Patent Publication Number: US-2022228218-A1

Title: Clinical and Molecular Prognostic Markers for Liver Transplantation

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This is a Continuation-in-Part of International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2020/077757, filed on Oct. 2, 2020, which claims priority to European Patent Application No. 19201218.5, filed Oct. 2, 2019. The contents of the foregoing applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. 
    
    
     FIELD 
     The present invention relates to a method for prognosis, or to determine the likelihood of positive outcome, of a patient scheduled or considered to receive a liver transplantation in the course of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. An integrated application of both clinical and molecular markers allows an improved selection of potential candidates for liver transplantation compared to current criteria for selection of patients. Its application will contribute to an improved selection of patients for liver transplantation necessitated by hepatocellular carcinoma. 
     BACKGROUND 
     Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly prevalent disease that significantly impacts mortality and quality of life. It is important to understand its multifactorial etiology and complex etiopathogenesis to inform patient stratification for current therapies or to design personalized medicine optimised for a patient&#39;s genome. Liver transplantation (LT) is the best treatment for HCC in cirrhosis, yet organ availability is limited due to the high likelihood of poor outcomes for this disease. Furthermore, it is believed that the expansion of current criteria will lead to a greater demand for transplants, leading in turn to longer waiting times on pre-transplant lists, increasing withdrawal rates, and worsening intention-to-treat outcomes. Even when organs are available, the benefit of LT has to be balanced against the risk for the donor. 
     An optimised selection of HCC patients is therefore imperative. The stringency of current clinical morphological models, namely the Milan Criteria (MC), may exclude excellent candidates, for example, patients with advanced, yet “benign” tumours that were discovered late in the course of the disease. Conversely, the MC may not exclude patients with early HCC characterised by more aggressive forms of tumour behaviour. The identification of the best candidates for liver transplantation in patients with HCC in the setting of cirrhosis can potentially increase the number of candidates for LT, and therefore influence the demand on the donor pool. 
     Molecular biomarkers can provide relevant information about the biological behaviour of tumours. At the present moment, however, there are no available consensual prognostic biomarkers that allow proper selection of patients for transplantation, as very few studies have addressed HCC molecular biomarkers in patients. The inventors propose that it is important to focus on the genes, or gene signatures that affect prognosis, as criteria based on morphology of tumours can only partially discriminate patients with good/bad prognosis. Of these, genes that are expressed in HCC patients with a good prognosis (i.e., those where upregulation results in a good outcome) may supplement currently accepted criteria to select a subgroup of patients with a high likelihood of benefitting from LT. Of course, there is also an important role for negative predictor genes, as they allow identification of patients where disease is likely to recur. 
     Dermatopontin (DPT) 
     DPT, also known as TRAMP (Tyrosine-rich acidic matrix protein) (Gene ID GC01M168664), is an extracellular matrix protein with possible functions in cell-matrix interactions and matrix assembly. The protein is found in various tissues, and is thought to be expressed in mesenchymal cells (fibroblasts and myofibroblasts) and macrophages. This molecule is critical for extracellular matrix assembly, cell adhesion and wound healing. It also accelerates collagen fibrillogenesis, and modifies the behaviour of TGF-beta through interaction with decorin in the microenvironment of the extracellular matrix in vivo. DPT inhibits the formation of decorin TGF-beta1 complex and may increase the cellular response to TGF-beta and enhance its biological activity. Furthermore, it has been identified as a downstream target of vitamin D receptor. Vitamin D receptor, in turn, mediates signalling downstream of 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D 3  to exert an anti-proliferative effect on HCC. DPT is correlated with cellular adhesion and tumour invasiveness. Strong expression of DPT has been associated with metastases suppression in oral cancer and giant cell tumour of bone. Down-regulation of DPT is related to carcinogenesis and progression of HCC via possible interaction with TGF-beta1 and other potential mechanisms. The DPT expression level is significantly lower in HCC tissues than in healthy liver. 
     Calpain Small Subunit 1 (CAPNS1) 
     Calpains, a family of proteases, are involved in cell migration and invasion by altering the architecture of cell adhesion molecules and cytoskeletal components, or by interfering in intracellular signalling pathways. Its regulatory subunits CAPNS1 and CAPN4 may play an important role in calpain activity. Knockdown of CAPNS1 in malignant endothelial cells may reduce their ability to spread, while CAPNS1 up-regulation is correlated with increased tumour size, number and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels after HCC resection in animals. 
     Clusterin (CLU) 
     The protein encoded by the CLU gene chaperone (CLU, Gene ID GC08M027596) that is both cytosolic and secreted. CLU in complex with EIF3I activates the Akt pathway, which in turn promotes metastasis of HCC cells. 
     F-Box and WD Repeat Containing Protein 7 (FBXW7, Gene ID GC04M152321). 
     The gene F-box and WD repeat domain containing 7 (FBXW7), also known as Sel10, hCDC4 or hAgo, encodes a member of the F-box protein family, which functions as the substrate recognition component of the SCF E3 ubiquitin ligase. FBXW7 protein is a critical tumor suppressor and one of the most commonly deregulated ubiquitin-proteasome system proteins in human cancer. FBXW7 controls proteasome-mediated degradation of oncoproteins such as cyclin E, c-Myc, Mcl-1, mTOR, Jun, Notch and AURKA. Mutations in this gene are detected in ovarian and breast cancer cell lines, implicating the gene&#39;s potential role in the pathogenesis of human cancers. In vitro studies have shown that FBXW7 can be used as a prognostic marker in hepatocellular carcinoma and it was shown that lower FBXW7 expression levels are associated with worse survival of HCC patients. Thus FBXW7 has an important role in HCC progression, namely it inhibits HCC cell migration and invasion through the Notch1 signaling pathway. 
     Sprouty RTK Signalling Antagonist 2 (SPRY2, Gene ID GC13M080335) 
     The  Drosophila  Spry (dSPRY) gene family comprising the four homologs SPRY1 to 4, is thought to participate in a negative feedback loop of the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway associated with HCC carcinogenesis. SPRY2, in particular, antagonizes growth factor-mediated cell proliferation, migration and differentiation by modulating receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) signalling and suppressing the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. This protein is an important modulator of vital pathways implicated in cancer development, such as angiogenesis, cell growth, invasion, migration and cytokinesis. 
     SUMMARY 
     Based on the above mentioned state of the art, the objective of the present invention is to provide molecular markers which help accurately select from amongst all HHC patients the best candidates for LT. The molecular markers should be able to predict the behaviour and aggressiveness of the tumours. This objective is attained by the claims of the present specification, with further advantageous embodiments provided in the specification as a whole. 
     The inventors refine clinical criteria for the selection of cirrhotic HCC patients for LT and evaluated the role of selected biomarkers in the population. The inventors validated the role of current clinical markers to specifically determine the best candidates for LT in the subgroup of patients beyond the current clinical gold standard of the Milan criteria, integrating both clinical and molecular features to accurately address the biology of the tumours. 
     A set of possible candidate genes was identified using clinical data in public repositories, a systematic review on the subject of molecular prognostic biomarkers for HCC, and in-house clinical data available to the inventors. The inventors identified single gene alterations with prognostic value, and combined them into predictive multivariate signatures. The systematic review was able to identify genes related to progression of HCC that were assumed to deliver prognostic information after LT, consequently contributing to patient selection for LT. 
     The inventors demonstrate herein that DPT, CLU, CAPNS1, FBXW7 and SPRY2 exhibit differential expression in patients with and without recurrence of HHC following LT. Furthermore, DPT and CLU effectively discriminate, alone or in combination, a subgroup of patients with no recurrence of HCC after LT, and thus a positive prognosis. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES 
         FIG. 1  shows the RT-qPCR results for differential expression of selected genes according to recurrence in the validation set. relapse (R: left) versus no relapse (noR: right). Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test (confidence level=0.95). 
         FIG. 2  shows the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis regarding DPT expression and tumour recurrence. Area under curve (AUC) is 0.77. A ΔCt cut-off value of 7, corresponding to 84% sensitivity and 63% specificity, was chosen. 
         FIG. 3  shows a disease-free survival by DPT expression. 
         FIGS. 4A-4B  show the survival by DPT expression in patients within and beyond Milan Criteria (MC). 
         FIGS. 5A-5C  show a disease-free survival by DPT expression in patients with a TTV &gt;115 cm 3  ( FIG. 5A ), poor differentiation ( FIG. 5B ) or microvascular invasion ( FIG. 5C ). 
         FIG. 6  shows the survival by DPT expression in the subgroup of HCV patients. 
         FIG. 7  shows a disease-free survival by CLU expression. 
         FIGS. 8A-8D  show a Disease-free survival according to CLU expression in “poor prognosis” subgroups:  FIG. 8A , patients beyond MC;  FIG. 8B , patients with TTV &gt;115 cm 3 ; 
         FIG. 8C , patients with microvascular invasion;  FIG. 8D , patients with poorly differentiated tumours. 
         FIG. 9  shows the survival according to CLU expression in Hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients. 
         FIG. 10  shows a disease-free survival by composite DPT/CLU score. 
         FIGS. 11A-11D  show a DFS using composite gene score in patients outside MC ( FIG. 11A ), with TTV &gt;115 cm 3  ( FIG. 11B ), with poorly differentiated tumours ( FIG. 11C ), and with microvascular invasion ( FIG. 11D ). 
         FIG. 12  shows a DFS for composite gene score in patients with TTV &lt;115 cm 3 . 
         FIG. 13  shows Disease-free survival according to the expression of DPT and CLU separately and combined. DPT expression reveals a better capability to predict long survivors when compared to CLU. 
         FIG. 14  Confusion matrix for the predictive algorithm 
         FIG. 15  Shows Kaplan Meier curves of disease free survival based on an algorithm using CLU, DPT and TTV values, for the total population of the cohort. 
         FIG. 16  Shows Kaplan Meier curves of disease free survival based on an algorithm using CLU, DPT and TTV values, for patients outside Milan criteria 
         FIG. 17  Shows Kaplan Meier curves of disease free survival based on an algorithm using CLU, DPT and TTV values, for patients inside Milan criteria 
     
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DESCRIBED SEQUENCES 
     The nucleic and/or amino acid sequences provided herewith are shown using standard letter abbreviations for nucleotide bases, and three letter code for amino acids, as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.822. Only one strand of each nucleic acid sequence is shown, but the complementary strand is understood as included by any reference to the displayed strand. The Sequence Listing is submitted as an ASCII text file named 95083_391_1_seqlist, created Apr. 4, 2022, about 7 KB, which is incorporated by reference herein. 
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     The terms gene expression or expression, or alternatively the term gene product, may refer to either of, or both of, the processes—and products thereof—of generation of nucleic acids (RNA) or the generation of a peptide or polypeptide, also referred to transcription and translation, respectively, or any of the intermediate processes that regulate the processing of genetic information to yield polypeptide products. The term gene expression may also be applied to the transcription and processing of a RNA gene product, for example a regulatory RNA or a structural (e.g. ribosomal) RNA. If an expressed polynucleotide is derived from genomic DNA, expression may include splicing of the mRNA in a eukaryotic cell. Expression may be assayed both on the level of transcription and translation, in other words mRNA and/or protein product. 
     The term good prognosis in the context of the invention refers to no recurrence of HHC disease in the five years following LT. Good prognosis is measured in the examples by its direct association with patient survival, hence overall survival, or disease-free survival are largely equivalent. 
     The term support vector machine, SVM, linear kernel SVM or SVM algorithm in the context of the invention refer to a supervised machine learning model that is able to classify data and/or perform regression analysis. It is sometimes referred to as a support vector network, and in the context of the invention, is used as a form of binary linear classifying algorithm. In the context of the invention, the algorithm uses a training step, wherein a sample of patient data is associated with a set of variables, including, but not limited to, a gene expression level, or tumor volume measurement, to build a model that assigns the samples to one category or another, for example, survival, or no survival at five years. 
     In one aspect, the invention relates to a method for predicting the outcome of a liver transplantation for treatment of HCC. In an alternative of this aspect, the invention relates to a method of treatment of HCC by liver transplantation. In another alternative aspect, the invention relates to a method for stratifying HCC patients into different groups which are more or less likely to benefit from receiving a liver transplantation, in other words, who will exhibit longer overall survival after LT, without recurrence of disease. 
     The method according to this aspect of the invention comprises a determination step, wherein the expression level (particularly an mRNA level) of a genetic biomarker, or indicator gene (also herein: indicator gene expression level) in a liver sample is obtained from a patient suffering from HCC, wherein said indicator gene is selected from the list comprising
         a. dermatopontin   b. clusterin   c. calpain small subunit 1   d. F-box and WD repeat containing protein 7   e. Sprouty RTK signalling antagonist 2.       

     In certain embodiments, the indicator gene is CLU or DPT 
     In an alternative of this first aspect of the invention, the method for predicting the outcome of a liver transplantation for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), comprises:
         in a determination step, determining the expression level of each of a group of indicator genes comprising CLU and DPT in a liver sample obtained from a patient suffering from HCC,   in a classification step, assigning a patient a good prognosis as an outcome for liver transplantation based on the expression level of the indicator genes.       

     In certain embodiments, the group of indicator genes further comprises at least one of:
         calpain small subunit 1   F-box and WD repeat containing protein 7   Sprouty RTK signalling antagonist 2.       

     In certain embodiments, an overexpression of any of the indicator genes is indicative of a good prognosis. 
     In certain embodiments, an overexpression of the expression of DPT and/or CLU is indicative of a good prognosis. 
     In certain embodiments, the indicator gene is overexpressed in relation to a threshold. In alternative embodiments, the indicator gene expression level is compared to control samples, selected from representative patients for each disease outcome subset. 
     In certain embodiments, the indicator gene expression level is determined by use of a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sensitive to level of mRNA encoding an indicator gene present in the sample. Specific primers which amplify a region of the indicator gene of interest specified by the invention are provided in Table 6, and may be of particular use to determine the expression level of the indicator genes according to the method provided by the invention. Global RNA sequencing is an alternative methodology that can generate gene expression levels for use according to the invention, 
     The indicator gene expression level may be compared to an internal control gene, particularly to the expression level of a house-keeping gene. In particular embodiments, it is compared to the expression level of ribosomal protein L13A (RPL13A) (Gene ID 23521). Other possibilities include other house-keeping genes, such as GADPH, and/or TBP, or a combination of genes. 
     In certain embodiments, the indicator gene expression level is determined by PCR. The indicator gene expression value relative to the threshold is determined as a difference of a threshold cycle number of said indicator gene and a threshold cycle number of an internal control gene. The threshold cycle number is a PCR cycle number at which a product [said indicator gene and said internal control gene are] is detected. 
     In certain embodiments, the following calculation is used to generate a value which reflects the expression level of an indicator gene: 
       Amount of target=Δ Ct  
 
       Δ Ct  ( R )= Ct  ( DPT  in  R )− Ct  (reference gene in  R )
 
       Δ Ct  (non R )= Ct  ( DPT  in non R )− Ct  (reference gene in non R )
 
     wherein R is a sample with disease recurrence and nonR is a sample without disease recurrence. 
     In certain embodiments, the indicator gene is DPT and the threshold is a difference in gene expression, or ΔCt, higher than 7. 
     In certain embodiments, the indicator gene is CLU and the threshold is a difference in gene expression, or ΔCt, higher than −0.54. 
     In certain embodiments, the difference of the threshold cycle number of the indicator gene, aboce which the gene is said to be overexpressed is: 
     A DPT expression level ΔCt value which is higher than 7 for DPT, and a CLU expression level ΔCt value which is higher than −0.54. 
     The threshold values provided here are examples of ΔCt values that may be useful to classify gene expression levels according to the invention. They reflect the gene&#39;s expression in reference to a house keeping gene. A gene expression level with a positive value is expressed more than the house-keeping reference gene, while a negative expression value indicates that the gene is expressed less than the house-keeping reference gene. Overexpression of an indicator genes is defined as expression over a ΔCt threshold which separates patients with poor prognosis, from patients with a good prognosis. 
     In certain embodiments, the overexpression of DPT together with the determination of total tumour volume of 115 cm 3  are indicative of a good prognosis. 
     In certain embodiments, the overexpression of CLU, together with the determination of total tumour volume of 115 cm 3  are indicative of a good prognosis. 
     In certain embodiments multiple patient factors, or variables are used to predict patient outcome, for example, the expression level of CLU, DPT and tumour volume. In particular embodiments of this aspect of the invention, expression level of predictive indicator genes CLU and DPT over the specified thresholds indicates a good prognosis. In related embodiments, indicator gene expression and the additional non-genetic variable of HHC tumour volume 115 cm 3  is indicative of good prognosis. 
     In certain embodiments, the expression level of the indicator gene or genes in a patient sample, and/or a tumour volume measurement is incorporated into an algorithm to provide a value reflecting the likelihood of disease recurrence, particularly wherein the algorithm is a support vector machine algorithm, more particularly, wherein the algorithm is a linear kernel support vector machine algorithm. 
     In certain embodiments, the indicator gene expression levels, and tumour size variable are used in a predictive algorithm, particularly a machine learning algorithm, more particularly a linear kernel support vector machine (SVM) learning algorithm, which classifies the patient into subsets in which a good prognosis, particularly for the next five years following LT, is likely, or not likely. 
     The data presented in the examples classified over-expression of CLU in a Ct range in this cohort from 27,36 to 40,5 and for DPT from 33,49 to 35,69. Expressed as a change in Ct compared to a control (also known as delta, or ΔCt), −0.54 was determined to be a useful threshold of CLU overexpression. Likewise, a ΔCt threshold of 7 was identified as useful threshold of DPT expression in patient samples. A tumour volume of, or smaller than 115 cm 3  was also found to indicate good prognosis. The value of tumour volume refers to the total of all tumours comprised within the liver of the patient; useful methods which may be used to define the tumour volume may be selected from computerised tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. 
     Thresholds such as those specified in this aspect of the invention may be of particular use to binarize patient values, to aid classification of patient outcomes. The data presented in example 5 demonstrates useful thresholds for CLU, DPT, and tumour volume. Samples with expression levels or volume below this are assigned a 0, and those with measurements above the threshold are assigned a score of 1. Incorporating multivariate data in a binarized format from a cohort of patients into a SVM algorithm is demonstrated in the examples to create a classification system wherein the resulting score indicates patient outcome following LT. 
     In certain embodiments, the determination step comprises determining the expression of DPT and the expression of a gene selected from CLU, CAPNS1, FBXW7 and SPRY2, particularly the expression of DPT and CLU. 
     In certain embodiments, over-expression of CLU or DPT alone is indicative of a good prognosis. In certain embodiments the predictive classification based on an indicator gene expression level, TTV, or a combination of the two as provided by the invention, is combined with additional prognostic prediction factors, such as evaluation under the Milan criteria. The data in the examples demonstrates that the expression level of CLU can predict disease outcome accurately in a subset of HHC patients classified as outside the Milan criteria. 
     The Milan criteria, introduced by Mazzaferro in 1996 (Mazzaferro et al., N Engl J Med. 1996 Mar. 14;334(11):693-9), restricts transplantation in adults with HCC as follows: (1) single tumor diameter less than 5 cm; (2) not more than three foci of tumor, each one not exceeding 3 cm; (3) no angioinvasion; (4) no extrahepatic involvement. 
     The invention further relates to a system for detecting high expression of liver transplant biomarkers. The system comprises means for determining the expression of DPT and the expression of a gene selected from CLU, CAPNS1, FBXW7 and SPRY2, particularly the expression of DPT and CLU. 
     In another aspect, the invention encompasses the use of primers for amplification and detection of expression of DPT and CLU, and optionally of additional biomarkers selected from CLU, CAPNS1, FBXW7 and SPRY2, in a kit for analysing biomarkers in order to predict the outcome of a liver transplantation for treatment of HCC. 
     Furthermore, the invention includes a method of treating a patient who has been previously diagnosed with HHC with a liver transplantation procedure, wherein the patient has been classified as likely to have a good prognosis according to the method as specified in any one of the aspects and embodiments recited above. If the patient is classified as likely to have a good prognosis, then the patient is treated with a liver transplantation procedure according to methods know to the art. 
     The described methods provide the ability to treat HCC in those patients who are most likely to benefit from a liver transplant procedure by first determining if the patient has a good HCC prognosis, as discussed herein, and then treating only those patients so classified. 
     Examples 
     Example 1: Study of Molecular Prognostic Biomarkers 
     The inventors analysed the performance of several current selection criteria based on morphologic features, highlighting their possibility to exclude good candidates and to wrongfully include bad candidates. The inventors tested previously identified genes as putative biomarkers for HCC prognosis after transplantation. The genes DPT and CLU were effectively able to discriminate, isolated or in combination, a subgroup of patients with a very low probability of recurrence after LT for HCC. 
     Example 2: Prognostic Molecular Markers in Hepatocellular Carcinoma 
     Studies with biomarkers in liver resection (LR) were included in the analysis as important information can be obtained in cohorts of patients submitted to LR. Contrary to single genes, overlap between signatures is uncommon in the literature and gene signatures are frequently not reproducible. For that reason, the inventors specifically focused on single-gene biomarkers and not gene signatures. In addition, and as many of the biomarkers were not further tested and validated outside the settings of its original studies, their usage in the present work represents, at least, an effort of external validation. 
     The inventors retrieved the following data: data type (mRNA, miRNA and protein), prognosis information, specific genes involved, good or bad prognostic genes, alteration type (overexpression, downregulation, hyper/hypomethylation, mutation), patient samples and statistics data and author&#39;s observations. 
     Example 3: Pilot Set 
     This first group was implemented to better trim the biomarkers linked to a better prognosis identified throughout the literature search and also to further reduce the number of putative biomarkers linked to early recurrence. From the initially proposed 20 patients (see example 6, sample collection) and due to difficulties with RNA extraction from the first samples belonging to older cases, 9 additional patients were included in the test set. Samples from 3 patients were not used due to sample inadequacy. Hence, the pilot set consisted of 26 patients (6 patients beyond MC without recurrence; 7 patients beyond MC with recurrence; 7 patients within MC without recurrence; 6 patients within MC with recurrence). After RNA extraction, cDNA was obtained and RT-qPCR was performed. Finally, differential expression of the evaluated genes was correlated with clinical data. Table 1 shows the results of the test set according to recurrence within or beyond MC. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 1 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 Results of the gene expression is based on the test set and its relation to a recurrence. 
               
               
                 P values according to the results from the Mann-Whitney test. 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                 Inside Milan Criteria 
                 Outside Milan Criteria 
                 All Criteria 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Gene 
                 p value 
                 Gene 
                 p value 
                 Gene 
                 p value 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 CLU 
                 0.09 
                 CLU 
                 0.02 
                 CLU 
                 0.01 
               
               
                 CAPNS1 
                 0.05 
                 DPT 
                 0.06 
                 FBXW7 
                 0.07 
               
               
                 FBXW7 
                 0.04 
                 SLC16A4 
                 0.08 
                 DPT 
                 0.14 
               
               
                 OSGIN 
                 0.60 
                 MUC15 
                 0.20 
                 MUC15 
                 0.14 
               
               
                 DPT 
                 0.12 
                 FBXW7 
                 0.22 
                 SLC16A4 
                 0.34 
               
               
                 SALL4 
                 0.98 
                 HNF1B 
                 0.36 
                 SPRY2 
                 0.38 
               
               
                 SPRY2 
                 0.13 
                 SALL4 
                 0.37 
                 OSGIN 
                 0.39 
               
               
                 NOTCH1 
                 0.47 
                 CCR6 
                 0.40 
                 CCR6 
                 0.40 
               
               
                 CD24 
                 0.42 
                 OSGIN 
                 0.40 
                 CD24 
                 0.51 
               
               
                 CCR6 
                 0.73 
                 SPRY2 
                 0.47 
                 HNF1B 
                 0.51 
               
               
                 ADAMTS5 
                 0.68 
                 CD24 
                 0.52 
                 DKK1 
                 0.66 
               
               
                 HNF1B 
                 0.18 
                 DKK1 
                 0.67 
                 NOTCH1 
                 0.73 
               
               
                 SLC16A4 
                 0.83 
                 NOTCH1 
                 0.69 
                 SALL4 
                 0.73 
               
               
                 DKK1 
                 0.80 
                 ADAMTS5 
                 0.71 
                 ADAMTS5 
                 0.78 
               
               
                 EYA4 
                 0.99 
                 CAPNS1 
                 0.96 
                 CAPNS1 
                 0.82 
               
               
                 MUC15 
                 0.79 
                 EYA4 
                 0.97 
                 EYA4 
                 0.94 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     In patients within MC, Clusterin (CLU, p=0.09), CAPNS1 (p=0.05) and FBXW7 (p=0.04) had significant differential expression according to recurrence. In patients outside the MC, Clusterin (p=0.02), Dermatopontin (p=0.06) and SLC16A4 (p=0.08) also had significant differential expression according to recurrence. Clusterin was the best marker to discriminate overall recurrence (p=0.01). The subset of selected biomarkers CAPNS1, DPT, CLU and FBXW7 passing the selection criteria in the pilot study were then applied to the validation set. Additionally, the inventors included SPRY2 for further downstream analysis in the validation set as its p-value was borderline significant (p=0.13) in the group “Within Milan Criteria” of the pilot set, despite not being significant in the other two groups. MUC15, the other gene also presenting a borderline significant p-value (p=0.14) in the group “ALL Criteria” was not included in the group of genes to be tested in validation set. This exclusion was due to its poor performance in the RT-qPCR (Ct too high and frequent sample failure) likely associated with a very low expression level. 
     Example 4: Validation Set 
     The complete population of 301 patients submitted to LT for HCC between September 1992 and February 2014 was considered. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria (see example 6, study population), a total of 275 patients with histologically confirmed HCC were identified in this analysis. Of 44 patients who were excluded, 32 had perioperative mortality and 12 had residual and/or extrahepatic disease. Patients previously included in the pilot set (26) were also excluded, as well as patients with less than 5 years after LT (38). The initial study population consisted of 167 patients. In 33 patients (19.7%), sample analysis was not possible due to extensive tumour necrosis (14/167; 8.3%), low quality RNA extraction (12/167; 7.2%) or unavailability of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (7/167; 4.2%). Consequently, 20 additional patients with less than 5 years after LT were added, in a total of 154 patients for the validation set. The total number of patients whose samples were analysed for molecular markers was 180. General characteristics of the pilot set (n=26), validation set (n=154) and the overall population (n=180) are outlined in table 2. 
     As expected, the pilot set exhibited more aggressive tumor characteristics compared to the validation set, as patients within and beyond MC were evenly distributed in this first set. Patients in the pilot set had more frequently vascular invasion, larger size of tumor, increased TTV and a lower percentage of patients within MC. In the overall population, median donor age was 38, which is in line with the high percentage of FAP donors (Patients suffering from Familial Amyloid Polyneuropathy, are treated with a live transplant, while their liver becomes available to treat other patients). VHC was predominant with 46% of patients infected. An important observation is the short waiting time before LT—median of 1 month corresponding to a mean waiting time of 2.2 months (0-18). Median number of tumours was 1 corresponding to a mean of 2.17 (1-11) and size of largest tumour was 2.75 cm (mean of 3.25 cm varying from 0.3 to 20 cm). Only 120 (66.7%) patients were within MC and 154 (85.6%) were within TTV &lt;115 cm 3 . 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 2 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 A comparison of demographic and clinical/pathological characteristics of the pilot set, validation set,  
               
               
                 and overall population. Comparison is only done between the pilot and validation sets. 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 All patients 
                 Pilot set 
                 Validation set 
                   
               
               
                   
                 (n = 180) 
                 (n = 26) 
                 (n = 154) 
                 p 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Donor characteristics 
                   
                   
                   
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Male gender, n (%) 
                 108 
                 (60) 
                 16 
                 (61.5) 
                 92 
                 (59.7) 
                 0.86 
               
               
                 Donor age, years, median, (IQR) 
                 38 
                 (34) 
                 36 
                 (39) 
                 38 
                 (36) 
                 0.77 
               
               
                 Cold ischemia time (min), median (IQR) 
                 465 
                 (162) 
                 460 
                 (224) 
                 465 
                 (154) 
                 0.61 
               
               
                 Recipient characteristics 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                 Male gender, n (%) 
                 164 
                 (91.1) 
                 24 
                 (92.3) 
                 140 
                 (90.9) 
                 0.59 
               
               
                 Race (Caucasian), n (%) 
                 161 
                 (95.8) 
                 25 
                 (96.2) 
                 136 
                 (95.1) 
                 1.0 
               
               
                 Age, years, median, (IQR) 
                 55 
                 (11) 
                 55.5 
                 (12) 
                 55 
                 (13) 
                 0.67 
               
               
                 MELD score, median (IQR) 
                 10.5 
                 (5) 
                 8.9 
                 (2) 
                 11 
                 (5) 
                 0.29 
               
               
                 Waiting list, days, median (IQR) 
                 1 
                 (3) 
                 1 
                 (5.5) 
                 1 
                 (3) 
                 0.39 
               
               
                 BMI, median (IQR) 
                 26.4 
                 (5.9) 
                 25.8 
                 (7.6) 
                 27.2 
                 (5.9) 
                 0.48 
               
               
                 Ethanol intake, n (%) 
                 125 
                 (71.8) 
                 20 
                 (76.9) 
                 105 
                 (70.9) 
                 0.53 
               
               
                 HBV infection, n (%) 
                 24 
                 (13.3) 
                 2 
                 (7.7) 
                 22 
                 (14.3) 
                 0.54 
               
               
                 HCV infection, n (%) 
                 83 
                 (46.1) 
                 13 
                 (50) 
                 70 
                 (45.5) 
                 0.67 
               
               
                 Tumour-related factors 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                 AFP, median (IQR) 
                 7.5 
                 (42.4) 
                 5.9 
                 (43.6) 
                 7.75 
                 (47.4) 
                 0.57 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Hist. number of tumours, median (IQR) 
                 1 (1), 1-11 
                 1 (7), 1-11 
                 1 (1), 1-11 
                 0.34 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Hist. size of largest tumour, median (IQR) 
                 2.75 
                 (34.18) 
                 7 
                 (6.8) 
                 2.75 
                 (13.5) 
                 0.01 
               
               
                 Microvascular invasion, n (%) 
                 28 
                 (15.6) 
                 9 
                 (34.6) 
                 19 
                 (12.3) 
                 0.008 
               
               
                 Macrovascular invasion, n (%) 
                 18 
                 (10) 
                 8 
                 (30.8) 
                 10 
                 (6.5) 
                 0.001 
               
               
                 Capsule, n (%) 
                 10 
                 (5.6) 
                 1 
                 (3.8) 
                 9 
                 (5.8) 
                 1.0 
               
               
                 Satellite nodules, n (%) 
                 21 
                 (11.7) 
                 5 
                 (19.2) 
                 16 
                 (10.4) 
                 0.19 
               
               
                 Poorly differentiated, n (%) 
                 27 
                 (15) 
                 5 
                 (19.2) 
                 22 
                 (14.3) 
                 0.55 
               
               
                 Preoperative therapy, n (%) 
                 81 
                 (45) 
                 13 
                 (50) 
                 68 
                 (44.2) 
                 0.58 
               
               
                 Within histological Milan Criteria, n (%) 
                 120 
                 (66.7) 
                 13 
                 (50) 
                 107 
                 (69.5) 
                 0.051 
               
               
                 Hist. total tumour volume (cm 3 ), median (IQF 
                 14.1 
                 (29.3) 
                 4.2 
                 (98.9) 
                 14.3 
                 (29.32) 
                 0.79 
               
               
                 Hist. tumour volume ≤115 cm 3   
                 154 
                 (85.6) 
                 18 
                 (78.3) 
                 136 
                 (88.3) 
                 0.027 
               
               
                 Operative data 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                 Domino LT 
                 87 
                 (48.3) 
                 16 
                 (61.5) 
                 71 
                 (46.1) 
                 0.14 
               
               
                 c 3-4, n (%) 
                 37 
                 (20.6) 
                 4 
                 (15.4) 
                 33 
                 (21.4) 
                 0.48 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Retransplantation, n (%) 
                 8 
                 (4.4) 
                 0 
                 8 
                 (5.2) 
                 0.61 
               
               
                 Survival data 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Patients alive, n (%) 
                 94 
                 (52.2) 
                 15 
                 (57.7) 
                 79 
                 (51.3) 
                 0.55 
               
               
                 Recurrence follow up 
                 44 
                 (24.4) 
                 13 
                 (50) 
                 31 
                 (20.1) 
                 0.001 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Median 
                 66 
                 54.5 
                 72 
                 0.34 
               
               
                 Range 
                 195 
                 104 
                 195 
                   
               
               
                 IQR 
                 82 
                 71 
                 89 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 IQR: interquartile range; 
               
               
                 AFP: alpha-fetoprotein; 
               
               
                 MELD: Model of end stage liver disease. 
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Expression levels of CAPNS1, DPT, CLU, FBXW7, SLC16A4 and SPRY2 were analysed in the validation set. In a large number of samples, SLC16A4 expression was too low to be determined and further analysis of this specific biomarker was abandoned.  FIG. 1  shows the differential expression of selected genes according to recurrence using the Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test. 
     Calpain Small Subunit 1 (CAPNS1) 
     CAPNS1 was included in the validation set as it exhibited marginal differential expression (p=0.05) for recurrence in patients within Milan Criteria in the pilot set. Accordingly, CAPNS1 expression levels in the tumour tissue differed significantly according to recurrence in the validation set (OR 1.448, C.I. 1.140-1.840, p=0.002). This did not translate, however, in a corresponding significance in the Hazard Ratio, whether regarding DFS (HR 1.073, C.I. 0.978-1.178, p=0.136) or OS (HR 1.014, C.I. 0.913-1.125, p=0.796). A ROC curve was used to determine a cut-off value for recurrence. With an AUC of 0.63, the best cut-off appeared to be a deltaCT value of 0.20, corresponding to a sensitivity of 65% and a specificity of 45%. However, after categorization of this variable, no impact on DFS (p=0.378) or OS (p=0.655) was noted. Although this marker exhibited some association with recurrence, its distribution shows a substantial overlap between recurring and non-recurring patients. 
     Dermatopontin (DPT) 
     DPT was included in the validation set as its differential expression for recurrence was almost significant in patients beyond Milan Criteria (p=0.06). DPT showed a strong association with recurrence in the validation set (OR 1.283, C.I. 1.103-1.494, p=0.001). Association with DFS (HR 1.048, C.I. 0.977-1.123, p=0.192) or OS (HR 1.036, C.I. 0.961-1.116, p=0.357) was not initially evident. ROC curve analysis revealed an AUC of 0.77 ( FIG. 2 ), allowing a determination of a deltaCT cut-off value of 7, corresponding to 84% sensitivity and 63% specificity. Using this value, a HR value of 0.480 (C.I. 0.295-0.782, p=0.003) was observed for DFS. A HR of 0.503 (C.I. 0.305-0.831, p=0.007) was detected for OR. The risk of recurrence is decreased almost 9-fold with a strong DPT expression (OR 0.116, C.I. 0.037-0.363, p&lt;0.001). 
     In summary, DPT overexpression indicated a good prognosis after LT. In patients with strong expression of DPT, the risk of recurrence was reduced by 5-fold, disease-free survival increased by 50%, and overall survival increased by 40%. DPT expression was able to discriminate patients with good prognosis after LT amongst poor prognosis groups. It was found an association with microvascular invasion with a possible synergistic effect with CLU expression. This association might be related to its functions in extracellular matrix assembly and cell adhesion, eventually influencing microvascular invasion. This is the first report that associates DPT expression and prognosis after LT for HCC and it is the first time this gene has proven to be an independent predictor of good prognosis. 
     Sprouty RTK Signalling Antagonist 2 (SPRY2) 
     This protein is an important modulator of vital pathways implicated in cancer development, such as angiogenesis, cell growth, invasion, migration and cytokinesis. Song et al., (Hepatobiliary &amp; Pancreatic Diseases International 2012; 11(2):177-184) used samples from 240 randomly-selected HCC patients who underwent liver resection to investigate SPRY2 expression on tissue microarrays. Two hundred and seven patients (86.3%) exhibited down-regulation of SPRY2 expression, which correlated to poorer survival (p=0.002) and increased recurrence (p=0.003), acting as an independent predictor of postoperative recurrence in HCC patients (HR=1.47; 95% CI, 1.02-2.08; p=0.037). The inventors&#39; study is the first to correlate overexpression of SPRY2 with increased recurrence in a population of patients submitted to LT for HCC. However, as significant overlap existed between the two groups, the inventors were not able to determine a cut-off value able to effectively discriminate recurring and non-recurring patients. Hence, clinical relevance of SPRY2 remains to be tested in future studies. SPRY2 exhibited some differential expression (p=0.13) for recurrence within Milan Criteria in the pilot set. In the validation set, SPRY2 significantly correlated with recurrence, with an OR of 1.342 (C.I. 1.106-1.628, p=0.003). However, no association was noted on DFS (HR 1.050, C.I. 0.962-1.145, p=0.273) or OS (HR 1.030, C.I. 0.943-1.125, p=0.514). With an AUC of 0.68, we determined the best cut-off to be a deltaCT value of 7.6, corresponding to a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 65%. However, still no association was obtained after categorization, either on DFS (HR 1.420, C.I. 0.897-2.248, p=0.134) or in OS (HR 1.305, C.I. 0.814-2.094, p=0.269). 
     Clusterin 
     In the pilot set, CLU revealed differential expression for recurrence in patients beyond Milan Criteria (P=0.02) and similarly in the overall set sample (p=0.01). In the validation set, CLU expression did not appear to be associated with recurrence, according to the Wilcoxon test ( FIG. 36 ). However, logistic regression analysis revealed that CLU expression correlated with recurrence in the validation set (OR 1.219, C.I. 1.059-1.403, p=0.006). These results are not incompatible because the Wilcoxon test, though a quite more robust statistical test, is not sensitive to rather subtle differences between groups which, in our case, translate into subtle expression differences between the Recurrence and non-Recurrence groups. No association with DFS (HR 1.073, C.I. 0.978-1.178, p=0.136) or OS (HR 1.014, C.I. 0.913-1.125, p=0.796) was initially found. Using a ROC curve, a OCT cut-off value of −0.54 was determined, corresponding to an AUC of 0.59 (sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 35%). With this cut-off, HR for DFS was 1.568 (C.I. 0.951-2.584, p=0.078) and HR for OS was 1.550 (C.I. 0.926-2.595, p=0.096). Although this association appears to be weak, we considered it enough to be tested in multiple logistic regression and cox regression analysis. 
     F-Box and WD Repeat Containing Protein 7 (FBXW7) 
     FBXW7 levels appeared to exhibit differential expression according to recurrence in patients within Milan Criteria in the pilot set (p=0.04). However, this difference was not confirmed in the validation set. Logistic regression revealed an OR of 1.238 (C.I. 0.894-1.052, p=0.545) for recurrence. Cox regression obtained a HR of 1.023 (C.I. 0.929-1.128, p=0.640) for DFS and 1.000 (C.I. 0.900-1.113, p=0.994) for OS. 
     Example 5: Analysis of the Total Population 
     The inventors analysed the whole population of 180 patients. Taking into account the results obtained in the validation set, CLU and DPT expression levels, measured by OCT value in relation to the expression of a housekeeping gene in the tumour tissue, were included in this analysis. 
     Factors associated with recurrence were tested with multiple logistic regressions in this population (table 3). The inventors observe that the number of tumours, microvascular invasion and poor differentiation were independently associated with recurrence, as was histological total tumour volume (TTV). Using DPT expression, the predicted risk of recurrence was reduced more than 5-fold whereas CLU expression predicted a decrease in the risk of recurrence by 61%. However, when both were introduced in the model, only DPT expression remained independently predictive of recurrence (OR 0.178, C.I. 0.063-0.507, P=0.001), but not CLU (OR 0.729, C.I. 0.063-0.507, p=0.554). No statistical interaction between the variables “DPT expression” and “CLU expression” was detected using recurrence as the outcome variable (p=0.402). Both CLU (p=0.94) and DPT (p=0.960) expression had no association with poorly differentiated tumours. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 3 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 Multiple logistic regression analysis for recurrence in the overall population (N = 180). 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 Univariable 
                 Multivariable analysis 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 OR 
                 95% Cl 
                 p 
                 OR 
                 95% Cl 
                 p 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Gender 
                 2.410 
                 0.526-11.046 
                 0.258 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Race 
                 1.983 
                 0.232-16.976 
                 0.532 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Age &gt;50 
                 0.463 
                 0.226-0.948 
                 0.035 
                 0.591 
                 0.247-1.416 
                 0.238 
               
               
                 IMC 
                 1.021 
                 0.945-1.103 
                 0.592 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Waiting time &gt;120 days 
                 1.274 
                 0.400-4.057 
                 0.682 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 First observation &gt;180 days 
                 1.333 
                 0.634-2.804 
                 0.449 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Pre-operative therapy 
                 1.102 
                 0.556-2.188 
                 0.780 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Domino liver transplantation 
                 1.316 
                 0.663-2.609 
                 0.432 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Morbidity Clavien &gt; II 
                 0.820 
                 0.344-1.955 
                 0.654 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 HBV infection 
                 1.324 
                 0.510-3.439 
                 0.564 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 HCV infection 
                 1.090 
                 0.552-2.153 
                 0.805 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Ethanol consumption 
                 0.722 
                 0.341-1.526 
                 0.393 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 MELD 
                 0.982 
                 0.908-1.063 
                 0.659 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 AFP &gt; 400 
                 2.028 
                 0.195-21.137 
                 0.554 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Histological number of tumors 
                 1.265 
                 1.114-1.437 
                 &lt;0.001 
                 1.209 
                 1.054-1.387 
                 0.007 
               
               
                 Histological size of tumors 
                 1.322 
                 1.124-1.556 
                 0.001 
                 1.123 
                 0.941-1.340 
                 0.197 
               
               
                 Capsule 
                 1.313 
                 0.268-6.425 
                 0.737 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Microvascular invasion 
                 8.723 
                 3.615-21.047 
                 &lt;0.001 
                 4.880 
                 1.856-12.829 
                 0.001 
               
               
                 Macrovascular invasion 
                 4.706 
                 1.725-12.839 
                 0.002 
                 0.881 
                 0.186-4.167 
                 0.873 
               
               
                 Microsatellite nodules 
                 5.292 
                 2.052-13.645 
                 0.001 
                 2.879 
                 0.979-8.464 
                 0.055 
               
               
                 Poorly differentiated 
                 3.025 
                 1.289-7.100 
                 0.011 
                 2.668 
                 1.012-7.038 
                 0.047 
               
               
                 Pre-operative TTV 
                 1.007 
                 1.002-1.013 
                 0.013 
                 1.005 
                 0.998-1.011 
                 0.178 
               
               
                 Pre-op TTV &gt; 115 
                 4.066 
                 1.278-12.931 
                 0.018 
                 0.379 
                 0.098-1.470 
                 0.161 
               
               
                 Pre-operative Milan criteria 
                 2.564 
                 1.150-5.719 
                 0.021 
                 0.811 
                 0.299-2.199 
                 0.680 
               
               
                 Histological TTV 
                 1.009 
                 1.003-1.015 
                 0.002 
                 1.006 
                 1.001-1.012 
                 0.015 
               
               
                 HTTV &gt; 115 
                 6.000 
                 1.929-18.666 
                 0.002 
                 1.753 
                 0.429-7.168 
                 0.435 
               
               
                 Histological Milan criteria 
                 4.333 
                 2.119-8.862 
                 &lt;0.001 
                 1.747 
                 0.696-4.387 
                 0.235 
               
               
                 DPT &gt; 7 
                 0.155 
                 0.062-0.387 
                 &lt;0.001 
                 0.177 
                 0.064-0.489 
                 0.001 
               
               
                 CLU &gt; −0.54 
                 0.494 
                 0.230-1.061 
                 0.071 
                 0.385 
                 0.153-0.971 
                 0.043 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 OR: odds ratio; Cl: confidence level. 
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Strong DPT expression was associated with decreased microvascular invasion (OR 0.370, C.I. 0.140-0.979, p=0.045) whereas CLU expression was not (p=0.173). However, an interaction between DPT and CLU was detected (p=0.033) when microvascular invasion was the outcome variable, which means the occurrence of microvascular invasion in tumours with low or high DPT expression is strongly correlated with the expression of CLU. In this study, 21.2% (14/66) of patients with low DPT expression had microvascular invasion. In this subgroup, if CLU was strongly expressed, the occurrence of microvascular invasion was 4.8% (1/21); if there was concomitant low CLU expression, microvascular invasion was present in 28.9% (13/45) of patients (p=0.027). This interaction has never been detected in the scientific literature and remains to be explained in future studies, suggesting a link between these genes. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 4 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 An analysis of multivariable Cox regression for disease-free survival in 180 patients. 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 Univariable analysis 
                 Multivariable analysis 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 HR 
                 95% Cl 
                 p 
                 HR 
                 95% Cl 
                 p 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Gender 
                 1.677 
                 0.733-3.835 
                 0.221 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Race 
                 4.900 
                 0.682-35.193 
                 0.144 
                 0.355 
                 0.48-2.603 
                 0.308 
               
               
                 Age &gt;50 
                 1.008 
                 0.644-1.578 
                 0.971 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 IMC 
                 1.014 
                 0.968-1.062 
                 0.554 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Waiting time &gt;120 days 
                 1.433 
                 0.692-2.965 
                 0.333 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 First observation &gt;180 days 
                 1.689 
                 1.065-2.678 
                 0.026 
                 1.139 
                 0.564-2.299 
                 0.716 
               
               
                 Pre-operative therapy 
                 0.837 
                 0.557-1.257 
                 0.391 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Sequential liver transplantation 
                 0.989 
                 0.660-1.483 
                 0.958 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Morbidity Clavien &gt; II 
                 .944 
                 0.575-1.548 
                 0.819 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 HBV infection 
                 1.168 
                 0.623-2.192 
                 0.628 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 HCV infection 
                 1.157 
                 0.771-1.736 
                 0.481 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Ethanol consumption 
                 0.604 
                 0.370-0.985 
                 0.043 
                 1.541 
                 0.937-2.534 
                 0.089 
               
               
                 MELD 
                 1.009 
                 0.977-1.043 
                 0.566 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 AFP &gt; 
                 1.384 
                 0.331-5.777 
                 0.656 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Histological number of tumors 
                 1.091 
                 1.025-1.162 
                 0.007 
                 1.068 
                 0.997-1.144 
                 0.061 
               
               
                 Histological size of tumors 
                 1.065 
                 0.999-1.135 
                 0.055 
                 2.179 
                 1.267-3.748 
                 0.545 
               
               
                 Capsule 
                 0.779 
                 0.341-1.782 
                 0.554 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Microvascular invasion 
                 2.468 
                 1.522-4.003 
                 &lt;0.001 
                 2.315 
                 1.357-3.951 
                 0.002 
               
               
                 Macrovascular invasion 
                 2.104 
                 1.190-3.723 
                 0.011 
                 1.184 
                 0.546-2.566 
                 0.670 
               
               
                 Microsatellite nodules 
                 1.407 
                 0.796-2.485 
                 0.240 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Poorly differentiated 
                 1.555 
                 0.904-2.674 
                 0.110 
                 1.574 
                 0.937-2.534 
                 0.134 
               
               
                 Pre-operative TTV 
                 1.001 
                 1.000-1.002 
                 0.097 
                 0.359 
                 0.049-2.646 
                 0.396 
               
               
                 Pre-op TTV &gt; 115 
                 0.656 
                 0.315-1.364 
                 0.259 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Pre-operative Milan criteria 
                 1.054 
                 0.615-1.806 
                 0.848 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Histological TTV 
                 1.002 
                 1.000-1.003 
                 0.008 
                 1.1001 
                 0.999-1.004 
                 0.291 
               
               
                 HTTV &gt; 115 
                 1.754 
                 0.876-3.511 
                 0.113 
                 1.446 
                 0.610-3.428 
                 0.328 
               
               
                 Histological Milan criteria 
                 1.728 
                 1.147-2.605 
                 0.009 
                 0.203 
                 0.692-2.091 
                 0.513 
               
               
                 DPT &gt; 7 
                 0.477 
                 0.302-0.754 
                 0.002 
                 0.507 
                 0.310-0.829 
                 0.007 
               
               
                 CLU &gt; −0.54 
                 0.548 
                 0.348-0.861 
                 0.009 
                 0.443 
                 0.269-0.730 
                 0.001 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Table 4 shows the results of multivariable cox regression analysis for DFS in the total population. Microvascular invasion was the only factor correlated with a decreased DFS. Strong expression levels of DPT and CLU, on the contrary, acted as positive predictive factors and correlated with an increased survival. Although CLU ceases to be an independent variable when both CLU and DPT are simultaneously introduced in the model (HR 0.600, C.I. 0.351-1.026, p=0.062), no statistical interaction was detected between CLU and DPT (p=0.822). 
     Dermatopontin (DPT) 
     The inventors observe DFS according to a strong vs weak DPT expression ( FIG. 3 ). Patients with strong DPT expression, defined as a OCT level above 7, experienced a 70% and a 52.2% DFS at 5 and 10 years respectively. Strong DPT expression was also able to identify a subgroup of patients with better prognosis, even in patients beyond MC ( FIG. 4 ). This was also applied to patients exhibiting other poor prognostic criteria, such as a TTV &gt;115 cm 3 , the presence of microvascular invasion or poor differentiation ( FIGS. 5A , B and C). Finally, the subgroup of HCV patients with strong DPT expression obtained a 5 and 10-years DFS of 79.2% and 58.8% respectively ( FIG. 6 ). 
     Clusterin (CLU) 
     CLU expression was analysed in 198 HCC specimens using a tissue microarray (Wang et al., Oncotarget 2015; 6(5); 2903-16). CLU protein was mostly detected in the cytoplasm of tumour cells. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated CLU overexpression to be an independent prognostic factor for tumour recurrence after resection (HR 1.628). Also, the same study found that overexpression of CLU significantly promoted invasion of HCC cells in vitro and facilitated distant lung metastasis in vivo, while silencing CLU decreased the invasive ability of HCC cells in vitro and in vivo. CLU overexpression can enhance metastatic potential in prostate, renal cell, gallbladder and breast cancers. 
     In the current cohort, CLU overexpression exhibited association with recurrence and survival and was able to discriminate patients with good prognosis after LT amongst poor prognosis groups. CLU also had an important impact on disease-free survival (DFS) ( FIG. 7 ). Patients with strong CLU expression exhibit a 5 and 10-year survival of 68.9% and 56.1% respectively. Although less pronounced than DPT, CLU expression values alone are able to select patients with better outcome when used within poor prognosis groups, such as patients beyond Milan Criteria (A) or with a TTV &gt;115 cm 3  (B). Patients with microvascular invasion (C) or poor differentiation (D) did not have a statistically significant association with survival according to CLU expression, although a clear trend is noted ( FIG. 8 ). The subgroup of HCV patients with strong CLU expression obtained a 5 and 10-years DFS of 74% and 67% respectively ( FIG. 9 ). 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 5 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 A multivariable Cox regression for overall survival. 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 Univariable analysis 
                 Multivariable analysis 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 HR 
                 95% Cl 
                 p 
                 HR 
                 95% Cl 
                 p 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Gender 
                 1.831 
                 0.742-4.522 
                 0.189 
                 1.330 
                 0.375-4.725 
                 0.659 
               
               
                 Race 
                 4.498 
                 0.626-32.338 
                 0.135 
                 1.278 
                 0.163-10.009 
                 0.815 
               
               
                 Age &gt;50 
                 0.988 
                 0.622-1.572 
                 0.960 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 IMC 
                 1.012 
                 0.964-1.062 
                 0.632 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Waiting time &gt;120 days 
                 1.272 
                 0.612-2.642 
                 0.519 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 First observation &gt;180 
                 1.500 
                 0.931-2.417 
                 0.095 
                 1.623 
                 0.982-2.685 
                 0.059 
               
               
                 Pre-operative therapy 
                 0.871 
                 0.568-1.336 
                 0.527 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Sequential liver 
                 0.889 
                 0.581-1.362 
                 0.589 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Morbidity Clavien &gt; II 
                 0.816 
                 0.473-1.406 
                 0.463 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 HBV infection 
                 0.968 
                 0.514-1.823 
                 0.919 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 HCV infection 
                 1.168 
                 0.764-1.784 
                 0.473 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Ethanol consumption 
                 1.830 
                 1.083-3.091 
                 0.024 
                 2.156 
                 1.236-3.761 
                 0.007 
               
               
                 MELD 
                 1.015 
                 0.984-1.047 
                 0.339 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 AFP &gt; 400 ng/mL 
                 0.785 
                 0.107-5.763 
                 0.812 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Histological number of 
                 1.082 
                 1.013-1.156 
                 0.018 
                 1.029 
                 0.944-1.122 
                 0.517 
               
               
                 Histological size of tumors 
                 1.048 
                 0.975-1.126 
                 0.207 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Capsule 
                 0.870 
                 0.352-2.152 
                 0.764 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Microvascular invasion 
                 2.337 
                 1.407-3.883 
                 0.001 
                 2.536 
                 1.446-4.450 
                 0.001 
               
               
                 Macrovascular invasion 
                 2.172 
                 1.199-3.932 
                 0.010 
                 1.426 
                 0.658-3.090 
                 0.369 
               
               
                 Microsatellite nodules 
                 1.543 
                 0.868-2.743 
                 0.139 
                 0.918 
                 0.455-1.850 
                 0.810 
               
               
                 Poorly differentiated 
                 1.583 
                 0.903-2.774 
                 0.109 
                 1.623 
                 0.888-3.143 
                 0.112 
               
               
                 Pre-operative TTV 
                 1.000 
                 0.999-1.001 
                 0.450 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Pre-op TTV &gt; 115 
                 1.190 
                 0.514-2.752 
                 0.685 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Pre-operative Milan criteria 
                 1.068 
                 0.593-1.921 
                 0.827 
                 — 
                 — 
                 — 
               
               
                 Histological TTV 
                 1.001 
                 1.000-1.002 
                 0.020 
                 1.001 
                 0.998-1.004 
                 0.450 
               
               
                 HTTV &gt; 115 
                 1.623 
                 0.777-3.390 
                 0.198 
                 1.355 
                 0.514-3.572 
                 0.539 
               
               
                 Histological Milan criteria 
                 1.677 
                 1.091-2.577 
                 0.019 
                 0.952 
                 0.522-1.734 
                 0.871 
               
               
                 DPT &gt; 7 
                 0.539 
                 0.335-0.868 
                 0.011 
                 0.590 
                 0.356-0.980 
                 0.042 
               
               
                 CLU &gt; −0.54 
                 0.491 
                 0.302-0.799 
                 0.004 
                 0.490 
                 0.279-0.862 
                 0.013 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     A multivariable cox regression analysis for overall survival (OS) was also performed. Ethanol consumption and microvascular invasion were independently associated with a decreased OS. While microvascular invasion is a known risk factor, a decrease in OS due to ethanol consumption, without a corresponding decrease in DFS, might be related to associated comorbidities common in ethanolism such as ethanolic myocardiopathy. Strong expression of both DPT and CLU was independently associated with an increased OS (Table 5). 
     Multivariate Combinations with Predictive Power 
     To strengthen the prognostic power of the genes linked to HHC outcome, multigene models combining the predictive power of all genes were developed to investigate a synergistic effect between DPT and CLU. A simple score based on the expression of the two genes combined was used. Since their hazard ratios for DFS were similar, the same points to each gene: 0 points for weak expression of both genes, 1 point for strong expression of 1 gene and 2 points for strong expression of both genes. Strong expression of both genes was linked to 78% and 60% survival at 5 and 10 years respectively, making the gene combination superior to DPT or CLU alone ( FIG. 10 ). This score discriminates good prognosis after LT in patients excluded by the Milan Criteria ( FIG. 11A ), with TTV &gt;115 cm 3  ( FIG. 11B ) and with poorly differentiated tumours ( FIG. 11C ). Again, a trend towards increased survival was noted in patients with microvascular invasion, although no statistical significance was reached ( FIG. 11D ). The results are superior to the ones obtained by each gene separately.  FIG. 12  shows the predicted survival using this simple composed gene score combined with TTV &lt;115 cm 3 . This combination identifies a group of patients with very good prognosis after LT, a group with intermediate but still acceptable prognosis after LT and a group with poor prognosis after LT. According to the results previously shown for each individual gene, DPT may have a superior predictive power when compared to CLU. Consequently, the combination of these genes was evaluated without the use of a score, to better assess the prognostic power of patients strongly expressing only one of the two genes ( FIG. 13 ). 
     In a second approach to incorporate multiple genes into a predictive strategy for HCC, the expression level values of the two genes CLU and DPT were used together with TTV, in a Linear kernel support vector machine classification algorithm. To evaluate the performance of the algorithm, a Jackknifing strategy was used i.e. the algorithm is trained using all data points except one, and this one is used to evaluate, the process is then repeated for every datapoint and results were collected. After removing the testing sample, the remaining dataset was subject to a data augmentation (SMOTE) and normalization (unit variance and zero mean) procedure. This was done to attain a balanced training dataset and prevent overfitting to the most prevalent classification, and also ensure that all features are comparable in the classification feature space. 
     The cohort comprised of 154 patients was assessed with the multivariate algorithm with three variables. Variables were binarized using a thresholding technique where patients below the threshold were assigned a 0 value for that feature and patients above the threshold were assigned a value of 1. Units for the threshold are the same as the respective feature (ΔCt for gene expression and volume units for tumor volume). The used threshold values were −0.54 ΔCt for CLU, 7 ΔCt for DPT, and 115 cm 3  for TTV. The following results were obtained after the evaluation procedure, demonstrating an algorithm incorporating binary data from multiple indicator genes and tumour volume precisely classifies patients who are likely to exhibit disease recurrence following LT to treat HCC (accuracy 67%, false positives 22%, precision 91%, recall 64%,  FIG. 14 ,  FIG. 15 ). The precision rate of classification was also favourable where performed on patient subsets classified either as inside (accuracy 69%, false positives 36%, precision 92%, recall 71%,  FIG. 16 ) or outside (accuracy 62%, false positives 11%, precision 87%, recall 45%,  FIG. 17 ) the Milan criteria used in current clinical practice, suggesting classification of patients based on a binary score based on thresholds of indicator gene expression, and tumour volume, can identify a subset of patients with a likelihood of favourable outcome following LT that would otherwise be ruled out of receiving the procedure. 
     As an example, patient 1 has the following values DPT=10.48, CLU=5.34 and TTV=18.0 and patient 2 has DPT=4.39, CLU=0.84 and TTV=5.0. These values are then binarized using the respective thresholds resulting in binary values for each variable. The variables are provided to the linear kernel SVM algorithm to produce a binary value indicating a prediction of Recurrence. The model is capable of producing an estimated probability, in this example the result is itself binarized to segregate values above and below 50% probability to simplify the output. Result interpretation is simple as the output being a binary value just indicates whether the prediction is that Recurrence will occur (R, 0) or that no Recurrence is foreseeable (NR, 1) 
     (Table. 7). 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 7 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 Example of classification of outcome of LT using SVM algorithm 
               
               
                 for HHC patients. 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 Estimated  
                   
               
               
                 Patient 
                 Variable 
                 Value 
                 Binarization 
                 Probability 
                 Outcome 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 1 
                 CLU 
                 5.34 
                 0 
                 33% 
                 0 (R)  
               
               
                   
                 DPT 
                 10.48 
                 1 
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 TTV 
                 18.0 
                 0 
                   
                   
               
               
                 2 
                 CLU 
                 0.84 
                 1 
                 59% 
                 1 (NR) 
               
               
                   
                 DPT 
                 4.39 
                 0 
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 TTV 
                 5.0 
                 0 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Finally, the question of heterogeneity was also considered. Samples from different locations of the same tumour were available in 7 patients. The expression levels&#39; variation was measured in relation to the housekeeping gene for CLU and DPT and whether a different value would cause migration of the group set by the cut-off values previously calculated (“group migration”). In these samples, DPT had little variation in expression levels and no patient had to migrate to another group based on these values. CLU expression, on the other hand, appeared to be associated with tumoral heterogeneity. These results suggest a higher probability of homogeneity of intra-tumoral gene expression for DPT. 
     CAPNS1 
     In a study involving 192 patients undergoing LT for HCC, CAPNS1 overexpression was significantly associated with tumour number and size, tumour encapsulation, venous invasion and pTNM stage. Multivariate analysis revealed CAPN4 expression as a powerful independent prognostic factor for survival of HCC patients (HR 4.068, C.I. 2.524-6.555; p&lt;0.001. The inventors demonstrated association of CAPNS1 expression and recurrence (p&lt;0.001). However, no correlation with OS or DFS was demonstrated and no cut-off value of ΔCt proved useful in discriminating patients that would or would not recur. CAPNS1 is a promising marker for combination with other discriminatory markers. 
     Example 6: Materials and Methods 
     Molecular prognostic biomarkers Once clinical factors related to prognosis were identified, the inventors aimed to identify molecular biomarkers that could have greater discriminative power regarding prognosis of HCC. Due to this, a cooperative study between CHBPT of Curry Cabral Hospital and the company Ophiomics—Precision Medicine, with Professor José Pereira Leal as the Principal Investigator, and one Co-investigators, Joana Cardoso Vaz, was established. The study of molecular biomarkers included data mining and bioinformatics analysis of public repositories of HCC patients and of published literature on biomarkers for HCC. 
     Data Mining and Bioinformatics Analysis 
     Mining and bioinformatics analysis of molecular data at public repositories from HCC patients submitted to liver resection and transplantation was performed. Available public data on HCC patients was reanalysed with the analysis pipeline of the inventors including expression-profiling data of miRNAs and mRNAs. 
     Prognostic Molecular Markers in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review 
     The inventors searched the literature for previously published biomarkers on HCC patients submitted to LT. As data in LT patients is scarce and important information can be obtained in cohorts of patients submitted to liver resection, studies with biomarkers in LR were included in the analysis. A systematic literature review of the available evidence for the role of molecular biomarkers on the prognosis of patients undergoing resection or transplantation of HCC was performed. The review followed the general guidelines of the standards for systematic reviews from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. The objective of this review was to assess the role of molecular biomarkers in the prognosis of patients submitted to LR or LT for HCC. 
     Population: the search was restricted to journal articles in English Language and was conducted from January 2008 up to October 2016. Studies published in abstract form only, unpublished studies and articles published in non-peer reviewed journals were not included. Animal and in-vitro work was also excluded. Studies of molecular markers not related to prognosis of HCC were also excluded. Interventions: Liver resection and transplantation for HCC. The reason to select resection was due to the scarcity of studies on LT. Outcomes: Main outcomes searched are disease-free survival, recurrence and overall survival. Study design: as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials are rare in this setting, cohort studies were eligible for inclusion, even of retrospective nature, due to scarcity of data. Case series were accepted and case reports were excluded from the review. Economic evaluations were also excluded. Searches of the PubMed, Clinical key and Cochrane databases were performed using the following keywords in varied combinations: hepatocellular carcinoma, surgery, resection, transplantation, prognosis, molecular and biomarkers. Cited references in articles identified were used to find further relevant publications. Retrieved data included data type (mRNA, miRNA and protein), prognosis information, specific genes involved, good or bad prognostic genes, alteration type (overexpression, downregulation, hyper-hypomethylation and mutation), patient sample, statistical data and author&#39;s observations. Biomarkers were selected according to predictive power, number of citations amongst different centres, capacity to reproduce the technique and available reagents. After stringent selection of top biomarker candidates, a pilot study was performed. 
     Study Population 
     Inclusion and exclusion criteria were the same as previously used in the study on clinical biomarkers. Inclusion criteria: patients submitted to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma Exclusion criteria: age below 18 years; absence of cirrhosis; fibrolamellar histologic or hepatocholangiocarcinoma histologic type; absence of histological confirmation of HCC; and additionally, since the main outcome measure of the inventors was recurrence/disease-free survival, the inventors excluded cases with perioperative mortality, extra hepatic invasion and residual disease. The complete population of 301 patients submitted to LT for HCC between September 1992 and February 2014 was considered. From the 231 patients obtained after applying exclusion criteria, the inventors only included patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. The final set of samples used in the present study (pilot set and validation set) included 180 patients. Pilot Set: the pilot set included patients beyond Milan criteria with (n=6) and without recurrence (n=7) and patients within Milan criteria with early recurrence (n=6) and with no recurrence (n=7). The subset of biomarkers passing the selection criteria in the pilot study went through a second round of analysis with the validation set. Validation Set: excluding, from the initial population of 275 patients, patients previously included in the pilot set, patients with perioperative mortality, extra hepatic invasion, residual disease and less than 5 years of follow up, there were 154 patients initially included in the validation set. 
     Sample Collection 
     The 180 patients who underwent liver transplantation in the Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic and Transplantation Centre of Hospital Curry Cabral had their tumour specimens fixed in formalin and preserved in paraffin blocks. For all selected blocks, histopathological characterization and area selection was carried out on haematoxylin- and eosin-(HE) stained sections under the supervision of an experienced pathologist. The medical ethical review committee of Hospital Curry Cabral and the ethical review board of NOVA Medical School both approved the study. 
     RNA Extraction and cDNA Synthesis 
     Archived FFPE tissue sections (5 μm) were deparaffinised and counterstained with Mayer&#39;s haematoxylin and eosin. All samples were macro dissected under the pathologist guidance. Total RNA was extracted with the RNeasy FFPE kit (Qiagen), according to manufacturer&#39;s instructions with a slight modification: proteinase K cell-lysis at 56° C. was performed overnight. The RNase-Free DNase Set (Qiagen) “on column” DNA digestion procedure was included. Each extracted RNA sample was reverse-transcribed with the SuperScript™ VILO™ cDNA 
     Synthesis Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific). 
       
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 6 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Primer sequences for target and reference genes. 
               
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                 Target genes 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 Forward 
                 SEQ 
                 Reverse 
                 SEQ 
                 Amp. 
               
               
                 Symbol 
                 primer 
                 ID 
                 primer 
                 ID 
                 ength 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 OSGIN 
                 CTGGAAGCACCGGAAGGAG 
                  1 
                 CCTTCGATGGAGTGCCAGG 
                 17 
                  84 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 DAMTS5 
                 CCATATGTTCTCCAGAGCGCAG 
                  2 
                 GTAAATGTCCGATTTCGTGAGCC 
                 18 
                  90 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 EYA4 
                 ATTCCAGGTCTATGGAAATGCAGG 
                  3 
                 CAGTTTGGAGCTACCTGGAGTAT 
                 19 
                  83 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 MUC15 
                 CGTCAGATCCCCAAAAAGAAAAT 
                  4 
                 AAGTAGCCCACAAGAGTAAGCA 
                 20 
                 100 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 FBXW7 
                 GCAACAACGACGCCGAAT 
                  5 
                 GTCCACTCCAGCTCTGAAAC 
                 21 
                  83 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 SPRY2 
                 CCGCGATCACGGAGTTCA 
                  6 
                 CCACTCTGAGCTCTGGCCT 
                 22 
                  85 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 DPT 
                 AACTACGCCTGCATGCC 
                  7 
                 GCACGTCTGGTACCATTCCA 
                 23 
                  99 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 NOTCH1 
                 CTACGTGCCCTGCAGCC 
                  8 
                 CCGGTGAAGCCTGGCA 
                 24 
                  99 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 CCR6 
                 GCCTGTGAGCTGAAGGGG 
                  9 
                 CATTGATTCCCCGCTTCATTGTG 
                 25 
                  88 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 CLU 
                 ACTCTGCTGCTGTTTGTGGG 
                 10 
                 TGGACATTTCCTGGAGCTCATT 
                 26 
                  97 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 SALL4 
                 GACTCACACACTGGAGAGAAGCC 
                 11 
                 CATGTAGTGAACCTTTAAGTTGC 
                 27 
                  85 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 CAPNS1 
                 GTTGTGACACGACACCCTGA 
                 12 
                 ATCCATCACGGCCACCA 
                 28 
                  78 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 CD24 
                 GGGACATGGGCAGAGCAATG 
                 13 
                 ATAAATCTGCGTGGGTAGGAGC 
                 29 
                  80 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 DKK1 
                 CACCCAGGCTCTGCAGTC 
                 14 
                 GGGTACGGCTGGTAGTTGTC 
                 30 
                  89 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 HNF1B 
                 GATGCTCAGTGAGGACCCTTG 
                 15 
                 GGTGACATCGACCACCTCC 
                 31 
                  94 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 SLC16A4 
                 CCTACCTTTCACCTGGTAGCC 
                 16 
                 GTCTCAAGGATACCTGCTACAGAA 
                 32 
                  92 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
            
               
                 Reference genes 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 Forward 
                 SEQ 
                 Forward 
                 SEQ 
                 Amp. 
               
               
                 Symbol 
                 primer 
                 ID NO 
                 primer 
                 ID NO 
                 ength 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 RPL13A 
                 CGTGCGAGGTATGCTGCCCC 
                 33 
                 GGCGGTGGGATGCCGTCAAA 
                 34 
                 84 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Quantitative Real-Time PCR 
     RNA concentration and integrity could not be assessed using standard methods due to known FFPE degradation issues and to the small amounts of extracted samples thus, the inventors have accessed the quantity and quality of the isolated RNA samples on an Agilent 2200 TapeStation system (Agilent) using the High Sensitivity RNA ScreenTape (Agilent). Primer sets were designed with the NCBI Primer-BLAST tool (Ye et al., BMC Bioinformatics 2012; 13:134), to work at 60° C. and with an amplicon length of 70-100 bp (table 6) and were purchased from Invitrogen (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Duplicates of each sample were analysed by RT-qPCR using SsoFast™ EvaGreen® Supermix (Bio-Rad, Hercules Calif., USA) reagent in 10 μL of reaction mixture containing template (1 μL, 0.5-1 ng/μL) and primers (0.5 μM each). Samples were processed in a CFX96 Touch™ Real-Time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad, Hercules Calif., USA) according to the cycling program: 98° C. for 120 s, 50 cycles of 98° C. for 5s and 60° C. for 15s. Fluorescence data collection occurred at 60° C. Data and Statistical Analysis. Relative differential expression analysis of target genes by RT-qPCR was based on the 2-ΔΔCt, or ΔCt methodology to calculate the fold change in expression, wherein values above 1 indicate upregulation and below 1 are downregulated, from Livak et al., Methods 2001; 25(4):402-8 using mean quantification cycle of duplicates as cycle threshold (Ct) compared to the Ct of the calibrator gene ribosomal protein L13a (RPL13A). The differential expression of target genes using the RT-qPCR data between the set of samples with disease recurrence (R) and without (nonR) was performed with R language for Statistical Computing (Team RDC, Austria, 2009) and the statistical significance calculated with Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (confidence level=0.95). 
     Further, the obtained RT-qPCR data was also correlated separately for each candidate target gene with patients&#39; disease-free survival using the same methodology as previously described for the clinical markers. Continuous variables were presented as medians with the interquartile range (IQR) or means and standard deviation (SD) and compared using an independent samples t-test. Demographic variables of interest in transplant patients were compared using Student&#39;s t test, Pearson&#39;s chi square test or Fisher&#39;s exact test as appropriate. The outcome variables were recurrence (disease-free survival) and death (overall survival). Time to outcome was calculated using the date of transplantation until the date of the event or the date of last follow-up period for patients who did not experience the event. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for outcome analysis after transplantation. The effect of demographic variables on disease-free and overall survival was examined using the log-rank test and Cox regression model. Cut-off values were determined by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. For multivariate analysis, all variables significant to P&lt;0.20 for the outcome were included in a Cox proportional hazards model (Therneau et al., Springer-Verlag, 2000) or in a multiple logistic regression model depending on the type of outcome. Backward selection was performed to retain significant variables. Separate stratified survival analyses were performed as judged necessary. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS versions 22.0 and 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill.). The linear kernel SVM algorithm was developed in a Python 3.6.7 environment using the following packages for data manipulation and classification: scikit-learn (0.23.2); numpy (1.19.1); pandas (0.23.4).