Dynamic Exception Points for Fair Liver Allocation

References

• Afeche P, Caldentey R, Gupta V (2021) On the optimal design of a bipartite matching queueing system. Oper. Res. 70(1):363–401.Link, Google Scholar
• Ahn JH, Hornberger JC (1996) Involving patients in the cadaveric kidney transplant allocation process: A decision-theoretic perspective. Management Sci. 42(5):629–641.Link, Google Scholar
• Akan M (2018) Queueing games. Dai T, ed. Handbook of Healthcare Analytics (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ), 355–380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akan M (2024) Transplant health inequities research from an operations perspective. Health Sci. Rev. 11:100176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akan M, Alagoz O, Ata B, Erenay FS, Said A (2012) A broader view of designing the liver allocation system. Oper. Res. 60(4):757–770.Link, Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Akan M, Ata B, Erenay FS (2008) A fluid dynamic model to optimize the liver allocation system. Proc. NSF Engrg. Res. and Innovation Conf. (Knoxville, TN).Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS (2004) The optimal timing of living-donor liver transplantation. Management Sci. 50(10):1420–1430.Link, Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS (2007) Choosing among living-donor and cadaveric livers. Management Sci. 53(11):1702–1715.Link, Google Scholar
• Asrani SK, Kamath PS (2015) Model for end-stage liver disease score and MELD exceptions: 15 years later. Hepatology Internat. 9(3):346–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ata B, Skaro A, Tayur S (2017) OrganJet: Overcoming geographical disparities in access to deceased donor kidneys in the United States. Management Sci. 63(9):2776–2794.Link, Google Scholar
• Bernards S, Lee E, Leung N, Akan M, Gan K, Zhao H, Sarkar M, et al. (2022) Awarding additional MELD points to the shortest waitlist candidates improves sex disparity in access to liver transplant in the United States. Amer. J. Transplantation 22(12):2912–2920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernards S, Lee E, Leung N, Zhao H, Akan M, Sarkar M, Tayur S, Mehta N (2021) Liver simulated allocation model (LSAM) of a height-based policy change to improve sex disparity in liver transplantation (LT) [abstract]. Amer. J. Transplantation 21(suppl 3):776.Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, Farias VF, Trichakis N (2013) Fairness, efficiency, and flexibility in organ allocation for kidney transplantation. Oper. Res. 61(1):73–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Cox-North P, Doorenbos A, Shannon SE, Scott J, Curtis JR (2013) The transition to end-of-life care in end-stage liver disease. J. Hospital Palliative Nursing 15(4):209–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dai T, Zheng R, Sycara K (2020) Jumping the line, charitably: Analysis and remedy of donor-priority rule. Management Sci. 66(2):622–641.Link, Google Scholar
• David I, Yechiali U (1985) A time-dependent stopping problem with application to live organ transplants. Oper. Res. 33(3):491–504.Link, Google Scholar
• Davis A, Mehrotra S, Friedewald J, Ladner D (2013) Characteristics of a simulation model of the national kidney transplantation system. Proc. Winter Simulations Conf. (IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ), 2320–2329.Google Scholar
• Fukazawa K, Nishida S (2016) Size mismatch in liver transplantation. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreatitis Sci. 23:457–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Godfrey EL, Malik TH, Lai JC, Mindikoglu AL, Galván NTN, Cotton RT, O’Mahony CA, et al. (2019) The decreasing predictive power of MELD in an era of changing etiology of liver disease. Amer. J. Transplantation 19(12):3299–3307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gurvich I, Ward A (2015) On the dynamic control of matching queues. Stochastic Systems 4(2):479–523.Link, Google Scholar
• Hartl R, Sethi S, Vickson R (1995) A survey of the maximum principles for optimal control problems with state constraints. SIAM Rev. 37:188–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hasankhani F, Khademi A (2021) Is it time to include post transplant survival in heart transplantation allocation rules? Production Oper. Management 30(8):2653–2671.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heimbach JK, Hirose R, Stock PG, Schladt DP, Xiong H, Liu J, Olthoff KM, et al. (2015) Delayed hepatocellular carcinoma model for end-stage liver disease exception score improves disparity in access to liver transplant in the United States. Hepatology 61:1643–1650.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard DH (2002) Why do transplant surgeons turn down organs? A model of the accept/reject decision. J. Health Econom. 21(6):957–969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu M, Zhou Y (2021) Dynamic type matching. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 24(1):125–142.Link, Google Scholar
• Hu Y, Chan CW, Dong J (2021) Optimal scheduling of proactive service with customer deterioration and improvement. Management Sci. 68(4):2533–2578.Link, Google Scholar
• Kim SP, Gupta D, Israni AK, Kasiske BL (2015) Accept/decline decision module for the liver simulated allocation model. Health Care Management Sci. 18(1):35–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kong N, Schaefer AJ, Hunsaker B, Roberts MS (2010) Maximizing the efficiency of the US liver allocation system through region design. Management Sci. 56(12):2111–2122.Link, Google Scholar
• Kreke J, Schaefer AJ, Angus DC, Bryce CL, Roberts MS (2002) Incorporating biology into discrete event simulation models of organ allocation. Proc. Winter Simulation Conf., vol. 1 (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 532–536.Google Scholar
• Kyota F, Seigo N (2016) Size mismatch in liver transplantation. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Sci. 23(8):457–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lai JC, Terrault NA, Vittinghoff E, Biggins SW (2010) Height contributes to the gender difference in waitlist mortality under the MELD-based liver allocation system. Amer. J. Transplantation 10(12):2658–2664.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marvin MR, Ferguson N, Cannon RM, Jones CM, Brock GN (2015) MELD-EQ: An alternative model for end stage liver disease score for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transplantation 21(5):612–622.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Massie AB, Caffo B, Gentry SE, Hall EC, Axelrod DA, Lentine KL, Schnitzler MA, et al. (2011) MELD exceptions and rates of waiting list outcomes. Amer. J. Transplantation 11(11):2362–2371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nazari M, Stolyar AL (2019) Reward maximization in general dynamic matching systems. Queueing Systems 91:143–170.Google Scholar
• Papalexopoulos T, Alcorn J, Bertsimas D, Goff R, Stewart D, Trichakis N (2023) Reshaping national organ allocation policy. Oper. Res., ePub ahead of print November 20, https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2022.0035.Link, Google Scholar
• Pritsker AA, Martin DL, Reust JS, Wagner MA, Daily OP, Harper AM, Edwards EB, et al. (1995) Organ transplantation policy evaluation. Proc. 27th Conf. Winter Simulation (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 1314–1323.Google Scholar
• Reddy MS, Varghese J, Venkataraman J, Rela M (2013) Matching donor to recipient in liver transplantation: Relevance in clinical practice. World J. Hepatology 5(11):603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rickert C, Akan M, Leung Z, Markmann JF, Tayur S, Zhao H, Yeh H (2019a) DOME: A new strategy for prioritizing hepatocellular carcinoma patients on the liver transplant waitlist [abstract]. Amer. J. Transplantation 19(suppl 3):378.Google Scholar
• Rickert CG, Leung Z, Akan M, Markmann JF, Tayur S, Zhao H, Yeh H (2019b) Stratifying HCC patients for liver transplantation. REACH: Risk of exceeding allocation criteria for HCC. Amer. J. Transplantation 19(S1):13.Google Scholar
• Rickert C, Zhao H, Leung Z, Akan M, Markmann J, Tayur S, Yeh H (2020) MY-ATLAS: A novel simulation algorithm for liver transplant allocation. Amer. J. Transplantation 20(suppl 3):S1095.Google Scholar
• Righter R (1989) A resource allocation problem in a random environment. Oper. Res. 37(2):329–338.Link, Google Scholar
• Ruth RJ, Wyszewianski L, Herline G (1985) Kidney transplantation: A simulation model for examining demand and supply. Management Sci. 31(5):515–526.Link, Google Scholar
• Said A, Erenay S, Akan M, Ata B, Alagoz O (2009) Optimizing liver allocation policy: 732. Hepatology 50:647A–648A.Google Scholar
• Sandikçi B, Tunç S, Tanriover B (2019) A new simulation model for kidney transplantation in the United States. Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ), 1079–1090.Google Scholar
• Sandikçi B, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Alagoz O, Roberts MS (2008) Estimating the patient’s price of privacy in liver transplantation. Oper. Res. 56(6):1393–1410.Link, Google Scholar
• Seierstad A, Sydsaeter K (1987) Optimal Control Theory with Economic Applications (Elsevier, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
• Shechter SM, Bryce CL, Alagoz O, Kreke JE, Stahl JE, Schaefer AJ, Angus DC, et al. (2005) A clinically based discrete-event simulation of end-stage liver disease and the organ allocation process. Medical Decision Making 25(2):199–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• SRTR (2019) Liver simulated allocation model (LSAM) 2019 user’s guide. Accessed August 30, 2022, https://www.srtr.org/media/1361/LSAM-2019-User-Guide.pdf.Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios S (2004) Patient choice in kidney allocation: The role of the queueing discipline. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 6(4):280–301.Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios S (2005) Patient choice in kidney allocation: A sequential stochastic assignment model. Oper. Res. 53(3):443–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios S (2006) Recipient choice can address the efficiency-equity trade-off in kidney transplantation: A mechanism design model. Management Sci. 52(11):1647–1660.Link, Google Scholar
• Tang Y, Li A, Scheller-Wolf AA, Tayur SR (2021a) Multi-armed bandits with endogenous learning curves: An application to split liver transplantation. Preprint, submitted May 28, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3855206.Google Scholar
• Tang Y, Scheller-Wolf AA, Tayur SR, Perito ER, Roberts JP (2021b) Split liver transplantation: An analytical decision support model. Preprint, submitted July 8, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3877523.Google Scholar
• Toso C, Dupuis-Lozeron E, Majno P, Berney T, Kneteman NM, Perneger T, Morel P, et al. (2012) A model for dropout assessment of candidates with or without hepatocellular carcinoma on a common liver transplant waiting list. Hepatology 56:149–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• UNOS (2010) Ethical principles in the allocation of human organs. Accessed November 17, 2021, https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/resources/ethics/ethical-principles-in-the-allocation-of-human-organs/.Google Scholar
• UNOS (2021) Transplant trends. Accessed November 17, 2021, https://unos.org/data/transplant-trends/.Google Scholar
• UNOS (2024) Continuous distribution: Liver and intestine. Accessed March 15, 2024, https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/policies-bylaws/a-closer-look/continuous-distribution/continuous-distribution-liver-and-intestine/.Google Scholar
• Vitale A, Volk ML, De Feo TM, Burra P, Frigo AC, Morales RR, De Carlis L, et al. (2014) A method for establishing allocation equity among patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma on a common liver transplant waiting list. J. Hepatology 60(2):290–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA, Chertow GM, Wein LM (2000) Dynamic allocation of kidneys to candidates on the transplant waiting list. Oper. Res. 48(4):549–569.Link, Google Scholar