Evidence Hub

Impact of pre-transplant immune checkpoint inhibitor use on post-transplant outcomes in HCC: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

M. S. Rezaee-Zavareh, Y. Yeo, Tie-Long Wang, Zhiyong Guo, P. Tabrizian, Stephen C. Ward, Fatma M. Barakat, Tarek Hassanein et al.

Journal of Hepatology, 2024

91 participants · 100 citations

Abstract

Background & Aims: Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prior to liver transplantation (LT) has been reported; however, ICIs may elevate the risk of allograft rejection and impact other clinical outcomes. This study aims to summarize the impact of ICI use on post-LT outcomes. Methods: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched databases to identify HCC cases treated with ICIs before LT, detailing allograft rejection, HCC recurrence, and overall survival. We performed Cox regression analysis to identify risk factors for allograft rejection. Results: Among 91 eligible patients, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 690.0 (654.5) days, there were 24 (26.4%) allograft rejections, 9 (9.9%) HCC recurrences, and 9 (9.9%) deaths. Age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] per 10 years 0.72, 95% CI 0.53–0.99, p = 0.044) and ICI washout time (aHR per 1 week 0.92, 95% CI 0.86–0.99, p = 0.022) were associated with allograft rejection. The median (IQR) washout period for patients with ≤20% probability of allograft rejection was 94 (196) days. Overall survival did not differ between cases with and without allograft rejection (log-rank test, p = 0.2). Individuals with HCC recurrence had fewer median (IQR) ICI cycles than those without recurrence (4.0 [1.8] vs. 8.0 [9.0]; p = 0.025). The proportion of patients within Milan post-ICI was lower for those with recurrence vs. without (16.7% vs. 65.3%, p = 0.032). Conclusion: Patients have…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 91 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