Background Patients affected by HCC represent a vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic and may suffer from the unusual allocation of healthcare resources. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of HCC patients within six French referral centers of the metropolitan area of Paris. Materials and methods We performed a multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study on the management of patients affected by HCC during the first six weeks of COVID-19 pandemic (exposed), compared to the same period in 2019 (unexposed). Were included all patients discussed in multidisciplinary tumor meeting (MTB) and/or undergoing radiological or surgical programmed procedure during the study period, in a curative or palliative intent. Endpoints were the number of patients with a modification in the treatment strategy, or a delay in decision-to-treatment. Results After screening, n=670 patients were included (n=293 Exposed to COVID, n=377 Unexposed to COVID). A decrease of the numbers of patients with HCC presented in MTB in 2020 (p=0.034) and with a first diagnosis of HCC (n=104 Exposed to COVID, n=143 Unexposed to COVID, p=0.083) was find. Modification in the treatment strategy was observed in 13.1% of patients, with no differences between the two periods. Nevertheless 21.5% versus 9.5% of patients experienced a treatment delay longer than 1 month in 2020 compared to 2019 (p<0.001). In 2020, 7.1% (21/293) of patients had a diagnosis of an active COVID-19 infection: 11 (52.4%) were hospitalized, and 4 (19.1%) died. Conclusions In a metropolitan area highly impacted by COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a decreased number of cases of HCC, and similar rates of modification in treatment strategy, but with a treatment delay significantly longer in 2020 versus 2019.

Background. Liver transplantation (LT) from controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) was initiated in France in 2015 under a protocol based on the use of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) before organ procurement. The aim was to compare outcomes following cDCD LT with NRP and donation after brain death (DBD) LT. Methods. This is a multicenter retrospective study comparing cDCD LT with NRP and DBD LT. A case-matched study (1:2) was performed using the variables such as recipient and donor age, indication of LT. Results. A total of 50 patients from the cDCD group were matched to 100 patients from the DBD group. From postoperative days 1–4, serum transaminase release was significantly lower in the cDCD group compared to the DBD group (P < 0.05). Early allograft dysfunction (cDCD: 18% versus DBD: 32%; P = 0.11), acute kidney injury (26% versus 33%; P = 0.49), 90-d graft loss (2% versus 5%; P = 0.66), and arterial (4% versus 12%; P = 0.19) and biliary (16% versus 17%; P = 0.94) complications were similar between the 2 groups. The 2-y graft survival was 88% for cDCD group and 85% for DBD group (P = 0.91). The 2-y patient survival was 90% for cDCD group and 88% for DBD group (P = 0.68). Conclusions. This study provides evidence that cDCD LT following postmortem NRP can be safely and effectively performed in selected recipients with similar graft and patient survival outcomes, without increased rates of biliary complications and early graft dysfunction compared to DBD LT.

Objective: To compare HOPE and NRP in liver transplantation from cDCD. Summary of Background Data: Liver transplantation after cDCD is associated with higher rates of graft loss. Dynamic preservation strategies such as NRP and HOPE may offer safer use of cDCD grafts. Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort study assessing outcomes after cDCD liver transplantation in 1 Swiss (HOPE) and 6 French (NRP) centers. The primary endpoint was 1-year tumor-death censored graft and patient survival. Results: A total of 132 and 93 liver grafts were transplanted after NRP and HOPE, respectively. NRP grafts were procured from younger donors (50 vs 61 years, P < 0.001), with shorter functional donor warm ischemia (22 vs 31 minutes, P < 0.001) and a lower overall predicted risk for graft loss (UK-DCD-risk score 6 vs 9 points, P < 0.001). One-year tumor-death censored graft and patient survival was 93% versus 86% (P = 0.125) and 95% versus 93% (P = 0.482) after NRP and HOPE, respectively. No differences in non-anastomotic biliary strictures, primary nonfunction and hepatic artery thrombosis were observed in the total cohort and in 32 vs. 32 propensity score-matched recipients Conclusion: NRP and HOPE in cDCD achieved similar post-transplant recipient and graft survival rates exceeding 85% and comparable to the benchmark values observed in standard DBD liver transplantation. Grafts in the HOPE cohort were procured from older donors and had longer warm ischemia times, and consequently achieved higher utilization rates. Therefore, randomized controlled trials with intention-to-treat analysis are needed to further compare both preservation strategies, especially for high-risk donor-recipient combinations.