Cancer Risk After Pediatric Solid Organ Transplantation

Tolerance after liver transplantation: Where are we?

Impeccable management of immunosuppression is required to ensure the best longterm outcomes for liver transplant recipients. This is particularly challenging for children who arguably need 8 decades of graft and patient survival. Too little risks chronic, often subclinical allo-immune injury while too much risks insidious and cumulative toxicities. Historically, immunosuppression minimization or withdrawal has been a strategy to optimize the longevity of liver transplant recipients. The literature is sprinkled with single-center reports of operationally tolerant patients - those with apparently normal liver function and liver tests. However, without biopsy evidence of immunological quiescence, confidence in the phenotypic assignment of tolerance is shaky. More recently, multicenter trials of immunosuppression withdrawal for highly selected, stable, longterm adult and pediatric liver recipients have shown tolerance rates, based on both biochemical and histological assessment, of 40% and 60%, respectively. Extended biochemical and histologic follow-up of children over 8 years, equivalent to 7+ years off of drug, suggests that operational tolerance is robust. Therefore, clearly, immunosuppression can be completely and safety withdrawn from highly-selected subsets of adults and children. However, these trials have also confirmed that clinically ideal recipients - those eligible for immunosuppression withdrawal trial - can harbor significant and worrisome inflammation and/or fibrosis. Although the etiology and prognosis of these findings remain unknown, it is reasonable to surmise that they may reflect an anti-donor immune response that is insufficiently controlled. To achieve the outcomes that we are seeking and that our patients are demanding, we desperately need noninvasive but accurate biomarkers that identify whether immunosuppression is neither too much nor too little but "just right." Until these are available, liver histology remains the gold standard to assess allograft health and guide immunosuppression management. Liver Transplantation 23 1601-1614 2017 AASLD.

Contribution of solid organ transplant recipients to the pediatric non-hodgkin lymphoma burden in the United States

BACKGROUND

Pediatric solid organ transplant recipients have a 100 to 200 times higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) than the general pediatric population. Consequently, transplant-related NHL may contribute considerably to the pediatric NHL burden in the United States.

METHODS

A cohort study using a linkage between the US transplant registry and 16 cancer registries was conducted. Cancer incidence rates were calculated for people less than 20 years old in the transplant and general populations. Rates were applied to transplant registry and US census data to estimate pediatric NHL counts for transplant recipients and the general population.

RESULTS

During 1990-2012, an estimated 22,270 NHLs were diagnosed in US children and adolescents; they included 628 cases diagnosed in transplant recipients. Thus, 2.82% of pediatric NHL diagnoses in the general population (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.45%-3.19%) occurred in transplant recipients. Among transplant recipients, the most common subtypes were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; 64.5% of cases) and Burkitt lymphoma (BL; 8.6%). For DLBCL and BL, transplant recipients contributed 7.62% (95% CI, 6.35%-8.88%) and 0.87% (95% CI, 0.51%-1.23%) of diagnoses, respectively. The proportion of NHLs that occurred in transplant recipients was highest among children less than 5 years old (4.46%; 95% CI, 3.24%-5.69%) and in more recent calendar years (3.73% in 2010-2012; 95% CI, 2.07%-5.39%). DLBCL patterns were similar, with transplant recipients contributing 19.78% of cases among children less than 5 years old (95% CI, 12.89%-26.66%) and 11.4% of cases in 2010-2012 (95% CI, 5.54%-17.28%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among children and adolescents, solid organ transplant recipients contribute a substantial fraction of NHL diagnoses, particularly DLBCL diagnoses. This fraction has increased over time. Prevention efforts targeted toward this group could reduce the overall pediatric NHL burden. Cancer 2017;123:4663-4671. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Special Considerations in Pediatric Kidney Transplantation

Universally accepted as the treatment of choice for children needing renal replacement therapy, kidney transplantation affords children the opportunity for an improved quality of life over dialysis therapy. Immunologic and surgical advances over the last 15 years have improved the pediatric patient and kidney graft survival. Unique to pediatrics, congenital genitourinary anomalies are the most common primary diseases leading to kidney failure, many with urological issues. Early urological evaluation for post-transplant bladder dysfunction and emphasis on immunization adherence are the mainstays of pediatric pretransplant and post-transplant evaluations. A child's height can be challenging, sometimes requiring an intra-abdominally placed graft, particularly if the patient is <20 kg. Maintenance immunosuppression regimens are similar to adult kidney graft recipients, although distinctive pharmacokinetics may change dosing intervals in children from twice a day to thrice a day. Viral infections and secondary malignancies are problematic for children relative to adults. Current trends to reduce/remove corticosteroid therapy from post-transplant protocols have produced improved linear growth with less steroid toxicity; although these studies are still ongoing, graft function and survival are considered acceptable. Finally, all children with a kidney transplant need a smooth transition to adult clinics. Future research in pertinent psychosocial aspects and continued technological advances will only serve to optimize the transition process. Although some aspects of kidney transplantation are similar in children and adults, for instance immunosuppression and immunosuppressive regimens, and rejection mechanisms and their diagnosis using the Banff criteria, there are important differences this review will focus on and which continue to drive innovation.