Evidence Hub

Determining safe washout period for immune checkpoint inhibitors prior to liver transplantation: An international retrospective cohort study

B. Moeckli, C. Wassmer, S. El Hajji, Rohan Kumar, Joana Rodrigues Ribeiro, P. Tabrizian, Hao Feng, G. Schnickel et al.

Hepatology, 2025

119 participants · 38 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AIMS

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). However, concerns about the risk of post-transplant rejection persist.

METHODS

We conducted an international retrospective cohort study including 119 HCC patients who received ICIs prior to LT. We analyzed the incidence of allograft rejection, graft loss, and post-transplant recurrence with particular focus on the washout period between the last ICI dose and LT.

RESULTS

In this study, 24 of the 119 (20.2%) patients experienced allograft rejection with a median time to rejection of 9 days (IQR 6-10) post-LT. A linear relationship was observed between shorter washout periods and higher rejection risk. Washout periods less than 30 days (OR 21.3, 95% CI: 5.93-103, p<0.001) and between 30 and 50 days (OR 9.48, CI 2.47-46.8, p=0.002) were significantly associated with higher rejection rates in the univariate analysis compared to the washout period above 50 days. Graft loss as a result of rejection occurred in 6 patients (25%) with rejection. No factors related to grafts were associated with rejection. A longer washout period was not associated with a lower recurrence-free survival post-transplantation at 36 months (71 vs. 67%, p=0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a washout period longer than 50 days for ICIs before liver transplantation appears to be safe with respect to rejection risk. While these…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 119 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free