Background: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an option to expand the donor organ pool for patients with life-threatening diseases who cannot be supplied with a cadaver organ. Next to the donor risks, complications after ABO-incompatible LDLT (ABOi LDLT) in the recipient are subject to controversial discussion. Improvement in ABOi graft survival rates have been achieved with plasma treatment procedures (PTP) and immunosuppression but antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) and graft loss still occur. Methods: Since 2008, we have prepared 10 patients for ABOi LDLT. Seven of the 10 patients for transplantation had hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Results: All patients underwent PTP before and after ABOi LDLT as well as immunosuppression according to the treatment schedule. We did not use anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in the transplant setting. We transplanted 6 of 10 preconditioned patients. After 3 years, 5 of the 6 transplanted patients were still alive. Conclusion: Even if B-cell depletion with anti-CD 20 treatment in the setting of ABOi LDLT is commonly accepted, our center successfully administered only quadruple drug immunosuppression combined with PTP. Especially patients with HCC had a high titer increment also pre-transplantation and were at high risk for arterial thrombosis and graft loss.

For a long time, it was considered medical malpractice to neglect the blood group system during transplantation. Because there are far more patients waiting for organs than organs available, a variety of attempts have been made to transplant AB0-incompatible (AB0i) grafts. Improvements in AB0i graft survival rates have been achieved with immunosuppression regimens and plasma treatment procedures. Nevertheless, some grafts are rejected early after AB0i living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) due to antibody mediated rejection or later biliary complications that affect the quality of life. Therefore, the AB0i LDLT is an option only for emergency situations, and it requires careful planning. This review compares the treatment possibilities and their effect on the patients’ graft outcome from 2010 to the present. We compared 11 transplant center regimens and their outcomes. The best improvement, next to plasma treatment procedures, has been reached with the prophylactic use of rituximab more than one week before AB0i LDLT. Unfortunately, no standardized treatment protocols are available. Each center treats its patients with its own scheme. Nevertheless, the transplant results are homogeneous. Due to refined treatment strategies, AB0i LDLT is a feasible option today and almost free of severe complications.

type I and type II receptors). Nevertheless, the decision to initiate a dupilumab treatment in transplant recipients must be made interdisciplinary, carefully considering the individual risk-benefit prospects together with the patient. Larger series of patients with longer follow-up periods are required to estimate the risk-benefit ratio of dupilumab treatment in transplant recipients.

Improving long-term patient and graft survival after liver transplantation (LT) remains a major challenge. Compared to the early phase after LT, long-term morbidity and mortality of the recipients not only depends on complications immediately related to the graft function, infections, or rejection, but also on medical factors such as de novo malignancies, metabolic disorders (e.g., new-onset diabetes, osteoporosis), psychiatric conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression), renal failure, and cardiovascular diseases. While a comprehensive post-transplant care at the LT center and the connected regional networks may improve outcome, there is currently no generally accepted standard to the post-transplant management of LT recipients in Germany. We therefore described the structure and standards of post-LT care by conducting a survey at 12 German LT centers including transplant hepatologists and surgeons. Aftercare structures and form of cost reimbursement considerably varied between LT centers across Germany. Further discussions and studies are required to define optimal structure and content of post-LT care systems, aiming at improving the long-term outcomes of LT recipients.

Purpose FDG PET/CT has been described for noninvasive grading, detection of extrahepatic spread, and recurrence in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). As compared with localized imaging approaches (MRI, ultrasonography), FDG PET/CT not only focuses on the liver, but covers a long field of view from the base of the skull to the thighs, visualizing pathologic findings not related to HCC. The aims of this retrospective study were to (1) describe the frequency of relevant incidental findings on FDG PET/CT in HCC patients, (2) evaluate the impact on treatment strategy in HCC patients considered for liver transplantation, and (3) to discuss the role of FDG PET/CT in patients considered for transplantation in general. Methods Four hundred thirty-nine FDG PET/CT examinations of 345 HCC patients were screened for incidental findings. The clinical information system was searched for examinations performed after FDG PET/CT and aimed at verification of incidental findings. Of 345 HCC patients, 81 patients were considered for liver transplantation. The impact of incidental findings was recorded separately for this subgroup. Results One hundred one patients with incidental findings in 439 FDG PET/CT examinations were identified. The incidental findings comprised 22 neoplasms (9 malignant) and 52 inflammations. Liver transplantation was not performed because of an incidental finding on FDG PET/CT in 9 (11.1%) of 81 patients. Conclusions FDG PET/CT is capable of identifying relevant incidental findings (ie, secondary malignancy, benign tumors, and inflammation) in HCC patients and HCC patients considered for liver transplantation and thus influencing HCC patient management. FDG PET/CT might also be beneficial in patients considered for transplantation of different organs.