optn liver and intestinal organ transplantation committee update spring 2012 kim olthoff, md, chair...
Post on 14-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
OPTNOPTN
Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee
UpdateSpring 2012
Kim Olthoff, MD, ChairDavid Mulligan, MD, Vice-chair
OPTN
Proposals Circulated Fall 2011
Public Comment ended 12/23/2011 Committee met 03/15/2012, reviewed comments• Share 15 National will be submitted to the Board of
Directors in June• Share 35 Regional - Several decisions:• Will apply to MELD/PELD exceptions• No Sharing Threshold• Awaiting data on Liver-Kidney before decision• Will meet by call in April or May to vote on Board
submission
OPTN
Other Committee Initiatives
MELD Enhancements & Exceptions Subcommittee• MELD Refit (with or without Na)• Review of issues with MELD/PELD exceptions /
Review Boards• Revisit PELD Score
Liver Utilization Subcommittee• Reducing discards• “Facilitated Placement”
OPTN
Other Committee Initiatives
HCC Subcommittee• Explant Pathology Form – Going online• Will replace faxed forms• System notice 2 weeks prior
• HCC Hold Proposal (Spring 2012)• HCC Allocation Issues
Status 1 Review Subcommittee • Ongoing real-time review of Status 1A/B cases
not meeting criteria
OPTNOPTN
Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee
Proposal for Public Comment
Spring 2012
OPTNOPTN
Proposal to Allow Centers to Place Liver Candidates with HCC
Exceptions on ‘HCC Hold’ Without Loss of Accumulated MELD
Exception Score
(“HCC Hold”)
OPTN
Problem Statement - ICurrently: Candidates listed with an HCC exception continue to
receive increases in priority every three months regardless of whether the tumors have shown progression
As score increases (22, 25, 28, etc.) candidates begin to receive offers
Centers may wish to inactivate some candidates until there is demonstrated tumor progression:
• Candidates initially listed with small tumors• Those with well-treated tumors
OPTN
Problem Statement - II No mechanism to do this without:• Automatic increases in score (if extended while
inactivated) OR• Loss of accumulated score (if not extended while
inactive If inactivated, centers must submit extensions every
three months• Otherwise candidate loses accumulated MELD
score• Score continues to increase even though risk of
drop-out may be low
OPTN
Proposal Allow centers to place liver candidates with
HCC Exceptions on ‘HCC Hold’ without loss of accumulated MELD exception score and without mandatory/standard increases in the score q 3 mo
In practice: Candidate is inactivated, reason provided is “HCC hold”
OPTN
Benefits Will eliminate offers for high-MELD patients that
the center is not yet ready to transplant• Improve efficiency of the system (fewer
turndowns)• Decrease required applications for extensions,
and tests required to complete applications Allows centers to utilize different ways of treating
these patients (e.g., TACE, RFA), while providing the safety net of transplant if/when tumor recurs or demonstrates growth
OPTN
Summary Current Process in UNet℠ Proposed Change
Centers can extend an approved HCC Exception while candidate is in inactive status.
No change.
Approved HCC Exception applications must be extended every 3 months, even while the candidate is in inactive status. If the application is not extended, the candidate will lose the accumulated exception score upon re-activation.
Approved HCC Exception applications may remain on ‘HCC hold’ as long as a candidate is in inactive status; once re-activated, the candidate will retain the accumulated exception score (most recent tumor information must be provided).
OPTN
Example A (p. 62 of proposal)
1/1/2012: Candidate has approved HCC exception, one 2.1 cm tumor (MELD 22).
Exception extended 4/1 (25) and 7/1 (28). Candidate begins receiving offers; tumor size still
2.1cm Transplant team decides to observe tumor
behavior before proceeding to transplant Candidate placed on “HCC hold,” periodically
undergoes CT to monitor the lesion.
OPTN
Example A (p. 62 of proposal)
12/10/12: CT shows tumor has grown to 2.8 cm. 12/15/12: Center submits the routine tumor
information and activates candidate Candidate’s score of 28 maintained until the next
extension
OPTN
Example B (p. 62 of proposal) 1/1/2012: Candidate has approved HCC exception, one
tumor treated with RFA that is 2.5 cm in size (MELD 22). Exception extended 4/1 (25) and 7/1 (28). Candidate begins receiving offers, however the candidate
has an ablation defect with no evidence of viable tumor Transplant team decides to observe tumor behavior before
proceeding to transplant. Candidate placed on “HCC hold,” periodically undergoes
CT to monitor the lesion.
OPTN
Example B (p. 62 of proposal)
1/1/13: CT shows no evidence of viable tumor at the ablation site but a new 1cm hypervascular lesion with wash out on delayed phase imaging.
1/5/13: Center submits the routine tumor information and activates candidate.
Candidate’s score of 28 is maintained until the next extension
OPTN
Supporting Data
Candidates with small HCC tumors have a low probability of waiting list dropout or growth beyond current transplant criteria within 12 months of listing• Washburn et al, AJT 2010• Massie, et al, AJT 2011
OPTN
Policy
The following options are available while a candidate with an approved HCC Exception application is in inactive status: • The center may choose to submit an
extension application every 3 months, as described above; the candidate will receive a MELD/PELD score equivalent to a 10 percentage point increase in candidate mortality following each approved extension.
OPTN
Policy• The center may keep the candidate in inactive
status for any length of time, without submission of an extension application every 3 months. However, prior to reactivation, an extension application must be submitted. Once the extension application is approved, the candidate will be listed with the candidate’s previously approved exception score prior to inactivation (i.e., without loss of the accumulated MELD/PELD exception score) upon re-activation.
OPTN
Plan for EvaluatingThe Committee will review annually:How often this option is usedMean MELD/PELD scores at transplant, number and % of candidates removed from the waiting list for reasons other than transplant for candidates with HCC exceptions versus those without, by RegionOutcomes for candidates whose exception is placed on hold
OPTN
Additional Information
Additional Data Collection:
These proposals do not require additional data collection (forms) in TiediSM
Expected Implementation Plan:
UNOS Information Technology (IT) staff will need to reprogram UNetSM to implement these algorithms
top related