Differentiating tumor versus bland portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is essential in determining liver transplantation (LT) candidacy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to evaluate radiographic and clinical features that could noninvasively distinguish tumor PVT from bland PVT in HCC patients. Of 467 patients with HCC listed for LT from 2004 to 2011, 59 (12.6%) had PVT and 12 of 59 (20.3%) were deemed malignant. When comparing tumor versus bland PVT, thrombus enhancement was seen in 100% versus 8.5%; venous expansion was seen in 91.7% versus 10.6%; neovascularity was seen in 58.3% versus 2.1%; and being adjacent to HCC or prior treatment site was seen in 100% versus 21.3% (all P < 0.001). Combining these 4 imaging characteristics with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) >1000 ng/dL, the presence of ≥3 criteria best characterized tumor PVT with 100% sensitivity, 93.6% specificity, 80% positive predictive value, and 100% negative predictive value. No LT recipients with presumed bland PVT had macrovascular invasion on explant. There were no differences in post-LT survival or HCC recurrence with bland PVT versus no PVT. In conclusion, we proposed noninvasive criteria that could accurately differentiate tumor PVT from bland PVT called A-VENA, which is based on the presence of ≥3 of the following: AFP >1000 ng/dL; venous expansion; thrombus enhancement; neovascularity; and adjacent to HCC. Use of the A-VENA criteria can assist in standardizing the evaluation of PVT in patients with HCC being considered for LT.

Background

Predicting the risk of alcohol relapse after a liver transplant for alcohol-associated liver disease is critical to guide candidate selection and optimize alcohol use disorder management. We aimed to use patient survey to augment the detection of alcohol relapse and its risk factors and to understand patient perceptions of the importance of alcohol abstinence.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we used a telephone survey and chart review to assess the incidence of post-transplant harmful alcohol relapse, risk factors, and long-term outcomes for patients transplanted for alcohol-associated cirrhosis at our center from 2002 to 2016.

Results

Over the median follow-up of 5.9 years, 20.4% relapsed, with 9.3% harmful relapse after median of 4.0 years. The survey response rate was 44.0% (n=110). Of survey responders, 44.3% did not recall discussing alcohol in post-transplant clinics, and 17.6% of relapses were identified by the survey alone. In univariate analysis, shorter pretransplant sobriety (OR: 0.96 per month, p=0.02) and history of pretransplant relapse (OR: 2.99, p=0.02) were associated with post-transplant harmful relapse. After adjusting for these factors, High-risk Alcoholism Relapse score ≥4 predicted harmful relapse (OR: 3.43, p=0.049). A total of 27.3% of patients with both pretransplant relapse and High-risk Alcoholism Relapse score ≥4 relapsed to harmful use compared with 5.2% of those with 1 or neither risk factor (p < 0.001). Harmful relapse was associated with increased graft loss (30.4% vs. 17.4%) and inferior 10-year post-liver transplant survival (61.5% vs. 80.7%).

Conclusions

Incorporating patient survey data allowed the detection of relapses otherwise unreported to clinicians, highlighting the need for novel strategies to detect relapse. Utilizing this augmented data, we identified pretransplant sobriety length, pretransplant relapse, and High-risk Alcoholism Relapse score ≥4 as risk factors that should be evaluated pretransplant to guide candidate selection and peritransplant alcohol use disorder management.

Background & aims

While abstinence-promoting behavioral and pharmacotherapies are part of the therapeutic foundation for alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), these therapies, along with alcohol screening and education, are often underutilized. Our aim was to examine provider attitudes and practices for alcohol screening, treatment and education in patients with liver disease.

Methods

We conducted a survey of primarily (89%) hepatology and gastroenterology providers within (80%) and outside the United States (20%). Surveys were sent to 921 providers with 408 complete responses (44%), of whom 343 (80%) work in a tertiary liver transplant center.

Results

While alcohol screening rates in liver disease patients was nearly universal, less than half of providers reported practicing with integrated addiction providers, using alcohol biomarkers and screening tools. Safe alcohol use by liver disease patients was felt to exist by 40% of providers. While 60% of providers reported referring AUD patients for behavioral therapy, 71% never prescribed AUD pharmacotherapy due to low comfort (84%). Most providers (77%) reported low addiction education and 90% desired more during GI/hepatology fellowship training. Amongst prescribers, baclofen was preferred, but with gaps in pharmacotherapy knowledge. Overall, there was low adherence to the 2019 AASLD practice guidance for ALD, although higher in hepatologists and experienced providers.

Conclusions

While our survey of hepatology and gastroenterology providers demonstrated higher rates of alcohol screening and referrals for behavioral therapy, we found low rates of prescribing AUD pharmacotherapy due to knowledge gaps from insufficient education. Further studies are needed to assess interventions to improve provider alignment with best practices for treating patients with AUD and ALD.