Key Points Question Can different forms of financial incentives (unconditional, conditional, or lottery) boost response rates to mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach? Findings In this randomized clinical trial of 897 patients, there was no statistically significant difference in screening response rates at 2 and 6 months between the incentive arms and mailed outreach without incentive. Meaning Different forms of financial incentives of the same expected value ($10) did not increase fecal immunochemical test completion rates, as the incentive value have been too small or financial incentives may not be effective in this context.

Patients with indeterminate liver nodules, classified as LR-3 and LR-4 observations per the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System, are at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but risk estimates remain imprecise. We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception to December 2021 to identify cohort studies examining HCC incidence among patients with LR-3 or LR-4 observations on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Predictors of HCC were abstracted from each study, when available. Of 13 total studies, nine conducted LR-3 observation-level analyses, with the proportions of incident HCC ranging from 1.2% to 12.5% at 12 months and 4.2% to 44.4% during longer study follow-up. Among three studies with patientlevel analyses, 8%-22.2% of patients with LR-3 lesions developed LR-4 observations and 11.1%-24.5% developed HCC. Among nine studies conducting LR-4 observation-level analyses, incident HCC ranged from 30.8% to 44.0% at 12 months and 30.9% to 71.0% during study follow-up; conversely, 6%-42% of observations were downgraded to LR-3 or lower. Patient-level factors associated with HCC included older age, male sex, higher alphafetoprotein levels, viral etiology, and prior history of HCC; observation-level factors included maximum diameter, threshold growth, T2 hyperintensity, and visibility on ultrasound. Studies were limited by small sample sizes, inclusion of patients with prior HCC, short follow-up duration, and failure to account for clustering of observations in patients or competing risks of transplantation and death. LR-3 and LR-4 observations have elevated but variable risks of

Background. The impact of selecting older donors for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States is incompletely studied, particularly in light of the recent expansion of LDLT nationally. Methods. Adult LDLTs from January 01, 2005 to December 31, 2019 were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Multivariable Cox models evaluated living donor (LD) age as a predictor of LDLT recipient and graft survival. The impact of increasing donor age on recipient outcomes was compared between LD and deceased donor recipients. Donor postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Results. There were 3539 LDLTs at 65 transplant centers during the study period. Despite the recent expansion of LDLT, the proportion of LDs aged ≥50 y was stable. There were no clinically significant differences in recipient or donor characteristics by LD age group. LD age ≥50 y was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = 0.012) for recipient survival and 1.61 (P < 0.001) for graft survival (vs LDs aged 18-29 y). The negative impact of increasing donor age on graft survival was more profound after LDLT than deceased donor liver transplantation (interaction P = 0.019). There was a possible increased rate of early donor biliary complications for donors >55 y (7.1% versus 3.1% for age <40 y; P = 0.156). Conclusions. Increasing LD age is associated with decreased recipient and graft survival, although older donors still largely yield acceptable outcomes. Donor outcomes were not clearly impacted by increasing age, though this warrants further study. (Transplantation 2023;107: 162-171).

Background. In the United States, nearly 30% of liver transplants (LT) are performed for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although overall long-term survival is highest with LT, there are limited data on the incremental survival benefit of LT versus other curative options (resection or ablation) due to shunting of patients towards LT. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 50–69 with cirrhosis and HCC in the Veterans Health Administration (population enriched with 3 curative treatments) from 2008 to 2016. The cohort was restricted to patients who received LT, resection, or ablation and a calculated model for end-stage liver disease score <15 at HCC diagnosis. Results. Among 2129 veterans in the analytic cohort, 658 (26.7%) received LT, 244 (11.5%) underwent resection, and 1317 (61.59%) received ablation. In multivariable models, patients who underwent resection (hazard ratio: 5.42; 95% confidence interval: 4.15-7.08) or ablation (hazard ratio: 5.50; 95% confidence interval: 4.51-6.71) had significantly increased hazards of death. However, in absolute terms, the incremental survival benefit of LT over resection or ablation was small, between 0.02 and 0.03 years at 1 year, 0.32–0.42 years at 3 years, and 1.04–1.24 years at 5 years follow-up. These results were consistent in sensitivity analyses accounting for possible immortal time bias, as well as a cohort restricted to early/intermediate stage HCC. Conclusions. Although LT is associated with significantly increased survival compared to resection and ablation, the absolute incremental survival benefit is small over a 5-year time horizon. Optimal selection of patients for LT is critical for maximizing utilization of a scarce resource.

Transplant center performance and practice variation for pediatric post–liver transplantation (LT) outcomes other than survival are understudied. This was a retrospective cohort study of pediatric LT recipients who received transplants between January 1, 2006, and May 31, 2017, using United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data that were merged with the Pediatric Health Information System database. Center effects for the acute rejection rate at 1 year after LT (AR1) using UNOS coding and the biliary complication rate at 1 year after LT (BC1) using inpatient billing claims data were estimated by center‐specific rescaled odds ratios that accounted for potential differences in recipient and donor characteristics. There were 2216 pediatric LT recipients at 24 freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States during the study period. The median unadjusted center rate of AR1 was 36.92% (interquartile range [IQR], 22.36%‐44.52%), whereas that of BC1 was 32.29% (IQR, 26.14%‐40.44%). Accounting for recipient case mix and donor factors, 5/24 centers performed better than expected with regard to AR1, whereas 3/24 centers performed worse than expected. There was less heterogeneity across the center effects for BC1 than for AR1. There was no relationship observed between the center effects for AR1 or BC1 and center volume. Beyond recipient and allograft factors, differences in transplant center management are an important driver of center AR1 performance, and less so of BC1 performance. Further research is needed to identify the sources of variability so as to implement the most effective solutions to broadly enhance outcomes for pediatric LT recipients.