Researchers looked at 485 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to see how different eligibility rules affect outcomes. They compared the traditional Milan criteria against three broader sets of rules: UCSF, Up-to-7, and MT 2.0. The goal was to see if stricter rules actually improved survival for patients waiting for a liver transplant.
The study found that there were no significant differences in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, or freedom from tumor across the four different sets of criteria. While the broader rules allowed many more patients to qualify for a transplant, those who were excluded by the stricter Milan rules did not show better survival outcomes.
Because this was a post-hoc analysis, the results should be viewed with caution. The study suggests that the strict Milan criteria might exclude some patients who could still benefit from a transplant. Patients and doctors should discuss these different eligibility models to determine the best path forward for individual care.
