. “Adverse events were common, with medical and surgical risks affecting recipients as well as donors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giuliano Testa, MD, MBA, of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and was published online in JAMA Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on data from a single center. The sample size was small. The high cost of uterus transplants limits generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uterus transplants in women with absolute uterine-factor infertility resulted in a 70% success rate of women later giving birth.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 20 women with uterine-factor infertility, a condition in which women do not have a uterus or have one that is not functional; each patient had at least one functioning ovary and uterine abnormalities.
• All patients underwent womb transplantation at a large US specialized care center between 2016 and 2019.
• The transplant was performed using grafts from 18 living donors and two deceased donors.
• Patients received anti-rejection medication until the transplanted uterus was removed following one or two live births or graft failure.
• Researchers measured uterus graft survival and subsequent live births.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the 20 participants, 14 (70%) had successful uterus transplants and all 14 gave birth to at least one healthy infant.
• Half of the successful pregnancies had complications, which included gestational hypertension (14%), cervical insufficiency (14%), and preterm labor (14%).
• None of the 16 live-born infants had congenital malformations, and no developmental delays were observed as of May 2024.
• Four of the 18 living donors experienced grade 3 complications, including ureteral obstruction and thermal injury to the ureters.

IN PRACTICE:

“Uterus transplant was technically feasible and was associated with a high live birth rate following successful graft survival,” wrote the authors of the study. “Adverse events were common, with medical and surgical risks affecting recipients as well as donors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giuliano Testa, MD, MBA, of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and was published online in JAMA Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on data from a single center. The sample size was small. The high cost of uterus transplants limits generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uterus transplants in women with absolute uterine-factor infertility resulted in a 70% success rate of women later giving birth.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 20 women with uterine-factor infertility, a condition in which women do not have a uterus or have one that is not functional; each patient had at least one functioning ovary and uterine abnormalities.
• All patients underwent womb transplantation at a large US specialized care center between 2016 and 2019.
• The transplant was performed using grafts from 18 living donors and two deceased donors.
• Patients received anti-rejection medication until the transplanted uterus was removed following one or two live births or graft failure.
• Researchers measured uterus graft survival and subsequent live births.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the 20 participants, 14 (70%) had successful uterus transplants and all 14 gave birth to at least one healthy infant.
• Half of the successful pregnancies had complications, which included gestational hypertension (14%), cervical insufficiency (14%), and preterm labor (14%).
• None of the 16 live-born infants had congenital malformations, and no developmental delays were observed as of May 2024.
• Four of the 18 living donors experienced grade 3 complications, including ureteral obstruction and thermal injury to the ureters.

IN PRACTICE:

“Uterus transplant was technically feasible and was associated with a high live birth rate following successful graft survival,” wrote the authors of the study. “Adverse events were common, with medical and surgical risks affecting recipients as well as donors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giuliano Testa, MD, MBA, of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and was published online in JAMA Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on data from a single center. The sample size was small. The high cost of uterus transplants limits generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved axatilimab (Niktimvo, Incyte Corporation and Syndax) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) who have not responded to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy and who weigh ≥ 40 kg.

Chronic GVHD is a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation that develops in about 50% of transplant recipients.

The first-in-class treatment for chronic GVHD is a monoclonal antibody that targets the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) receptor. Approval for axatilimab followed priority review of Incyte’s Biologic License Application and was based on findings from the open-label phase 2 AGAVE-201 trial. 

Study participants had chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and had failed to respond to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (median, four lines of therapy). Prior therapies included ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and ibrutinib in 74%, 23%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Overall, 239 patients were enrolled at 121 study sites and were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to three doses.

The FDA recommended dose of axatilimab is 0.3 mg/kg (to a maximum of 35 mg) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Other doses tested in the AGAVE-201 trial were 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks. 

The trial measured overall response rate over the first six cycles (24 weeks). In the 79 patients who received the recommended 0.3-mg/kg dose, the overall response rate was 75%, and the median time to first response was 1.5 months (range, 0.9-5.1). The median duration of response — measured from first response to progression, death, or switch to a new systemic therapy for chronic GVHD — was 1.9 months. 

In those who responded to the therapy, there were no deaths or new therapies required in 60% of patients.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in 15% or more patients, included increased aspartate aminotransferase, infection (pathogen unspecified), increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased phosphate, decreased hemoglobin, musculoskeletal pain, increased lipase, fatigue, increased amylase, increased calcium, increased creatine phosphokinase, nausea, headache, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and dyspnea. 

In the AGAVE-201 trial results, researchers noted that drug discontinuation from treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort, in 22% in the 1-mg/kg cohort, and in 18% in the 3-mg/kg cohort. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1.3% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort. 

“Advanced chronic GVHD is characterized by the development of fibrotic tissue across multiple organ systems, including most commonly the skin and mucosa, and can be extremely difficult to treat, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality,” lead study author Daniel Wolff, MD, PhD, head of the GVHD Center at the University Hospital Regensburg, Germany, said in a company press release. “I am excited that Niktimvo is designed to specifically target key drivers of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic GVHD, and I am highly encouraged by the robust responses observed across all organs and patient subgroups within the heavily pretreated population enrolled in the AGAVE-201 trial. I look forward to having a new and differentiated treatment option for my patients who need additional therapies to address this very difficult to manage, debilitating, disease.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved axatilimab (Niktimvo, Incyte Corporation and Syndax) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) who have not responded to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy and who weigh ≥ 40 kg.

Chronic GVHD is a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation that develops in about 50% of transplant recipients.

The first-in-class treatment for chronic GVHD is a monoclonal antibody that targets the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) receptor. Approval for axatilimab followed priority review of Incyte’s Biologic License Application and was based on findings from the open-label phase 2 AGAVE-201 trial. 

Study participants had chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and had failed to respond to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (median, four lines of therapy). Prior therapies included ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and ibrutinib in 74%, 23%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Overall, 239 patients were enrolled at 121 study sites and were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to three doses.

The FDA recommended dose of axatilimab is 0.3 mg/kg (to a maximum of 35 mg) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Other doses tested in the AGAVE-201 trial were 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks. 

The trial measured overall response rate over the first six cycles (24 weeks). In the 79 patients who received the recommended 0.3-mg/kg dose, the overall response rate was 75%, and the median time to first response was 1.5 months (range, 0.9-5.1). The median duration of response — measured from first response to progression, death, or switch to a new systemic therapy for chronic GVHD — was 1.9 months. 

In those who responded to the therapy, there were no deaths or new therapies required in 60% of patients.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in 15% or more patients, included increased aspartate aminotransferase, infection (pathogen unspecified), increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased phosphate, decreased hemoglobin, musculoskeletal pain, increased lipase, fatigue, increased amylase, increased calcium, increased creatine phosphokinase, nausea, headache, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and dyspnea. 

In the AGAVE-201 trial results, researchers noted that drug discontinuation from treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort, in 22% in the 1-mg/kg cohort, and in 18% in the 3-mg/kg cohort. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1.3% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort. 

“Advanced chronic GVHD is characterized by the development of fibrotic tissue across multiple organ systems, including most commonly the skin and mucosa, and can be extremely difficult to treat, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality,” lead study author Daniel Wolff, MD, PhD, head of the GVHD Center at the University Hospital Regensburg, Germany, said in a company press release. “I am excited that Niktimvo is designed to specifically target key drivers of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic GVHD, and I am highly encouraged by the robust responses observed across all organs and patient subgroups within the heavily pretreated population enrolled in the AGAVE-201 trial. I look forward to having a new and differentiated treatment option for my patients who need additional therapies to address this very difficult to manage, debilitating, disease.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved axatilimab (Niktimvo, Incyte Corporation and Syndax) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) who have not responded to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy and who weigh ≥ 40 kg.

Chronic GVHD is a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation that develops in about 50% of transplant recipients.

The first-in-class treatment for chronic GVHD is a monoclonal antibody that targets the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) receptor. Approval for axatilimab followed priority review of Incyte’s Biologic License Application and was based on findings from the open-label phase 2 AGAVE-201 trial. 

Study participants had chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and had failed to respond to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (median, four lines of therapy). Prior therapies included ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and ibrutinib in 74%, 23%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Overall, 239 patients were enrolled at 121 study sites and were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to three doses.

The FDA recommended dose of axatilimab is 0.3 mg/kg (to a maximum of 35 mg) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Other doses tested in the AGAVE-201 trial were 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks. 

The trial measured overall response rate over the first six cycles (24 weeks). In the 79 patients who received the recommended 0.3-mg/kg dose, the overall response rate was 75%, and the median time to first response was 1.5 months (range, 0.9-5.1). The median duration of response — measured from first response to progression, death, or switch to a new systemic therapy for chronic GVHD — was 1.9 months. 

In those who responded to the therapy, there were no deaths or new therapies required in 60% of patients.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in 15% or more patients, included increased aspartate aminotransferase, infection (pathogen unspecified), increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased phosphate, decreased hemoglobin, musculoskeletal pain, increased lipase, fatigue, increased amylase, increased calcium, increased creatine phosphokinase, nausea, headache, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and dyspnea. 

In the AGAVE-201 trial results, researchers noted that drug discontinuation from treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort, in 22% in the 1-mg/kg cohort, and in 18% in the 3-mg/kg cohort. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1.3% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort. 

“Advanced chronic GVHD is characterized by the development of fibrotic tissue across multiple organ systems, including most commonly the skin and mucosa, and can be extremely difficult to treat, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality,” lead study author Daniel Wolff, MD, PhD, head of the GVHD Center at the University Hospital Regensburg, Germany, said in a company press release. “I am excited that Niktimvo is designed to specifically target key drivers of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic GVHD, and I am highly encouraged by the robust responses observed across all organs and patient subgroups within the heavily pretreated population enrolled in the AGAVE-201 trial. I look forward to having a new and differentiated treatment option for my patients who need additional therapies to address this very difficult to manage, debilitating, disease.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.

To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.

University College London Hospitals

“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.

These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.

Dr. Jalan presented the interim results at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
 

Organ Allocation Principally Based on MELD Scores

ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.

As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Dr. Jalan said.

MELD scores do not consider the risk for death because of failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.

With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.

The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.

Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.

For the interim results, Dr. Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.

Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.

Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score > 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).

Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Dr. Jalan noted.

“It is interesting to note that, in group 3, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.

Dr. Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.

However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Dr. Jalan said.
 

Death or Delisting

Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted, compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.

Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score < 25 on the wait list died or were delisted, Dr. Jalan pointed out, suggesting that these patients are disadvantaged under the current system of waiting list priority.

Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.

“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Dr. Jalan said.

Turning to 3-month post-transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.

“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Dr. Jalan said. “The risk of death post transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”

There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.

Looking at 3-month post-transplantation mortality by continent, Dr. Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk, compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.

“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Dr. Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”

The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Dr. Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
 

‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’

Comoderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.

“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.

The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.

“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Dr. Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”

The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.

However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Dr. Lleo’s comments.

This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.

Dr. Jalan declared he is the inventor of Ornithine Phenylacetate, licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; a speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit; and the founder of Yaqrit, Hepyx, CyberLiver, and Gigabiome. Dr. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Dr. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.

To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.

University College London Hospitals

“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.

These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.

Dr. Jalan presented the interim results at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
 

Organ Allocation Principally Based on MELD Scores

ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.

As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Dr. Jalan said.

MELD scores do not consider the risk for death because of failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.

With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.

The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.

Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.

For the interim results, Dr. Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.

Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.

Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score > 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).

Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Dr. Jalan noted.

“It is interesting to note that, in group 3, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.

Dr. Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.

However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Dr. Jalan said.
 

Death or Delisting

Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted, compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.

Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score < 25 on the wait list died or were delisted, Dr. Jalan pointed out, suggesting that these patients are disadvantaged under the current system of waiting list priority.

Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.

“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Dr. Jalan said.

Turning to 3-month post-transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.

“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Dr. Jalan said. “The risk of death post transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”

There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.

Looking at 3-month post-transplantation mortality by continent, Dr. Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk, compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.

“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Dr. Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”

The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Dr. Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
 

‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’

Comoderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.

“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.

The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.

“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Dr. Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”

The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.

However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Dr. Lleo’s comments.

This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.

Dr. Jalan declared he is the inventor of Ornithine Phenylacetate, licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; a speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit; and the founder of Yaqrit, Hepyx, CyberLiver, and Gigabiome. Dr. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Dr. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.

To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.

University College London Hospitals

“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.

These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.

Dr. Jalan presented the interim results at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
 

Organ Allocation Principally Based on MELD Scores

ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.

As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Dr. Jalan said.

MELD scores do not consider the risk for death because of failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.

With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.

The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.

Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.

For the interim results, Dr. Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.

Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.

Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score > 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).

Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Dr. Jalan noted.

“It is interesting to note that, in group 3, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.

Dr. Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.

However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Dr. Jalan said.
 

Death or Delisting

Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted, compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.

Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score < 25 on the wait list died or were delisted, Dr. Jalan pointed out, suggesting that these patients are disadvantaged under the current system of waiting list priority.

Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.

“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Dr. Jalan said.

Turning to 3-month post-transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.

“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Dr. Jalan said. “The risk of death post transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”

There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.

Looking at 3-month post-transplantation mortality by continent, Dr. Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk, compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.

“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Dr. Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”

The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Dr. Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
 

‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’

Comoderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.

“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.

The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.

“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Dr. Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”

The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.

However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Dr. Lleo’s comments.

This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.

Dr. Jalan declared he is the inventor of Ornithine Phenylacetate, licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; a speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit; and the founder of Yaqrit, Hepyx, CyberLiver, and Gigabiome. Dr. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Dr. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.