Kidney transplantation in patients with previous renal cancer: a critical appraisal of current evidence and guidelines

[Urogenital tumors following kidney transplantation-monocentric analysis of incidences and overview of urological preventive measures]

BACKGROUND

Urogenital tumors are among the most common solid malignancies after kidney transplantation (TX).

OBJECTIVE

We analyzed the incidence and mortality of urogenital tumors after kidney TX in our own patient population as well as answered the question of recommended follow-up necessity and frequency in this cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective monocentric data collection of tumor diseases and the most common urogenital tumors after kidney TX at the Transplant Center Dresden between 2010 and 2020 was done. From this, we derived recommendations for a useful follow-up concept.

RESULTS

A total of 13% (93/710) of kidney TX patients developed a neoplasm. Older patients (60.1 ± 10.6 vs. 53.8 ± 12.5; p < 0.001), with higher Charlson scores (≥ 4: 68% vs. 46%; p < 0.001) and a previous tumor history (18% vs. 8%; p < 0.001) were more likely to develop a neoplasm after transplantation. In the multivariate analysis, previous tumor history was found to be an independent predictor of tumor development after renal transplantation (OR 2.2; 95%-KI [1.2-4.1]; p = 0.01). Urogenital tumors accounted for 30% (28/93) of all malignancies. Renal cell carcinoma of the native kidney was the most common (n = 12) neoplasm, followed by prostate cancer (n = 9).

CONCLUSION

Most solid malignancies after kidney TX arise from the urinary tract. Due to their frequency, there is an urgent need for specialized urological therapy and long-term follow-up care. Even before listing for TX, risk factors can be recognized and individual concepts for follow-up care can be developed.

How to manage renal masses in kidney transplant recipients? A collaborative review by the EAU-YAU kidney transplantation and renal cancer working groups

INTRODUCTION

Kidney transplant (KT) recipients have a four-times higher risk of renal malignancies compared to general population. As these patients frequently harbor bilateral or multifocal tumors, the management of renal masses is still under debate.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the current management of the native kidney masses in KT patients.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

We performed a literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed database. A number of 34 studies were included in the present review.

SYNTHESIS OF EVIDENCE

In frail patients with renal masses below 3 cm, active surveillance is a feasible alternative. Nephron-sparing surgery is not justified for masses in the native kidney. Radical nephrectomy is the standard treatment for post-transplant renal tumors of the native kidneys in KT recipients, with laparoscopic techniques leading to significantly less perioperative complication rates as compared to the open approach. Concurrent bilateral native nephrectomy at the time of transplantation can be considered in patients with renal mass and polycystic kidney disease, especially if no residual urinary output is present. Patients with localized disease and successful radical nephrectomy do not require immunosuppression adjustment. In metastatic cases, mTOR agents can ensure efficient antitumoral response, while maintaining proper immunosuppression in order to protect the graft.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-transplant renal cancer of the native kidneys is a frequent occurrence. Radical nephrectomy is most frequently performed for localized renal masses. A standardized and widely-approved screening strategy for malignancies of native renal units is yet to be implemented.

Secreted frizzled-related proteins: A promising therapeutic target for cancer therapy through Wnt signaling inhibition

The Wnt signaling system is a critical pathway that regulates embryonic development and adult homeostasis. Secreted frizzled-related proteins (SFRPs) are extracellular inhibitors of Wnt signaling that act by binding directly to Wnt ligands or Frizzled receptors. SFRPs can act as anti-Wnt agents and suppress cancer growth by blocking the action of Wnt ligands. However, SFRPs are often silenced by promoter methylation in cancer cells, resulting in hyperactivation of the Wnt pathway. Epigenetic modifiers can reverse this silencing and restore SFRPs expression. Despite the potential of SFRPs as a therapeutic target, the effects of SFRPs on tumor development remain unclear. Therefore, a review of the expression of various members of the SFRPs family in different cancers and their potential as therapeutic targets is warranted. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge of SFRPs in cancer, focusing on their expression patterns and their potential as novel therapeutic targets.

Transplant or dialysis: What’s the better choice for RCC-induced ESRD patients? A 20-year analysis of OPTN/UNOS data

Purpose

The incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) caused by renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing with the high prevalence of RCC as well as those with treatment-related renal function impairment. Worries about tumor recurrence after transplant-related immunosuppression hinder the recommendation of kidney transplantation for RCC-induced ESRD patients. However, no direct analysis has been performed to identify whether kidney transplantation can offer better survival than maintaining dialysis.

Materials and methods

This retrospective population-based cohort study was based on Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data released in March 2021. Characteristics and outcomes were compared, including the patient and graft survival of candidates and recipients with RCC-induced ESRD etiology as well as other primary diseases.

Results

Patients with RCC-induced ESRD were older; more likely to be male, White, and obese; and more likely to have a history of diabetes and dialysis. They also had higher creatinine levels, more delayed graft function, more primary non-function, and higher Kidney Donor Profile Index score donors, compared with the glomerulonephritis (GN) group. While waiting, RCC candidates suffered the worst outcomes of all groups, a 44% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.44 [1.27–1.62]) higher risk of removal than GN patients. After transplantation, RCC recipients demonstrated comparable patient survival and better graft survival (p=0.21 and p=0.13, respectively). Compared with still-waiting RCC patients, the RCC recipients who received kidney transplants had significantly better outcomes (13.6 [9.3–17.8] vs. 61 [52–68.4] %), decreasing the death or deteriorating risk by 84% (aHR, 0.16 [0.13–0.20]).

Conclusions

Patients with RCC-induced ESRD can dramatically benefit from kidney transplantation. Hence, these patients should not be limited to transplantation by strict strategies or a delayed waiting time out of their malignancy history.

De Novo Malignancies after Kidney Transplantation

Cancer is an important outcome after kidney transplantation because it is the second leading cause of death in most Western countries. The excess risk of cancer after transplantation is approximately two to three times higher than the age- and sex-matched general population, driven largely by viral- and immune-related cancers. Once cancer develops, outcomes are generally poor, particularly for those with melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease. More importantly, effective screening and treatment strategies are limited in this high-risk population. In this review, we begin with a patient's journey that maps the experience of living with a kidney transplant and understand the patient's knowledge, education, and experience of cancer in the context of transplantation. The epidemiology and burden of cancer in recipients of kidney transplants, along with the up-to-date screening and treatment strategies, are discussed. We also focus on the current understanding of optimal care for recipients of kidney transplants who are living with cancer from the patients' perspectives.

An anastomosing hemangioma mimicking a renal cell carcinoma in a kidney transplant recipient: a case report

Background

Although anastomosing hemangiomas are very rare and benign vascular neoplasms, these tumors are more common among patients with end-stage kidney disease. Incidental finding of these tumors in the kidney or adrenal gland has been reported. Herein, we describe a case in which an anastomosing hemangioma was misdiagnosed as a renal cell carcinoma before kidney transplant.

Case presentation

A 35-year-old woman with lupus nephritis was admitted to our emergency department for suspected uremic symptoms of nausea and general weakness. She had received hemodialysis due to end-stage kidney disease, and a living-donor kidney transplantation from her father was planned. On pre-operative contrast-enhanced computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, a 1.7 cm renal cell carcinoma was observed in the right kidney. On staining after radical nephrectomy, irregularly shaped vascular spaces of various sizes were observed, with these spaces having an anastomosing pattern. As the findings of the anastomosing hemangioma are similar to those of a renal cell carcinoma on imaging, histology examination was necessary to confirm the diagnosis of anastomosing hemangioma and to prevent delay in listing for kidney transplantation. Good kidney function was achieved after transplantation, with no tumor recurrence.

Conclusion

Our case underlines the importance for prompt surgical resection of an enhancing renal mass to confirm diagnosis in patients scheduled for kidney transplantation to avoid any delay.

Clinical features and outcomes in kidney transplant recipients with renal cell carcinoma: a single-center study

Background

Previous studies have recommended a 2- to 5-year waiting time prior to kidney transplantation (KT) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and symptomatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and no delay for incidental early-stage RCC. Data on Asian KT recipients are unavailable.

Methods

This is a Korean single-center retrospective study on 35 KT recipients with ESRD and RCC. Patients were classified into two groups: early KT (KT performed within 1 year after nephrectomy for RCC, including KT with simultaneous nephrectomy) and delayed KT (KT performed over than 1 year after nephrectomy for RCC). Patient survival, graft survival, and cancer recurrence were compared between both groups.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in patient survival (P = 0.388), graft survival (P = 0.317), or graft rejection rate (P = 0.207) between the early and delayed KT groups. Additionally, there were no differences in pathological characteristics or RCC stage other than cancer histology: acquired cystic disease-associated RCC (47.4%) was the most common RCC type in the early KT group, whereas clear cell type (62.5%) was the most common RCC type in the delayed KT group. No RCC recurrence was observed.

Conclusion

Patients with early-stage and asymptomatic RCC do not require a mandatory observational period prior to KT after curative nephrectomy.

Distribution and association of cancer with mortality in end-stage renal disease patients receiving dialysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cancer in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is an important comorbidity to be taken into consideration while planning for renal replacement therapy (RRT) options due to its associated increased mortality. This study aims to investigate the natural history and association of cancer with all-cause mortality in an ESRD population receiving dialysis.

METHOD

The study was conducted on 1271 ESRD patients receiving dialysis between January 2012 and December 2017. A comparative analysis was carried out between 119 patients with and 1152 without cancer history at entry into this study (baseline). A 1:2 (119 cancer: 238 no cancer) propensity score matched sample of 357 patients was also used for analysis. Cox-regression analysis was used to study the strength of the association between cancer and all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis was used to demonstrate the difference in cumulative survival between the groups. A competing risk analysis was also carried out to calculate the probability of competing events (death, transplant and incident cancer).

RESULTS

At baseline, 10.1% of the cohort had a history of cancer (current and past) with the annual incident rate being 1.3%. Urological cancers were the leading site of cancer. The median age of our cohort was 63 years with a predominance of males (63%) and Caucasians (79%). The majority (69%) of the cohort were receiving haemodialysis. 47% had a history of diabetes with 88% being hypertensive. During a median follow-up of 28 months, the proportion of deaths observed was similar between the groups in the matched sample (cancer 49.6 versus no-cancer 52.1%, p value 0.77). In a univariable Cox-regression model, there was no significant association between cancer and all-cause mortality (HR 1.28; 95% CI 0.97-1.67; p = 0.07). The KM estimates showed similar observations in the cumulative survival between the groups (matched sample log-rank, p value 0.85). In competing risk analysis, the cumulative probability of death at 5 years was non-significantly higher in the cancer group (cancer group 64% vs no cancer group 51%, p value 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

In our real-world multi-morbid dialysis cohort of 119 cancer patients, baseline cancer history did not prove to be an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality in the first 5 years of follow-up, suggesting the need for a case-by-case approach in provision of RRT options, including transplantation.

Pre-implantation kidney biopsy: value of the expertise in determining histological score and comparison with the whole organ on a series of discarded kidneys

BACKGROUND

Evidence about the reliability of pre-implantation biopsy is still conflicting, depending on both biopsy type and pathologist's expertise. Aim of the study is to evaluate the agreement of general v specialist pathologists and to compare scores on biopsy and whole organs in a set of discarded kidneys.

METHODS

46 discarded kidneys were identified with their corresponding biopsies. The biopsies were reviewed by three general and two specialist pathologists, blinded to the original report, according to Remuzzi score. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for both groups. Discarded kidneys were scored according to Remuzzi score by a single specialist pathologist. Biopsies and organs were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Weighted κ coefficients between biopsy and organ scores were also calculated.

RESULTS

Specialist pathologists achieved higher values of ICC, reaching excellent or good agreement in most of the parameters, while general pathologists values were mainly fair or good. On whole organs, scores were consistently lower than biopsies, with a significant difference in most of the parameters. Weighted κ coefficient was slight or fair for most of the parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests that the creation of a pool of specialist pathologists would improve organ utilization. Moreover, biopsies are not representative of the whole organ. As the Remuzzi score on biopsy is a major reasons for discard, a quota of transplantable kidneys may be erroneously discarded. Refinement in Remuzzi cut-offs based on expert reporting and recognition of sampling error of biopsies in correlation with clinical outcome data should be undertaken.