TY - JOUR
T1 - Entecavir versus tenofovir on the recurrence of hepatitis B-related HCC after liver transplantation
T2 - A multicenter observational study
AU - Kim, Deok Gie
AU - Choi, Youngrok
AU - Rhu, Jinsoo
AU - Hwang, Shin
AU - You, Young Kyoung
AU - Kim, Dong Sik
AU - Nah, Yang Won
AU - Kim, Bong Wan
AU - Cho, Jai Young
AU - Kang, Koo Jeong
AU - Yang, Jae Do
AU - Choi, Donglak
AU - Joo, Dong Jin
AU - Kim, Myoung Soo
AU - Ryu, Je Ho
AU - Lee, Jae Geun
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 John Wiley and Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Considerable controversy exists regarding the superiority of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) over entecavir (ETV) for reducing the risk of HCC. This study aimed to compare outcomes of ETV versus TDF after liver transplantation (LT) in patients with HBV-related HCC. We performed a multicenter observational study using data from the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry. A total of 845 patients who underwent LT for HBV-related HCC were divided into 2 groups according to oral nucleos(t)ide analogue used for HBV prophylaxis post-LT: ETV group (n = 393) and TDF group (n = 452). HCC recurrence and overall death were compared in naïve and propensity score (PS)-weighted populations, and the likelihood of these outcomes according to the use of ETV or TDF were analyzed with various Cox models. At 1, 3, and 5 years, the ETV and TDF groups had similar HCC recurrence-free survival (90.7%, 85.6%, and 84.1% vs. 90.9%, 84.6%, and 84.2%, respectively, p = 0.98) and overall survival (98.4%, 94.7%, and 93.5% vs. 99.3%, 95.8%, and 94.9%, respectively, p = 0.48). The propensity score-weighted population showed similar results. In Cox models involving covariates adjustment, propensity score-weighting, competing risk regression, and time-dependent covariates adjustment, both groups showed a similar risk of HCC recurrence and overall death. In subgroup analyses stratified according to HCC burden (Milan criteria, Up-to-7 criteria, French alpha-fetoprotein risk score), pretransplantation locoregional therapy, and salvage LT, neither ETV nor TDF was superior. In conclusion, ETV and TDF showed mutual noninferiority for HCC outcomes when used for HBV prophylaxis after LT.
AB - Considerable controversy exists regarding the superiority of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) over entecavir (ETV) for reducing the risk of HCC. This study aimed to compare outcomes of ETV versus TDF after liver transplantation (LT) in patients with HBV-related HCC. We performed a multicenter observational study using data from the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry. A total of 845 patients who underwent LT for HBV-related HCC were divided into 2 groups according to oral nucleos(t)ide analogue used for HBV prophylaxis post-LT: ETV group (n = 393) and TDF group (n = 452). HCC recurrence and overall death were compared in naïve and propensity score (PS)-weighted populations, and the likelihood of these outcomes according to the use of ETV or TDF were analyzed with various Cox models. At 1, 3, and 5 years, the ETV and TDF groups had similar HCC recurrence-free survival (90.7%, 85.6%, and 84.1% vs. 90.9%, 84.6%, and 84.2%, respectively, p = 0.98) and overall survival (98.4%, 94.7%, and 93.5% vs. 99.3%, 95.8%, and 94.9%, respectively, p = 0.48). The propensity score-weighted population showed similar results. In Cox models involving covariates adjustment, propensity score-weighting, competing risk regression, and time-dependent covariates adjustment, both groups showed a similar risk of HCC recurrence and overall death. In subgroup analyses stratified according to HCC burden (Milan criteria, Up-to-7 criteria, French alpha-fetoprotein risk score), pretransplantation locoregional therapy, and salvage LT, neither ETV nor TDF was superior. In conclusion, ETV and TDF showed mutual noninferiority for HCC outcomes when used for HBV prophylaxis after LT.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85176508930&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000227
DO - 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000227
M3 - Article
C2 - 37489922
AN - SCOPUS:85176508930
SN - 1527-6465
VL - 29
SP - 1272
EP - 1281
JO - Liver Transplantation
JF - Liver Transplantation
IS - 12
ER -