Liver Transplantation for Symptomatic Liver Metastases of Neuroendocrine Tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous reports have demonstrated that liver transplantation for neuroendocrine tumour metastasis is feasible. However, perioperative risks and long-term recurrences remain significant concerns. When liver transplantation is combined with extensive intestinal or pancreatic resection, the risk is particularly high.We report our institutional experience of liver transplantations performed for liver metastases secondary to neuroendocrine tumours, and in combination with a review of the literature, we propose a set of selection criteria. The key points include unresectable hepatic metastases of neuroendocrine origin, absence of extrahepatic metastases, symptomatic disease that is refractory to medical therapy, a Ki-67 level less than 2%, previous resection of the primary disease, and previous therapy for metastatic neuroendocrine tumour.In our experience, the patient in the first case had, post-transplantation, rapid disease progression because of an unidentified primary, and patient in the second case had primary non-function of the liver graft, requiring urgent re-transplantation. More recently, two liver transplantations were successfully performed. The indications were, in the first case, refractory hormonal secretion and, in the other, secondary biliary cirrhosis attributable to hepatic artery therapy with tumour in situ. Subclinical and stable recurrent disease has been detected by scintigraphy in the mesentery and lumbar spine in the former patient. A mesenteric recurrence developed in the latter patient 2 years post transplantation and was subsequently completely resected. At 4 and 5 years post transplantation, both patients are symptom-free.Recurrence after transplantation remains a significant concern, even with careful patient selection, but recurrences may remain indolent. If recurrences are progressive, they may still be amenable to additional medical or surgical therapy. A national or international consensus between oncologists and transplant specialists regarding the indications for liver transplantation is vital, because future progress will depend on careful patient selection and prospective study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".