Management of Localised Prostate Cancer in Kidney Transplant Patients: A Systematic Review from the EAU Guidelines on Renal Transplantation Panel

De Novo Urological Malignancies After Renal Transplantation: An Asian 30-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

As the incidence of urological malignancies after renal transplantation (RT) is observed to be greater than in the general population, a better understanding of them is important. We present our experience with urological tumors in RT recipients at our transplant center, and analyze their incidence, management and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 2177 RT recipients on follow-up at our center between 1990 and 2022 was conducted for de novo genitourinary malignancy. Patients diagnosed with malignancy before transplantation were excluded. Clinicopathological data at diagnosis and follow-up were collected and analyzed. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS v.24 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

The overall incidence of Urological malignancies was 3.9%, with 89 cancers diagnosed in 85 patients. Renal cell carcinoma was most common (n = 61, 68.5%), followed by prostate cancer (n = 10, 11.2%), urothelial carcinoma (n = 10, 11.2%), squamous cell carcinoma of the penis/scrotum (n = 7, 7.9%), and testicular cancer (n = 1, 1.1%). Mean duration between transplantation and diagnosis of malignancy was 9.9 (0.4-20.7) years. At a median follow-up of 4.6 (018.2) years, 27 deaths were seen; 7(25.9%) were due to urological malignancy. CSS rates were 86% and 78% at five and ten years, respectively, after diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

We present one of the largest series of de novo urological malignancies observed over an extended 30-year follow-up of RT recipients, demonstrating an elevated risk in line with other studies. Regular surveillance for malignancies is advised, in order to ensure early diagnosis and management.

Safety of Docetaxel in a Patient with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer After Kidney Transplantation: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

There are limitations in treating advanced prostate cancer (PC), especially castration-resistant (CR) cases, in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). We describe the case of RTR with metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel.

CASE REPORT

A 60-year-old man with end-stage renal disease due to autosomal-dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) underwent living-related kidney transplantation. A year later, he was diagnosed with PC (prostate-specific antigen level: 998 ng/mL). Prostate biopsy revealed prostatic adenocarcinoma with a Gleason score of 4 + 4 = 8. Radiographic examination revealed seminal vesicle invasion and multiple bone and lymph node metastases. Combined androgen blockade therapy was initiated; however, the patient was diagnosed with CRPC 6 months later. Triweekly docetaxel therapy was administered 28 months after diagnosis. The patient successfully completed 7 cycles of this therapy without major adverse events. However, after the 7th cycle, he developed a high fever caused by an infection of ADPKD-associated renal cysts. Therefore, docetaxel was discontinued, and enzalutamide was started, followed by abiraterone, but without any effect. We then introduced cabazitaxel but discontinued it because of hepatic dysfunction. Hence, the patient underwent a docetaxel rechallenge. He was administered the PEGylated form of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for neutropenia prophylaxis. After 6 cycles of rechallenge docetaxel therapy, the patient accidentally fell, resulting in a cervical spine fracture and subsequent death due to respiratory failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Docetaxel can be safely delivered to patients with CRPC after renal transplantation who are taking oral immunosuppressants. It can be a good treatment option for them.

Efficacy and Safety of Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is common among male renal transplant recipients and can present challenges for medical management and patient survival. It is imperative to have a comprehensive understanding of available treatment options in this population to determine the most effective and safe therapies. Brachytherapy, a safe and effective treatment for localized prostate cancer, has not been sufficiently studied in this patient population. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of brachytherapy in treating prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our brachytherapy database to identify patients with a previous history of renal transplantation who underwent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. Long-term prostate-specific antigen control and treatment-related toxicity, including graft dysfunction and urinary and rectal complications, were assessed and compared with published outcomes. Results were analyzed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of seed implantation in this patient population.

RESULTS

We identified 2 patients with previous renal transplantation who underwent permanent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. Follow-ups ranged from 53 to 57 months, and both patients remained free of prostate-specific antigen progression with normal graft function. No acute and late complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

Brachytherapy is a safe and effective treatment option for post-renal transplant prostate cancer. Given the paucity of reports on brachytherapy in this population, the findings of this study, despite a small sample size, contribute to the increasing body of evidence supporting the use of brachytherapy in this patient population.

Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Outcomes for a Large Contemporary Cohort and a Matched Comparison to Patients Without a Transplant

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

It is unknown whether renal transplant receipt (RTR) status can affect perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of RTR patients treated with RP for cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) via comparison with a no-RTR cohort.

METHODS

RTR patients who had undergone RP at seven European institutions during 2001-2022 were identified. A multi-institutional cohort of no-RTR patients treated with RP during 2004-2022 served as the comparator group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:4 was used to match no-RTR patients to the RTR cohort according to age, prostate-specific antigen, and final pathology features. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox, logistic, and Poisson log-linear regression models to test the outcomes of interest.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

After PSM, we analyzed data for 102 RTR and 408 no-RTR patients. RTR patients experienced higher estimated blood loss (EBL), longer length of hospital stay (LOS) and time to catheter removal, higher postoperative complication rates, and a lower continence recovery rate (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, RTR independently predicted unfavorable operative time (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.25), LOS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.86), EBL (OR 2.24, 95% CI 2.18-2.30), and time to catheter removal (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.68-2.21), but not complications or continence recovery. There were no significant differences for any oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence, local or systemic progression) between the RTR and no-RTR groups. While no PCa deaths were recorded, the overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the RTR group (17% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Although RP is feasible for RTR patients, the procedure poses non-negligible surgical challenges, with longer operative time and LOS and higher EBL, but no major differences in terms of complications and continence recovery. The RTR group had similar oncological outcomes to the no-RTR group but significantly higher overall mortality related to causes other than PCa. Therefore, careful selection for RP is required among candidates with previous RTR.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Removal of the prostate for prostate cancer is possible in patients who have had a kidney transplant, and cancer control outcomes are comparable to those for the general population. However, transplant patients have a higher risk of death from causes other than prostate cancer and the prostate surgery is likely to be more challenging.

Transrectal Prostate Biopsy Approach in Men Undergoing Kidney Transplant: A Retrospective Cohort Study at Three Referral Academic Centers

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no studies evaluating the feasibility of a prostate biopsy approach in men undergoing a kidney transplant (KT). Owing to this evidence, we planned a retrospective population-based study to evaluate our experience of a transrectal prostate biopsy (TR-PB) approach and studied the impact on the complication rate and outcomes in patients undergoing KT with suspected prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We collected data from KT patients who underwent PB with a transrectal approach. One week and two weeks after the PB, patients' information was collected regarding possible complications during the post-biopsy period.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients were included in this study. Among them, Group 1 was composed of 59 patients undergoing TR-PB with an ultrasound (US) standard technique, and Group 2 consisted of 62 patients undergoing TR-PB with an MRI-US cognitive technique. We observed a 28.9% Clavien-Dindo grade ≤ 2 of early side effect rates (mostly rectal bleeding and other minor hematuria), with a very low rate of hospital re-admission for acute urinary retention (3.3%); only one man required hospitalization for rectal bleeding, and there were no major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

We can affirm that TR-PB can be a safe procedure with a low risk of severe complications when performed by skilled specialists with a standardized procedural pathway.

The role of localised prostate cancer treatment in renal transplant patients: A systematic review

Objective

To systematically review and critically appraise all treatment options for localised prostate cancer in renal transplant candidates and recipients.

Method

A systematic review was conducted adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, the Transplant Library and Trip database for studies published up to September 2022. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions for non-randomised studies tool.

Results

A total of 60 studies were identified describing 525 patients. The majority of studies were either retrospective non-randomised comparative or case series/reports of poor quality. The vast majority of studies were focussed on prostate cancer after renal transplantation. Overall, 410 (78%) patients underwent surgery, 93 (18%) patients underwent radiation therapy or brachytherapy, one patient underwent focal therapy (high-intensity frequency ultrasound) and 21 patients were placed on active surveillance. The mean age was 61 years old, the mean PSA level at diagnosis was 9.6 ng/mL and the mean follow-up time was 31 months. The majority of patients had low-risk disease with 261 patients having Gleason 6 prostate cancer (50%), followed by 220 Gleason 7 patients (42%). All prostate cancer mortality cases were in high-risk prostate cancer (≥Gleason 8). The cancer-specific survival results were similar between surgery and radiotherapy at 1 and 3 years.

Conclusion

Localised prostate cancer treatment in renal transplant patients should be risk stratified. Surgery and radiation treatment for localised prostate cancer in renal transplant patients appear equally efficacious. Given the limitations of this study, future research should concentrate on developing a multicentre RCT with long-term registry follow-up.

Prostate Cancer in Transplant Receivers-A Narrative Review on Oncological Outcomes

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a low tumor mutational burden (TMB) cancer with a poor response to immunotherapy. Nonetheless, immunotherapy can be useful, especially in metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC). Increased cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) density is correlated with a shorter overall survival (OS), an early biochemical relapse, and a generally poor PCa prognosis. An increased number of CCR4+ regulatory T cells (CCR4 + Tregs) relates to a higher Gleason score or earlier progression. The same therapeutic options are available for renal transplant recipients (RTRs) as for the population, with a comparable functional and oncological outcome. Radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) is the most common method of radical treatment in RTRs. Brachytherapy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) seem to be promising therapies. Further studies are needed to assess the need for prostatectomy in low-risk patients before transplantation. The rate of adverse pathological features in RTRs does not seem to differ from those observed in the non-transplant population and the achieved cancer control seems comparable. The association between PCa and transplantation is not entirely clear. Some researchers indicate a possible association between a more frequent occurrence of PCa and a worse prognosis in advanced or metastatic PCa. However, others claim that the risk and survival prognosis is comparable to the non-transplant population.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Renal Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been shown to achieve excellent oncological outcomes with a low rate of complications in patients with prostate cancer. However, data on RARP in renal transplant recipients (RT) are dispersed. A literature search was conducted through April 2023 using PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases. The primary aim was to evaluate the safety, oncologic and clinical outcomes of RARP in RT recipients. The secondary aim was to identify surgical technique modifications required to avoid iatrogenic damage to the transplanted kidney. A total of 18 studies comprising 186 patients met the inclusion criteria. Age at the time of treatment ranged 43-79 years. Biopsy results showed a high prevalence of low- and intermediate-risk disease. Operative time ranged between 108.3 and 400 mins, while estimated blood loss ranged from 30 to 630 mL. Length of hospital stay ranged from 3 to 6 days whereas duration of catheterization was between 5 and 18 days. Perioperative complication rate was 17.1%. Overall positive surgical margin rate was 24.19%, while biochemical recurrence was observed in 10.21% (19/186 patients). Modifications to the standard surgical technique were described in 13/18 studies. Modifications in port placement were described in 7/13 studies and performed in 19/88 (21.6%) patients. Surgical technique for the development of the Retzius space was reported in 13/18 studies. Data on lymphadenectomy were reported in 15/18 studies. Bilateral lymphadenectomy was described in 3/18 studies and performed in 4/89 (4.5%) patients; contralateral lymphadenectomy was reported in 7/18 studies and performed in 41/125 (32.8%) patients. RARP in RTRs can be considered relatively safe and feasible. Oncological results yielded significantly worse outcomes in terms of PSM and BCR rate compared to the data available in the published studies, with an overall complication rate highly variable among the studies included. On the other hand, low graft damage during the procedure was observed. Main criticisms came from different tumor screening protocols and scarce information about lymphadenectomy techniques and outcomes among the included studies.

Active surveillance in renal transplant patients with prostate cancer: a multicentre analysis

INTRODUCTION

Due to medical improvements leading to increased life expectancy after renal transplantation and widened eligibility criteria allowing older patients to be transplanted, incidence of (low-risk) prostate cancer (PCa) is increasing among renal transplant recipients (RTR). It remains to be established whether active surveillance (AS) for PCa represents a safe treatment option in this setting. Therefore, we aim to compare AS discontinuation and oncological outcomes of AS for PCa of RTR vs. non-transplant patients.

METHODS

Multicentre study including RTR diagnosed with PCa between 2008 and 2018 in whom AS was initiated. A subgroup of non-RTR from the St. Antonius hospital AS cohort was used as a control group. Comparison of RTR vs. non-RTR was performed by 2:1 propensity score matched survival analysis. Outcome measures included tumour progression-free survival, treatment-free survival, metastasis rates, biochemical recurrence rates and overall survival. Patients were matched based on age, year of diagnosis, PSA, biopsy ISUP grade group, relative number of positive biopsy cores and clinical stage.

RESULTS

A total of 628 patients under AS were evaluated, including 17 RTRs and 611 non-RTRs. A total of 13 RTR cases were matched with 24 non-RTR cases. Median overall follow-up for the RTR and non-RTR matched cases was, respectively, 5.1 (IQR 3.2-8.7) years and 5.7 (IQR 4.8-8.1) years. There were no events of metastasis and biochemical recurrence among matched cases. The matched-pair analysis results in a 1-year and 5-year survival of the RTR and non-RTR patients were, respectively, 100 vs. 92%, and 39 vs. 76% for tumour progression, 100 vs. 91% and 59 vs. 76% for treatment-free survival and, respectively, 100 vs. 100% and 88 vs. 100% for overall survival. No significant differences in tumour progression-free survival (p = 0.07) and treatment-free survival were observed (p = 0.3). However, there was a significant difference in overall survival comparing both groups (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

AS may be carefully considered in RTR with low-risk PCa. In our preliminary analysis, no major differences were present in AS outcomes between RTR and non-RTR. Overall mortality was significantly higher in the RTR subgroup.

Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Results from a Large Contemporary Cohort

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the natural history of prostate cancer (PCa) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) and to clarify the controversy over whether RTRs have a higher risk of PCa and poorer outcomes than non-RTRs, due to factors such as immunosuppression. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter study of RTRs diagnosed with cM0 PCa between 2001 and 2019. Primary outcomes were overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence and/or progression after active surveillance (AS) and evaluation of variables possibly influencing PCa aggressiveness and outcomes. Management modalities included surgery, radiation, cryotherapy, HIFU, AS, and watchful waiting. Results: We included 166 men from nine institutions. Median age and eGFR at diagnosis were 67 (IQR 60−73) and 45.9 mL/min (IQR 31.5−63.4). ASA score was >2 in 58.4% of cases. Median time from transplant to PCa diagnosis was 117 months (IQR 48−191.5), and median PSA at diagnosis was 6.5 ng/mL (IQR 5.02−10). The biopsy Gleason score was ≥8 in 12.8%; 11.6% and 6.1% patients had suspicion of ≥cT3 > cT2 and cN+ disease. The most frequent management method was radical prostatectomy (65.6%), followed by radiation therapy (16.9%) and AS (10.2%). At a median follow-up of 60.5 months (IQR 31−106) 22.9% of men (n = 38) died, with only n = 4 (2.4%) deaths due to PCa. Local and systemic progression rates were 4.2% and 3.0%. On univariable analysis, no major influence of immunosuppression type was noted, with the exception of a protective effect of antiproliferative agents (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16−0.97, p = 0.04) associated with a decreased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) or progression after AS. Conclusion: PCa diagnosed in RTRs is mainly of low to intermediate risk and organ-confined at diagnosis, with good cancer control and low PCa death at intermediate follow-up. RTRs have a non-negligible risk of death from causes other than PCa. Aggressive upfront management of the majority of RTRs with PCa may, therefore, be avoided.

Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Results from a Multicenter Series

BACKGROUND

Despite an expected increase in prostate cancer (PCa) incidence in the renal transplant recipient (RTR) population in the near future, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in these patients has been poorly detailed. It is not well understood whether results are comparable to RARP in the non-RTR setting.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the surgical technique for RARP in RTR and report results from our multi-institutional experience.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a retrospective review of the experience of four referral centers.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Transperitoneal RARP with pelvic lymph node dissection in selected patients.

MEASUREMENTS

We measured patient, PCa, and graft baseline features; intraoperative and postoperative parameters; complications, (Clavien classification); and oncological and functional outcomes.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

We included 41 men. The median age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative renal function, and prostate-specific antigen were 60 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 57-64), 2 points (IQR 2-3), 45 ml/min (IQR 30-62), and 6.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.2), respectively. Four men (9.8%) had a biopsy Gleason score >7. The majority of the patients (70.7%) did not undergo lymphadenectomy. The median operating time, hospital stay, and catheterization time were 201 min (IQR 170-250), 4 d (IQR 2-6), and 10 d (IQR 7-13), respectively. At final pathology, 11 men had extraprostatic extension and seven had positive surgical margins. At median follow-up of 42 mo (IQR 24-65), four men had biochemical recurrence, including one case of local PCa persistence and one local recurrence. No metastases were recorded while two patients died from non-PCa-related causes. Continence was preserved in 86.1% (p not applicable) and erections in 64.7% (p = 0.0633) of those who were continent/potent before the procedure. Renal function remained unchanged (p = 0.08). No intraoperative complications and one major (Clavien 3a) complication were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

RARP in RTR is safe and feasible. Overall, operative, oncological, and functional outcomes are comparable to those described for the non-RTR setting, with graft injury remaining undescribed. Further research is needed to confirm our findings.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Robot-assisted removal of the prostate is safe and feasible in patients who have a kidney transplant. Cancer control, urinary and sexual function results, and surgical complications seem to be similar to those for patients without a transplant, but further research is needed.

De Novo Malignancy After Liver Transplantation: Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Management-Guidelines From the ILTS-SETH Consensus Conference

De novo malignancies (DNMs) following liver transplantation (LT) have been reported as 1 of the major causes of late mortality, being the most common cause of death in the second decade after LT. The overall incidence of DNMs is reported to be in the range of 3.1% to 14.4%, and the incidence is 2- to 3-fold higher in transplant recipients than in age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Long-term immunosuppressive therapy, which is the key in maintaining host tolerance and achieving good long-term outcomes, is known to contribute to a higher risk of DNMs. However, the incidence and type of DNM also depends on different risk factors, including patient demographics, cause of the underlying chronic liver disease, behavior (smoking and alcohol abuse), and pre-existing premalignant conditions. The estimated standardized incidence ratio for different DNMs is also variable. The International Liver Transplantation Society-Spanish Society of Liver Transplantation Consensus Conference working group on DNM has summarized and discussed the current available literature on epidemiology, risk factors, management, and survival after DNMs. Recommendations for screening and surveillance for specific tumors, as well as immunosuppression and cancer-specific management in patients with DNM, are summarized.

Increased risk of postoperative in-hospital complications after radical prostatectomy in patients with prior organ transplant

BACKGROUND

To analyze postoperative, in-hospital, complication rates in patients with organ transplantation before radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

From National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2000-2015) prostate cancer patients treated with RP were abstracted and stratified according to prior organ transplant versus nontransplant. Multivariable logistic regression models predicted in-hospital complications.

RESULTS

Of all eligible 202,419 RP patients, 216 (0.1%) underwent RP after prior organ transplantation. Transplant RP patients exhibited higher proportions of Charlson comorbidity index ≥2 (13.0% vs. 3.0%), obesity (9.3% vs. 5.6%, both p < 0.05), versus to nontransplant RP. Of transplant RP patients, 96 underwent kidney (44.4%), 44 heart (20.4%), 40 liver (18.5%), 30 (13.9%) bone marrow, <11 lung (<5%), and <11 pancreatic (<5%) transplantation before RP. Within transplant RP patients, rates of lymph node dissection ranged from 37.5% (kidney transplant) to 60.0% (bone marrow transplant, p < 0.01) versus 51% in nontransplant patients. Regarding in-hospital complications, transplant patients more frequently exhibited, diabetic (31.5% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001), major (7.9% vs. 2.9%) cardiac complications (3.2% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.01), and acute kidney failure (5.1% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001), versus nontransplant RP. In multivariable logistic regression models, transplant RP patients were at higher risk of acute kidney failure (odds ratio [OR]: 4.83), diabetic (OR: 2.81), major (OR: 2.39), intraoperative (OR: 2.38), cardiac (OR: 2.16), transfusion (OR: 1.37), and overall complications (1.36, all p < 0.001). No in-hospital mortalities were recorded in transplant patients after RP.

CONCLUSIONS

Of all transplants before RP, kidney ranks first. RP patients with prior transplantation have an increased risk of in-hospital complications. The highest risk, relative to nontransplant RP patients appears to acute kidney failure.

Management of Urological Malignancy in Heart and Lung Transplant Recipients: An Irish National Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Following the first hearttransplantin Ireland in 1985, there have been almost 700 deceased donor heart and lung transplants carried out in Ireland at a single institution. In this retrospective study, our aim was to assess the incidence and management of urological malignancies arising in this national cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our retrospective analysis included all heart and lung transplant recipients identified as having a urological malignancy. Primary outcome variables included incidence, management, and clinical outcomes following cancer diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients (4.1%) had radiologically or histologically confirmed urological malignancies. Fourteen patientswere diagnosedwith prostate cancer, with 13 who underwent radical treatment. Eight renal cell carcinomas were diagnosed in heart transplant recipients, with 5 who underwent nephrectomies. Two bladder cancers and 1 uppertract urothelial carcinoma were diagnosed and managed with endoscopic resection, radiotherapy, and nephroureterectomy, respectively. Two patients were diagnosed with penile squamous cell carcinoma and managed with radical surgery and lymph node dissection/sampling, with 1 patient receiving adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Urological malignancies are not common in heart and lung transplant recipients; however, standard management options can be safely used, including radical surgery. Prospective monitoring of these patients and potential considerations for screening should be maintained.

Oncological and Functional Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Kidney Transplant Recipients

Objective:

Management of prostate cancer in kidney transplant recipients presents a unique surgical challenge due to the risk of direct or indirect injury to the transplanted kidney. Herein, we report the largest single center study of Robot-assisted Radical prostatectomy (RARP) in kidney transplant recipients.

Methods:

Between Jan 2014–2019, 14 kidney transplant recipients with prostate cancer underwent RARP. Clinical and pathological features, perioperative and postoperative complications were retrospectively evaluated. Continence was defined as by patient utilization of zero urinary pads postoperatively.

Results:

The median (IQR) age at RARP was 60.2 (57.8–61.3) years, the interval between kidney transplant and RARP was 8.1 ± 7.5 years. The median (IQR) PSA was 6.9 (4–8.6); 10 of 14 patients had intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer. The median ASA score was 3, the mean (SD) operative time was 129.7 (26.3) minutes, and mean (SD) blood loss was 110 (44.6) ml. All cases were completed robotically, there was no graft loss or injury to transplanted ureter, and the mean length of stay was 1 (0.26) day.

Final pathology demonstrated that 42.8% (6/14) of the patients had nonorgan confined disease (pT3a/T3b). 50% (7/14) of the patients were upgraded to higher risk Gleason disease on final surgical pathology. Post-RARP continence rate at 3 months, and 12 months were 45.5% (5/11) and 87.5% (7/8), respectively.

Conclusion:

RARP following kidney transplantation represents a safe and feasible operation which does not appear to compromise oncological or transplant outcomes.

Prostate Cancer Characteristics in Renal Transplant Recipients: A 25-Year Experience From a Single Centre

Objectives: The incidence of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) is increasing, but few data are available in the literature. In this study, we reviewed the 25-year experience in the management of prostate cancer after kidney transplantation at the Florence Transplant Centre.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data from 617 RTR male patients who underwent renal transplantation at our institute between July 1996 and September 2016. Data regarding demographics, renal transplantation, prostate cancer and immunosuppressive treatment were analyzed. The probability of death was estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences between patients' groups were assessed by the log-rank test.

Results: From July 1991 to September 2016, 617 kidney transplantations of male patients were performed at our institute. Among these, 20 patients were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer accounting for a cumulative incidence of 3.24%. After a median follow-up of 59 months, 10 patients underwent radical prostatectomy whereas 10 patients underwent primary radiotherapy. A biochemical recurrence was identified in five (25%) patients while a fatal event occurred in 11 (55%) patients. Univariate Cox regression showed that the basal value of PSA >10 ng/ml was the only significant factor negatively affecting the survival of patients.

Conclusions: Standard treatments can be proposed to RTR with satisfactory results on both post-operative and oncological outcomes. Further studies are needed to address the issue of prostate cancer screening based on PSA levels and the optimal management of prostate cancer in RTRs.

Radical prostatectomy outcomes in renal transplant recipients: a retrospective case series of Thai patients

Background

The incidence of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is similar to the general population. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the standard of care in the management of clinically localized cancer, but is considered complicated due to the presence of adhesions, and the location of transplanted ureter/kidney. To date, a few case series or studies on RP in RTR have been published, especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety and report the experience with RP on RTR.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data of 1270 patients who underwent RP from January 2008 to March 2020, of which 5 patients were RTR. All available baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, length of hospital stay, complication), pathological stage, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and pre/postoperative creatinine were reviewed.

Results

Of the 5 RTR who underwent RPs (1 open radical prostatectomy (ORP), 1 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), 2 robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALRP), and 1 Retzius-sparing RALRP (RS-RALRP)) prostatectomy, the mean age (± SD) was 70 (± 5.62) years. In LRP and RALRP cases, the standard ports were moved slightly medially to prevent graft injury. The mean operative time ranged from 190 to 365 min. The longest operative time and highest EBL (630 ml) was the ORP case due to severe adhesion in Retzius space. For LRP and RALRP cases, the operative times seemed comparable and had EBL of ≤ 300 ml. All RPs were successful without any major intra-operative complication. There was no significant change in graft function. The restorations of urinary continence were within 1 month in RS-RALRP, approximately 6 months in RALRP, and about 1 year in ORP and LRP. Three patients with positive surgical margins had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence at the first follow-up and 1 had later PSA recurrence. Two patients with negative margins were free from biochemical recurrence at 47 and 3 months after their RP.

Conclusions

Our series suggested that all RP techniques are safe and feasible mode of treatment for localized prostate cancer in RTR.

Radiotherapy in prostate cancer after kidney transplant: review of the literature and report of 6 cases

BACKGROUND

Patients who received a kidney transplant (KT) are described in literature as a group with a higher incidence of malignant neoplasms compared to the general population. Cancer development after KT has become a major issue, as a remarkable percentage of patients are diagnosed with cancer. Treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) is a challenging issue that has been discussed by many authors over the years, but evidence is sparse and often includes conflicting reports. Among the therapeutic options for PCa in these patients, prostate irradiation represents a valuable alternative to surgery or other systemic therapies, as RTRs are often ineligible for these treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To report six cases treated at our institution between 1998 and 2017 and discuss the available literature.

METHODS

Patients' characteristics were reported along with biochemical status at diagnosis, type of immunosuppressive treatment, radiation therapy technique, and dose to transplanted kidney.

RESULTS

Overall, prostate irradiation was delivered respecting the dose constraints and patients showed good tolerance with no reports of acute or late transplanted kidney injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience confirms that prostate radiotherapy for RTRs is feasible and effective and represents a valid option that should be considered by the multidisciplinary team.

[Localized Prostate cancer in candidates for renal transplantation and recipients of a kidney transplant: The French Guidelines from CTAFU]

OBJECTIVE

To define guidelines for the management of localized prostate cancer (PCa) in kidney transplant (KTx) candidates and recipients.

METHOD

A systematic review (Medline) of the literature was conducted by the CTAFU to report prostate cancer epidemiology, screening, diagnosis and management in KTx candidates and recipients with the corresponding level of evidence.

RESULTS

KTx recipients are at similar risk for PCa as general population. Thus, PCa screening in this setting is defined according to global French guidelines from CCAFU. Systematic screening is proposed in candidates for renal transplant over 50 y-o. PCa diagnosis is based on prostate biopsies performed after multiparametric MRI and preventive antibiotics. CCAFU guidelines remain applicable for PCa treatment in KTx recipients with some specificities, especially regarding lymph nodes management. Treatment options in candidates for KTx need to integrate waiting time and access to transplantation. Current data allows the CTAFU to propose mandatory waiting times after PCa treatment in KTx candidates with a weak level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

These French recommendations should contribute to improve PCa management in KTx recipients and candidates, integrating oncological objectives with access to transplantation.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in a Second Kidney Transplant Recipient

Background: Radical prostatectomy for de novo prostate cancer (PCa) among kidney transplant (KT) recipients (KTRs) can be challenging because of the location of the renal allograft, which may make robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) difficult to perform. In this study, we present the first case of RARP in a patient with two renal allografts in both iliac fossae. Case Presentation: A 72-year-old KTR was found to have organ-confined PCa. He had a first KT (in the right iliac fossa) 20 years ago, which he lost because of chronic allograft nephropathy, followed by a second KT (in the left iliac fossa) 8 years ago, which is now functioning well. We performed RARP with a right-nerve sparing technique. The surgical duration was 208 minutes, with an estimated blood loss of 50 mL and no intraoperative complications. The postoperative course was unremarkable. During the 21-month follow-up period, there was no incontinence or biochemical recurrence and the allograft function remained normal. Conclusion: RARP is feasible and can be performed safely in KT patients with two renal allografts in the pelvis.

Over-diagnosed prostate cancer in solid organ recipients: lessons from the last 3 decades

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common neoplasia in men. With aging of solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR), its incidence is likely to increase. The aim of this study was to analyze PC screening results retrospectively in renal transplant recipients (RTR), hepatic transplant recipients (HTR) and cardiac transplant recipients (CTR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective monocentric study of PC diagnosed in renal, hepatic or cardiac transplanted patients since 1989 was performed. All the patients were followed annually by digital rectal examination and prostate serum antigen (PSA) dosage.

RESULTS

57 PC were diagnosed in 1565 SOTR male patients (3.6%): 35 RTR, 15 HTR, and 7 CTR. Standard incidence ratio (SIR) was 41.9. Mean age at the time of diagnosis was 64.5 (60.5-69.2). Mean time between transplantation and PC diagnosis was 95.7 (39.0-139.5) months. Median PSA rate was 7.0 (6.2-13) ng/mL. Clinical stages were T1, T2, and T3, respectively, for 29, 22 and 6 patients. Diagnosis was done by screening in 52 patients, after prostatitis in 1 and bone pain in another. Three PC were discovered on prostate chips after transurethral resection. Two patients were treated by active surveillance. 39 (68%) patients (25 RTR, 11 HTR and 3 CTR) were treated by radical prostatectomy. Histological results were 30 pT2 and 9 pT3 tumors, with 7 positive surgical margins. Gleason score was 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in, respectively, in 2, 24, 11, 1 and 1 patients. One patient with positive pelvic nodes was treated with hormonal therapy (HT). One had a biochemical relapse at 10 months and underwent salvage radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 85.2 months (46.1-115.0). 23 (40.4%) patients died. Two (3.6%) RTR and 1 (1.8%) CTR died from their PC. Standard incidence ratio were, respectively, 42.4, 48.2 and 39 in RTR, HTR and CTR.

CONCLUSION

Systematic screening in male SOTR after 50 years old could not be recommended. In the last 3 decades, we diagnosed too many low-risk prostate cancers strongly increasing the SIR but failing to decrease prostate cancer related mortality. SOTR should undergo individual screening with prior MRI when PSA rates are high. Management should not be different from that of the general population.

Management of Active Surveillance-Eligible Prostate Cancer during Pretransplantation Workup of Patients with Kidney Failure: A Simulation Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The general rule that every active malignancy is an absolute contraindication for kidney transplantation is challenged by kidney failure patients diagnosed with active surveillance-eligible prostate cancer during pretransplantation workup. Interdisciplinary treatment teams therefore often face the challenge of balancing the benefits of early kidney transplantation and the risk of metastatic progression. Hence, we compared the quality-adjusted life expectancy of different management strategies in kidney failure patients diagnosed with active surveillance-eligible prostate cancer during pretransplantation workup.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A discrete event simulation model was developed on the basis of a systematic literature search, clinical guidelines, and expert opinion. After model validation and calibration, we simulated four management strategies in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients: Definitive treatment (surgery or radiation therapy) and listing after a waiting period of 2 years, definitive treatment and immediate listing, active surveillance and listing after a waiting period of 2 years, and active surveillance and immediate listing. Individual patient results (quality-adjusted life years; QALYs) were aggregated into strategy-specific means (± SEs).

RESULTS

Active surveillance and immediate listing yielded the highest amount of quality-adjusted life expectancy (6.97 ± 0.01 QALYs) followed by definitive treatment and immediate listing (6.75 ± 0.01 QALYs). These two strategies involving immediate listing not only outperformed those incorporating a waiting period of 2 years (definitive treatment: 6.32 ± 0.01 QALYs; active surveillance: 6.59 ± 0.01 QALYs) but also yielded a higher proportion of successfully performed transplantations (72% and 74% versus 56% and 59%), with less time on hemodialysis on average (4.02 and 3.81 years versus 4.80 and 4.65 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Among kidney failure patients diagnosed with active surveillance-eligible prostate cancer during pretransplantation workup, the active surveillance and immediate listing strategy outperformed the alternative management strategies from a quality of life expectancy perspective, followed by definitive treatment and immediate listing.

Pelvic Surgery in the Transplant Recipient: Important Considerations for the Non-transplant Surgeon

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Classically, kidney transplantation (KT) consists of heterotopic implantation of the renal graft in the iliac fossa with vascular anastomosis on the iliac vessel and reimplantation of the graft ureter in the bladder of the recipient. However, a wide range of variations exist in both vascular anastomosis and urinary diversion that the non-transplant surgeon should know.

RECENT FINDINGS

For any pelvic surgery in a KT patient, the non-transplant surgeon should preoperatively evaluate the anatomy of the graft, its vascularization and its urinary tract. The transplant ureter should be identified and secured by preoperative JJ stenting whenever needed. For any surgery, maintenance and control of both immunosuppressive treatment and renal function is crucial. The advice or even the assistance of a transplant surgeon should be required because any damage to vascularization or urinary drainage of the renal graft could have dramatic and definitive consequences on graft function.

Morbidity, perioperative outcomes and complications of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant patients: A French multicentre study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficiency of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in kidney transplant recipients, performed in high-volume French referral centres, and describe intra- and postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre study was conducted on prospective RARP databases from 5 centres between 2008 and 2017. We retrospectively identified a first group (G1) of transplant patients. The following data were collected: age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, ISUP score, TNM stage, stratification according to d'Amico, renal function, renal disease, time between renal transplant and prostate cancer (PCa), operating time, bleeding, pre- and postoperative complications (according to Clavien). Group 1 data were matched with a second group (G2) of nontransplanted PTRA patients.

RESULTS

A total of 321 patients were included (G1 N = 39 and G2 N = 282). The median operating time was 180 minutes (interquartile range 125-227) for G1 and 150 minutes (120-180) in G2 (P = 0.0623) and the median bleeding volume was 150 mL (150-400) and 250 mL (175-400), respectively (P = 0.1826). No grafts were damaged by RARP. Postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in G1: 51.2% vs. G2: 8.2% with a majority of minor complications (41%) according to Clavien Dindo (P < 0.001). Pathological assessment was as follows in G1: T2 = 28 (71.8%), T3 = 11 (28.2%), and G2: T2 = 206 (73.3%), T3 = 75 (26.7%) (P = 0.77). Postoperative ISUP scores were mainly grade 1: G1 = 14 (35.9%) vs. 99 (35.2%) in G2 and grade 2: respectively 18 (46.1%) 94 (33.5%). The rate of positive surgical margins was comparable in both groups: 13.2% for transplant patients vs. 18.1% (P = 0.65). Renal function was not significantly different at one year (P = 0.07). The median follow-up was 47.9 months (42.3; 52.5).

CONCLUSION

RARP is conceivable to treat localized prostate cancer in kidney transplant recipients. This procedure does not appear to have any negative impact on graft renal function and cancer prognosis.