Primary versus Salvage Liver Transplantation after Curative-Intent Resection or Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Long-Term Oncological Outcomes

Simple Summary This research aimed to compare the outcomes of primary liver transplantation (PLT) and salvage liver transplantation (SLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim was to determine which approach offers better oncological outcomes and whether SLT after previous curative treatments such as liver resection (LR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is as effective as PLT. Data analyzed from 141 patients who underwent liver transplantation for HCC found that PLT resulted in significantly longer disease-free survival, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared to SLT. However, within the SLT group, there was no significant difference in DFS between SLT-LR and SLT-RFA. These findings suggest that PLT may provide superior long-term oncological outcomes, and a shift towards PLT rather than SLT may be worth considering. Further research is needed to confirm these results, but this study provides valuable insights for the research community regarding optimal transplantation strategies for HCC patients.Abstract Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may be performed ab initio, primary liver transplantation (PLT), or for HCC recurrence after previous treatments such as liver resection (LR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA), salvage liver transplantation (SLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the oncological outcomes of SLT vs. PLT. For this, a retrospective study was carried out on patients undergoing liver transplantation for HCC. The outcomes of PLT were compared with those of SLT. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and major postoperative complications. A sub-analysis of SLT-LR and SLT-RFA was also performed. In total, 141 patients were included: 96 underwent PLT and 45 SLT. Among the SLT group, 25 patients had undergone previous LR while 20 had had RFA. There were no differences in the major postoperative complications. Unadjusted DFS was significantly longer in the PLT group (p = 0.02), as were OS (p = 0.025) and CSS (p = 0.001). There was no difference in DFS between PLT and SLT-LR groups, while a significant difference was found between the PLT and SLT-RFA groups (p = 0.035). Nonetheless, DFS was no different between the SLT-LR and SLT-RFA groups. PLT appears to offer superior long-term oncological outcomes to SLT. Both SLT-LR and SLT-RFA offer acceptable OS and CSS. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results, but the re-direction of grafts and transplant philosophy towards PLT rather than SLT may need to be considered.