An E2F7/TSC1-based model for predicting the efficacy of sirolimus after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria (2024)

As a radical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), liver transplantation (LT) has become an ideal treatment option for certain HCC patients. For patients beyond the Milan criteria, high HCC recurrence risk is a vital factor affecting the prognosis. Sirolimus, a first-generation mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, decreased recurrence rates and prolonged overall survival (OS) compared with calcineurin inhibitors (CNI)-based mTOR inhibitor-free immunosuppression.[1] However, some patients taking sirolimus after LT regularly do still have HCC recurrence in clinical practice. Thus, predicting the efficacy of sirolimus from the perspective of molecular pathology is expected to break through this bottleneck.

Tuberous sclerosis 1 (TSC1) is a negative regulator of the mTOR complex; so, low expression of TSC1 indicates activation of the mTOR complex. Previously, we found that LT patients with low levels of TSC1 and HCC beyond the Milan criteria had a longer OS and higher recurrence-free survival rates, benefiting from sirolimus-based immunosuppression. In contrast, sirolimus did not improve the prognosis of LT patients beyond the Milan criteria with a high level of TSC1.[2] E2F transcription factor 7 (E2F7) belongs to the atypical E2F transcription factor family. In in vitro and in vivo models of HCC, E2F7 knockdown significantly promoted cell apoptosis and inhibited the cell proliferation and tumor growth induced by sirolimus. Similarly, we found that LT patients for HCC with low E2F7 expression could benefit from sirolimus in terms of prolonged OS, but patients with high E2F7 expression could not. Based on previous studies, we initially screened the beneficiaries of sirolimus by means of E2F7 and TSC1 single indicators. However, relying solely on E2F7 or TSC1 may have limited clinical guiding value for the use of sirolimus. In addition, E2F7 inhibits mTOR complex 1 by binding to the TSC1 gene promoter to promote TSC1 transcription.[3] Given that both E2F7 and TSC1 have a negative regulatory effect on the mTOR complex, combining these two indicators to screen beneficiaries of sirolimus may have a greater effect.

This study was conducted in accordance with both the Declarations of Helsinki and Istanbul. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Shulan (Hangzhou) Hospital (No. KY2023071) and First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University (No. 2018-768). Written informed consent was obtained from each participants. In total, 149 LT patients beyond the Milan criteria at two LT centers between 2015 and 2019, were retrospectively included. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients over 18-year-old; (2) patients who received LT for the first time; (3) survival ≥90 days after transplantation; and (4) no macrovascular invasion. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the patient had combined multiorgan transplantation; (2) the initial time of sirolimus use was within 30 days before death; (3) the initial time of sirolimus use was within 30 days before or after the recurrence of HCC; (4) the patients had a pathological diagnosis of HCC plus intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after transplantation; (5) the clinical data were incomplete; and (6) the patient’s primary tumor was derived from extrahepatic organs. The required information obtained from the patients included patient demographics, comorbidities, laboratory tests, radiological data, tumor pathology, treatment before LT, surgical data, and HCC samples.

In all patients, basiliximab (20mg) was regularly administered within 2 h before surgery and on the fourth day after surgery. Methylprednisolone (500mg) was intraoperatively administered. An immunosuppressive regimen based on tacrolimus/cyclosporin A+mycophenolate was implemented in the early postoperative period. In the sirolimus group, sirolimus was usually administered 30–60 days after transplantation. The blood concentration of sirolimus was stable at 4–10ng/mL. At the initiation of sirolimus treatment, the CNI dose was reduced to half, and the CNI was discontinued when the sirolimus target level was reached. Tacrolimus/cyclosporin A was continued in the control group, and the dose was adjusted according to liver function and the blood immunosuppressant concentration. Both groups were treated with mycophenolate.

Tumors isolated from LT patients were processed by formalin fixation and paraffin embedding. Microarrays were established from 149 HCC samples. For TSC1 and E2F7 expression analyses, primary anti-TSC1 (Abcam, USA; ab227594, 1:150) and anti-E2F7 antibodies (Abnova,Taipei, China; Cat# PAB12815, 1:100) were used, respectively. The immunohistochemically stained slides were scanned by an Olympus VS200 scanner (Tokyo, Japan) and evaluated by the staining proportion and intensity, which was called the immune response score (IRS). The IRS was determined by multiplying the staining intensity in four gradations with the percentage of positive cells in four gradations. The gradations were performed as described previously.[4] To analyze the correlation between E2F7 and TSC1, IRS ≤7 was defined as low, and IRS ≥8 was defined as high. When both E2F7 and TSC1 were expressed at low levels, the combined IRS was 0 points. When either E2F7 or TSC1 was expressed at low levels, the combined IRS was 1 point. When both E2F7 and TSC1 were highly expressed, the combined IRS was 2 points.

The primary endpoint of our study was OS in the transplant patients. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed on the variables that achieved P<0.05 in univariable Cox regression analysis. Integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) was used to compare the probability differences in predicting the survival status of beneficiaries of sirolimus screened by E2F7, TSC1, or the combined IRS. Similarly, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare the discriminative ability for predicting survival status among the above-mentioned beneficiaries. All statistical tests were two-tailed, with P values <0.05 indicating statistical significance. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software (version 4.2.0, https://www.r-project.org).

A total of 205 liver transplants were performed during the study period, of which 149 patients were eligible for clinical trial inclusion [Figure1A]. The average follow-up time for the 149 patients was 34 months (interquartile range, 17.43–45.33 months). These 149 patients were divided into the sirolimus group (n=80) and the control group (n=69). The demographic characteristics, biochemical parameters, and tumor pathology examinations of the two groups are shown in Supplementary Table1, http://links.lww.com/CM9/B978. All preoperative parameters were comparable between the two study arms.

Open in a separate window

Figure1

Flowchart for screening patients (A). Comparing OS between sirolimus group and sirolimus-free group according to the different combined IRS evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier method (B,C). E2F7: E2F transcription factor 7; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; IRS: Immune response score; LT: Liver transplantation; OS: Overall survival; TSC1: Tuberous sclerosis 1.

Typical immunohistochemistry staining is shown in Figure1B. A total of 60 patients had low E2F7 expression, and 77 patients had low TSC1 expression. In contrast, 89 patients had high E2F7 expression, and 72 patients had high TSC1 expression. Supplementary Figure1, http://links.lww.com/CM9/B978 indicates that there was no correlation between the expression of E2F7 and TSC1 (Pearson correlation coefficient=0.075, P=0.460). Thus, the combination of E2F7 and TSC1 may have a greater predictive effect on the efficacy of sirolimus.

When patients had low expression levels of E2F7 (n=60) or TSC1 (n=77), sirolimus strikingly improved prognosis (P=0.036 and 0.006), but when they had high expression levels, sirolimus failed to significantly improve prognosis (P=0.330 and 0.670) [Supplementary Figures2A–D, http://links.lww.com/CM9/B978]. According to the combined IRS obtained by analyzing the IHC results, 149 patients were divided into three groups: 0 points (n=38), 1 point (n=61), and 2 points (n=50). Compared with the sirolimus-free group with a combined IRS of 0 and 1 point, sirolimus strikingly prolonged the prognosis of transplant patients with a combined IRS of 0 and 1 point (P=0.004) but not that of patients with a combined IRS of 2 points (P=0.780) [Figure1C, D]. Furthermore, by univariable and multivariable Cox analyses, we determined that tumor differentiation (P=0.004) and administration of sirolimus (P=0.006) were independent prognostic predictors of the 99 patients with a combined IRS of 0 and 1 points [Supplementary Table2, http://links.lww.com/CM9/B978]. Conversely, only tumor differentiation (P=0.004) was an independent prognostic predictor of the 50 patients with a combined IRS of 2 points [Supplementary Table3, http://links.lww.com/CM9/B978].

Compared with E2F7 and TSC1, the beneficiaries of sirolimus screened by the combined IRS increased by 26.2% (39/149) and 14.8% (22/149), respectively, and the groups had similar survival curves. In the 99 patients with a combined IRS of 0 and 1 points, sirolimus had a comparable AUC value at each time point in the 60 patients with low expression of E2F7 and in the 77 patients with low expression of TSC1, which indicated a similar discriminative ability for prognosis [Supplementary Figure3, http://links.lww.com/CM9/B978]. Strikingly, among the 99 patients with a combined IRS of 0 and 1 points, the IDI of sirolimus in precisely predicting the survival status was increased by 8.0% (P=0.005) and 0.2% (P=0.023) compared with low expression of E2F7 (n=60) and TSC1 alone (n=77), respectively. Based on the above results, the use of E2F7 combined with TSC1 to predict the efficacy of sirolimus is a promotion of our previous research results.

At present, mTOR inhibitors, as immunosuppressants, have been extensively applied in the field of organ transplantation, especially in LT for HCC, due to the effect of inhibiting HCC recurrence and protecting kidney function. Nevertheless, a pathway-based approach is broadly thought to become the primary approach to treating cancer; this concept has been potentially challenged by the emergence of acquired drug resistance.[5] As an inhibitor of the mTOR pathway, sirolimus did not escape the problem of acquired tolerance as well. We also found that there may be discrepancies in the efficacy of immunosuppressive agents for different LT patients with HCC.[2] Therefore, constructing an efficient prediction model for the efficacy of immunosuppressive agents from the perspective of the molecular typing of HCC to accurately screen the beneficiaries and realize the individualized use of immunosuppressive agents may further improve the prognosis of LT for HCC.

In conclusion, this model innovatively combined the tumor molecular classification and showed accurate prediction performance for the efficacy of sirolimus in LT patients for HCC. Our research results will help clinical decision-making and achieving the individualized and precise application of sirolimus in LT for HCC beyond the Milan criteria.

Funding

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 92159202, 82273270, and 32171368) and National Science and Technology Major Project of China (No. 2017ZX10203205).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Footnotes

Lincheng Zhang and Wei Zhou contributed equally to this work.

How to cite this article: Zhang LC, Zhou W, Zheng SS, Ling SB, Xu X. An E2F7/TSC1-based model for predicting the efficacy of sirolimus after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria. Chin Med J 2024;137:1973–1975. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000003102

References

1. Chen J Shen T Li J Ling S Yang Z Wang G, et al.. Clinical practice guideline on liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in China (2021 edition). Chin Med J2022;135:2911–2913. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002515. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Ye Q Ling S Jiang G Shan Q Xu S Zhan Q, et al.. Sirolimus-based immunosuppression improves the prognosis of liver transplantation recipients with low TSC1/2 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria. Eur J Surg Oncol2021;47:2533–2542. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.04.001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Ling S Zhan Q Jiang G Shan Q Yin L Wang R, et al.. E2F7 promotes mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant2022;22:2323–2336. doi: 10.1111/ajt.17124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Ling S Shan Q Zhan Q Ye Q Liu P Xu S, et al.. USP22 promotes hypoxia-induced hepatocellular carcinoma stemness by a HIF1α/USP22 positive feedback loop upon TP53 inactivation. Gut2020;69:1322–1334. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319616. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Dugger SA, Platt A, Goldstein DB. Drug development in the era of precision medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov2018;17:183–196. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.226. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

An E2F7/TSC1-based model for predicting the efficacy of sirolimus after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria (2024)

FAQs

What is the Milan criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma liver transplant? ›

The Milan criteria, introduced by Mazzaferro in 1996, restrict transplantation in adults with HCC as follows: (1) single tumor diameter less than 5 cm; (2) not more than three foci of tumor, each one not exceeding 3 cm; (3) no angioinvasion; (4) no extrahepatic involvement.

Is sirolimus based immunosuppression associated with increased survival after liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma? ›

Survival analysis in all patients

The 1- and 3-year OS rates of the SRL group were 97.4% and 85.5%, respectively, while in the non-SRL group, the 1- and 3-year OS rates were 82.0% and 71.9%, respectively. The SRL group had a better prognosis than the non-SRL group (P<0.001).

What is up to 7 criteria for HCC? ›

The Up-to-7 criteria are defined as HCC with seven as the sum of the diameter of the largest tumor (in cm) and the number of tumors. The UCSF criteria are defined as HCC meeting the following criteria: solitary tumor of ≤6.5 cm, or ≤3 nodules with the largest lesion of ≤4.5 cm and a total tumor diameter of ≤8 cm.

What are the criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma transplant? ›

They concluded that HCC patients could be considered eligible for liver transplantation when satisfying one of the following two points: (a) a total tumor diameter of ≤8 cm, or (b) a total tumor diameter of >8 cm but a histopathologic grade I or II and a preoperative AFP level of ≤400 ng/mL, since the survival curves ...

How bad is hepatocellular carcinoma? ›

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), or liver cancer, occurs when a tumor grows on the liver. It is responsible for over 12,000 deaths per year in the United States, making it one of the most serious cancers in adults.

What is adequate criteria for liver biopsy? ›

Biopsies taken with a 16-gauge needle result in larger specimen sizes. Most experts agree that a specimen with 11 portal tracts and about 3 cm long is adequate for evaluation. If an adequate specimen is not obtained after two passes, an alternative approach should be considered.

What are the side effects of sirolimus on the liver? ›

Sirolimus therapy can be associated with mild serum enzyme elevations and it has been linked to rare instances of clinically apparent cholestatic liver injury.

What are the side effects of immunosuppression after liver transplant? ›

Common side effects of liver transplant medicines
  • Increase risk of infection. Because immunosuppressants work by lowering your immune system, this means you are more likely to pick up infections. ...
  • Weakened bones (osteoporosis) ...
  • Weight gain. ...
  • High blood sugars. ...
  • Increased blood pressure. ...
  • Stomach problems.

How long are you on immunosuppression after liver transplant? ›

As the patient heals and recovers health with the help of their new liver, dosages and number of medications are reduced over time. By six months, it is common to be down to 1 or 2 medications. However, patients will be taking immunosuppression medications for the rest of their lives in virtually all cases.

What is the prognosis for HCC in the liver? ›

What is the survival rate for hepatocellular carcinoma? The five-year relative survival rate (people alive five years after their diagnosis) for people with HCC is 21%. But many factors contribute to life expectancy, including how advanced HCC is, your liver's overall health and your response to treatment.

What is the poor prognosis of HCC? ›

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most leading causes of cancer death with a poor prognosis. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms are largely unclear, and effective treatment for it is limited.

What is end stage HCC? ›

Patients with end stage or terminal HCC are those presenting with tumors leading to a very poor Performance Status (ECOG 3–4) or Child–Pugh C patients with tumors beyond the transplantation threshold. Among HCC patients, 15–20% present with end stage or terminal stage HCC. Their median survival is less than 3–4 months.

Can HCC come back after liver transplant? ›

Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation is common, the reported recurrence rate being as high as 40% [2]. However, in cases in which the Milan selection criteria were adopted, risk of recurrence decreased to 10-15% at 5 years [12, 28].

What is the life expectancy after liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis? ›

Earlier studies from the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) reported a 5-year overall survival of 49% in patients undergoing liver transplantation for non-cirrhotic HCC compared with 75% in patients with cirrhotic livers inside the Milan criteria [7, 8].

What is the most common malignancy after liver transplant? ›

In the United States, as per the United Network for Organ Sharing registry [4], post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), skin cancer, and head and neck cancer are common DNMs, while prostate and breast cancer are less frequent.

What are the MELD criteria for HCC? ›

Patients with cirrhosis and HCC beyond T2 but within generally accepted criteria for down- staging (such as up to 5 lesions, total tumor volume <8 cm based on resection pathology) who underwent complete resection with negative margins and developed T1 (biopsy proven) or T2 recurrence (LI-RADS 5) may also be considered ...

What is the new criteria for liver transplant? ›

Clinical end-points that determine suitability for transplantation may include one or more of the following: severe cholestasis; portal hypertension with/without variceal bleeding; multiple episodes of ascending cholangitis; failure of hepatic synthetic function; malnutrition and failure to thrive; intractable ascites; ...

What is the MELD score for liver transplant? ›

MELD, the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, is a numeric scale, ranging from 6 (less ill) to 40 (gravely ill). Used for transplant candidates age 12 and older. PELD, the Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease, is a numeric scale for transplant candidates younger than 12.

What are the matching criteria for liver transplant? ›

Living donation is a voluntary process. Donors must have a compatible blood type and liver anatomy that is suitable for donation. Potential liver donors must not have any serious medical conditions, such as liver disease, diabetes, heart disease or cancer.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Lilliana Bartoletti

Last Updated:

Views: 5585

Rating: 4.2 / 5 (53 voted)

Reviews: 84% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Lilliana Bartoletti

Birthday: 1999-11-18

Address: 58866 Tricia Spurs, North Melvinberg, HI 91346-3774

Phone: +50616620367928

Job: Real-Estate Liaison

Hobby: Graffiti, Astronomy, Handball, Magic, Origami, Fashion, Foreign language learning

Introduction: My name is Lilliana Bartoletti, I am a adventurous, pleasant, shiny, beautiful, handsome, zealous, tasty person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.