Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.

Background: We developed a simplified variant of the ADV score, the AFP-PIVKAII (AP) score for post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis, which considers only AFP and PIVKA-II levels excluding morphometric tumor size information from the ADV score. This study investigated the prognostic performance of the AP score in predicting HCC recurrence and overall survival (OS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: We analyzed 843 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2015, assessing HCC recurrence and OS in relation to AP score. Results: The median pretransplant AFP and PIVKA-II levels were 12.8 ng/mL and 27 mAU/mL, respectively. The median and mean AP scores were 2.6 log (range: 0.6–9.2 log) and 2.9±1.1 log, respectively. The 5-year time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the AP score in predicting post-transplant HCC recurrence was 0.672 (p<0.001). HCC recurrence and OS curves along AP score intervals of 1.0 log showed statistical differences in accordance with the AP scores (both p<0.001). Using a Youden index J-derived AP score cutoff of 4.0 log, two-tiered groups (ADV <4.0 log vs. ADV ≥4.0 log) showed statistically significant differences in HCC recurrence and OS (both p<0.001). Harrell’s c-indices for AP score with cutoff of 4.0 log and ADV scores with cutoff of 5.0 log regarding HCC recurrence and OS were similar. Conclusion The AP score functions as an integrated surrogate marker for predicting post-transplant outcomes in patients with HCC undergoing LDLT. It may serve as a simplified alternative to the ADV score, particularly in patients with small HCCs.

Background: Studies on whether donor-to-recipient sex match status affects long-term survival after liver transplantation (LT) have yielded contradictory results. This study evaluated whether donor-to-recipient sex match status influenced long-term survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high-volume center. Methods: The study included 6,664 patients who underwent primary LT between January 2000 and December 2022 at our institution. Patients were divided into four groups according to donor-to-recipient sex match status: male-to-male (n=3,427 [51.4%]), male-to-female (n=1,152 [17.3%]), female-to-male (n=1,385 [20.8%]), and female-to-female (n=700 [10.5%]). Results: Regarding clinical characteristics, the four groups differed significantly regarding background liver disease (P<0.001), model for end-stage liver disease score (P<0.001), serum protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II level (P=0.003), presence of concurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; P<0.001), and type of LT (P=0.003). Overall survival (OS) of all LT recipients did not differ significantly among the groups (P=0.377). Donor-to-recipient sex match status did not affect long-term OS in either LDLT (P=0.176) or DDLT (P=0.220) groups. In addition, sex match status did not significantly influence posttransplant OS among patients who underwent LDLT without HCC (P=0.464), LDLT with HCC (P=0.236), DDLT without HCC (P=0.338), or DDLT with HCC (P=0.818). Conclusions Donor-to-recipient sex match status does not significantly affect posttransplant patient survival or HCC prognosis after LDLT or DDLT.

Purpose: Huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses significant treatment and prognosis challenges. This study aimed to determine whether preoperative transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for huge HCC is necessary. Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated 435 patients with huge HCC who underwent upfront hepatectomy or hepatectomy after preoperative TACE from January 2009 to December 2018. TACE’s impact on survival and prognostic factors, including microvascular invasion (MVI) and satellite nodules (SNs), was analyzed. Results: The preoperative TACE group (n = 33) had a lower incidence of MVI (P = 0.009) and higher postoperative morbidity (P = 0.001), particularly pleural effusion (P = 0.004) and Clavien-Dindo class III–IV complications (P = 0.033), compared with the upfront hepatectomy group (n = 402). Short-term mortality (P = 0.828) and recurrence within 6 months (P = 0.654) were comparable between groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival curves showed no significant between-group differences in recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.172) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.450). Local regional therapy for intrahepatic recurrences and surgical resection for extrahepatic recurrences were associated with better OS. MVI, SN, and hepatic vein tumor thrombosis were identified as significant risk factors for poorer RFS and OS. In patients without SN, preoperative TACE improved RFS (P = 0.039) but not OS. Conclusion Preoperative TACE for huge HCC was associated with reduced MVI but did not improve RFS and OS. Survival outcomes were more significantly influenced by SN, suggesting that upfront hepatectomy without TACE should be prioritized.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

Background: As the prevalence of obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increases in recent years, the number of living donor liver transplantation from donor with high body mass index (BMI) is increasing. However, data on the effect of high BMI on outcomes in liver donors are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the influence of donor obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2 ) on and clinical outcomes after donor right liver resection (DRLR). Methods: Records of all living donors who underwent DRLR between January 2015 and December 2020 at Asan Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. We divided donors into obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2 , n=41) and normal-weight (BMI ≤25 kg/m2 , n=1,125) groups. To eliminate bias, matching was performed using the greedy method, and 34 donors involved in this study in each group. Results: After matching, preoperatively, the obese group had significantly higher preoperative levels of serum aspartate aminotransferase (p=0.021), alanine aminotransferase (p=0.003), and a larger celiac artery depth ratio (p<0.001) and graft volume (p<0.001) than the normal-weight group. When comparing perioperative outcomes of donor, the operation time was longer in the obese group (p=0.019), but no difference was observed in postoperative major complication rates (p=0.314), lengths of hospital stay (p=0.607), and readmission rate (p>0.999). Furthermore, both groups had similar major surgical outcomes of recipients including biliary (p=0.163) complications and lengths of hospital stay (p=0.445). Conclusion DRLR may be safely performed in a select group of high BMI donors with ≥30 kg/m2 without uncontrolled metabolic disease and significant liver steatosis in the absence of other suitable living donors.

Purpose: Studies have yielded contradictory results on whether donor sex and donor-recipient sex disparity affect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The present study assessed whether donor sex or donor-recipient sex disparity affects HCC recurrence after LDLT at a high-volume center. Methods: This study included 772 HCC patients who underwent LDLT between January 2006 and December 2015 at Asan Medical Center. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the sex of the donor and recipient: male-to-male (n = 490, 63.5%), male-to-female (n = 75, 9.7%), female-to-male (n = 170, 22.0%), and female-to-female (n = 37, 4.8%). Results: Disease-free survival (DFS; P = 0.372) and overall survival (OS; P = 0.591) did not differ significantly among the 4 groups. DFS also did not differ significantly between LDLT recipients with male and female donors (P = 0.792) or between male and female recipients (P = 0.084). After patient matching with an α-FP/des-γ-carboxy prothrombin/tumor volume score cutoff of 5logs, donor-recipient sex disparity did not significantly affect DFS (P = 0.598) or OS (P = 0.777). There were also no differences in DFS in matched LDLT recipients with male and female donors (P = 0.312) or between male and female recipients (P = 0.374). Conclusion Neither donor sex nor donor-recipient sex disparity significantly affected posttransplant HCC recurrence.

Purpose: Malignant intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct of the liver (IPNB-L) cannot readily be diagnosed through preoperative CT or MRI, but fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET is a viable alternative. This study evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic impacts of FDG-PET in patients with IPNB-L. Methods: This was a retrospective single-center study of 101 IPNB-L patients who underwent hepatectomy between 2010 and 2019. Results: Mean age was 64.4 ± 8.3 years and 76 (75.2%) were male. Anatomical hepatic resection was performed in 99 (98.0%). Concurrent bile duct resection and pancreaticoduodenectomy were performed in 41 (40.6%) and 1 (1.0%), respectively. R0 and R1 resections were performed in 88 (87.1%) and 13 (12.9%), respectively. Low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and high-grade neoplasia/invasive carcinoma were diagnosed in 19 (18.8%) and 82 (81.2%), respectively. Median FDG-PET maximal standardized uptake values (SUVmax) in low-grade neoplasia and high-grade neoplasia/carcinoma were 3.6 (range, 1.7–7.6) and 5.2 (range, 1.5–18.7) (P = 0.019), respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of SUVmax showed area under the curve of 0.674, with sensitivity of 84.2% and specificity of 47.4% at SUVmax cutoff of 3.0. This cutoff had no significant influence on tumor recurrence (P = 0.832) or patient survival (P = 0.996) in patients with IPNB-L of high-grade neoplasia or invasive carcinoma. Conclusion IPNB-L is a rare type of biliary neoplasm and encompasses a histological spectrum ranging from benign disease to invasive carcinoma. An FDG-PET SUVmax cutoff of 3.0 appears to effectively discern high-grade neoplasia/ carcinoma from low-grade neoplasia, which will assist with the surgical strategy for these cases.

Purpose: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare borderline vascular tumor. This retrospective, single-center study evaluated the outcomes of hepatic resection (HR) in patients with hepatic EHE. Methods: Over the 10-year period from 2009 to 2018, 11 patients with hepatic EHE underwent HR, accounting for 0.1% of the 11,979 adults who underwent HR at our center. Diagnosis of hepatic EHE was confirmed by immunohistochemical staining for CD34, CD31, and factor VIII-related antigen. Results: The 11 patients included 9 females (81.8%) and 2 males (18.2%) with mean age of 43.5 ± 13.6 years. Preoperative imaging resulted in a preliminary diagnosis of suspected liver metastasis or EHE, with 9 patients (81.8%) undergoing liver biopsy. No patient presented with abnormally elevated concentrations of liver tumor markers. The extents of HR were determined by tumor size and location from trisectionectomy to partial hepatectomy. All patients recovered uneventfully from HR. Five patients showed tumor recurrence, with 4 receiving locoregional treatments for recurrent lesions. The 1-, 3-and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 90.9%, 54.5%, and 54.5%, respectively. Currently, all patients remain alive and are doing well. Univariate analysis on tumor recurrence showed that tumor size ≥ 4 cm was significantly associated with tumor recurrence (P = 0.032), but tumor number ≥ 4 was not related to (P = 0.24). Conclusion Hepatic EHE is a rare form of primary liver tumor often misdiagnosed as a metastatic tumor. Because of its malignant potential, HR is indicated if possible. HR plus, when necessary, treatment of recurrence yields favorable overall survival rates in patients with hepatic EHE.

Purpose: When splitting a liver for adult and pediatric graft recipients, the retained left medial section (S4) will undergo ischemic necrosis and the right trisection graft becomes an extended right liver (ERL) graft. We investigated the fates of the retained S4 and its prognostic impact in adult split liver transplantation (SLT) using an ERL graft. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 25 adult SLT recipients who received split ERL grafts. Results: The mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 27.3 ± 10.9 and graft-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) was 1.98 ± 0.44. The mean donor age was 26.5 ± 7.7 years. The split ERL graft weight was 1,181.5 ± 252.8 g, which resulted in a mean GRWR of 1.98 ± 0.44. Computed tomography of the retained S4 parenchyma revealed small ischemic necrosis in 16 patients (64.0%) and large ischemic necrosis in the remaining 9 patients (36.0%). No S4-associated biliary complications were developed. The mean GRWR was 1.87 ± 0.43 in the 9 patients with large ischemic necrosis and 2.10 ± 0.44 in the 15 cases with small ischemic necrosis (P = 0.283). The retained S4 parenchyma showed gradual atrophy on follow-up imaging studies. The amount of S4 ischemic necrosis was not associated with graft (P = 0.592) or patient (P = 0.243) survival. A MELD score of >30 and pretransplant ventilator support were associated with inferior outcomes. Conclusion The amount of S4 ischemic necrosis is not a prognostic factor in adult SLT recipients, probably due to a sufficiently large GRWR.