Small renal masses in kidney transplantation: overview of clinical impact and management in donors and recipients

The Overexpression of NUSAP1 and GTSE1 Could Predict An Unfavourable Prognosis and Shorter Disease Free Survival in ccRenal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Although it has been reported that NUSAP1 and GTSE1 are highly expressed in different types of tumors and associated with malignant progression and poor clinical prognosis, their significances with clinicopathological data and correlations with patients' survival in ccRCC are still poorly understood. Therefore, in our study we attempted to evaluate the link between NUSAP1 and GTSE1 in ccRCC and to correlate their immunoexpression with clinico-pathological parameters and the patients' survival to identify their significance as potential therapeutic targets, indicators for tumor progression, and patients' prognosis.

METHOD

NUSAP1 and GTSE1 were examined in 100 ccRCC patients by immunohistochemistry. The association between NUSAP1 and GTSE1 immunoreactivity and clinicopathological variables were evaluated. The disease free survival (DFS) was examined by the Kaplan-Meier method. The multivariate Cox regressions was estimated to detect the prognostic role of both proteins.

RESULTS

We detected high NUSAP1 and GTSE1 expression in 60% and 62% of the cases, respectively. A significant association was detected between NUSAP1 and GTSE1 immunoexpression and size (p=0.007 and p=0.026, respectively), Fuhrman grade (p=0.022 and p=0.004, respectively), tumor stage (p=0.003 and p=0.019, respectively), TILs (p=0.026 and p=0.04 respectively), capsular invasion (p=0.002 and p=0.009, respectively), Distant metastasis (p=0.007 and p=0.009, respectively), and DFS (p=0.007 and 0.009, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression showed that high NUSAP1 and GTSE1 expression levels were independently associated with an unfavourable poor prognosis of ccRCC cases.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that NUSAP1 and GTSE1 overexpression was closely related to the poor prognostic clinicopathological features of ccRCC and predicted an unfavorable prognosis. Therefore, NUSAP1 and GTSE1 might act together as potential futuristic prognostic indicators and therapeutic targets for ccRCC patients. However, further analysis in molecular studies on larger scale are mandatory to highlight the interactive crosstalk regulatory mechanisms between both markers and their combined effect on ccRCC.

Kidney stones in renal transplant recipients: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Lithiasis in renal graft recipients might be a dangerous condition with a potential risk of organ function impairment.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was conducted through February 2023. The primary objective was to assess the incidence of lithiasis in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. The secondary objective was to assess the timing of stone formation, localization and composition of stones, possible treatment options, and the incidence of graft loss.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 41 non-randomized studies comprising 699 patients met our inclusion criteria. The age at lithiasis diagnosis ranged between 29-53 years. Incidence of urolithiasis ranged from 0.1-6.3%, usually diagnosed after 12 months from KT. Most of the stones were diagnosed in the calyces or in the pelvis. Calcium oxalate composition was the most frequent. Different treatment strategies were considered, namely active surveillance, ureteroscopy, percutaneous/combined approach, or open surgery. 15.73% of patients were submitted to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), while 26.75% underwent endoscopic lithotripsy or stone extraction. 18.03% of patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy whilst 3.14% to a combined approach. Surgical lithotomy was performed in 5.01% of the cases. Global stone-free rate was around 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

Lithiasis in kidney transplant is a rare condition usually diagnosed after one year after surgery and mostly located in the calyces and renal pelvis, more frequently of calcium oxalate composition. Each of the active treatments is associated with good results in terms of stone-free rate, thus the surgical technique should be chosen according to the patient's characteristics and surgeon preferences.

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.

Renal cell carcinoma of different pathological types in bilateral native kidneys of a kidney transplant recipient: A case report and literature review

Patients after kidney transplantation have a much higher risk of developing malignant tumors than the general population. And the native kidney is an organ relatively susceptible to malignant tumors after renal transplantation. However, the simultaneous development of bilateral renal tumors is very rare; especially the bilateral native kidneys harbor different pathological types of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We report a case of a patient who developed malignant tumors in both native kidneys nearly 19 years after renal transplantation. This patient underwent bilateral laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, and postoperative pathological examination showed clear cell RCC on the left native kidney and papillary RCC on the right one. And the early detection and surgical treatment resulted in a good prognosis. The literature related to the diagnosis and treatment of bilateral RCC after renal transplantation is also reviewed.