Liver Transplantation for NASH-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Versus Non-NASH Etiologies of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver transplant (LT) for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not well characterized in the literature. The aim of the study was to examine characteristics and outcomes of patients who had LT for NASH-HCC (NASH) versus HCC from other liver diseases (non-NASH). METHODS: Using a 2-center retrospective design, all patients from 2004 to 2014 that received LT for HCC were analyzed. Subgroup analysis stratified patients according to Milan criteria. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-nine patients were transplanted for HCC. Sixty (6.5%) of 929 had HCC in the context of NASH. There were no significant differences between groups for pretransplant or explant tumor characteristics. The actuarial 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival was 98%, 96%, and 80% in NASH versus 95%, 84%, and 78% in non-NASH (P = 0.1). No differences in tumor recurrence were observed in patients within and beyond Milan in the NASH group. Multivariate Cox regression demonstrated NASH status to be a protective factor for recurrence among patients with tumors beyond Milan (hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.86; P = 0.029). CONCLUSION: After LT, outcomes are similar between NASH and non-NASH etiologies for HCC. The hypothesis that patients with more advanced HCC tumors in the context of NASH may have more favorable outcomes after LT has been generated, but requires further 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".