Prostate cancer before renal transplantation: A multicentre study

Kidney transplantation after pelvic radiotherapy: Increased morbidity?

INTRODUCTION

The impact of pelvic irradiation on kidney transplant surgery is still unclear. The main objective of our study is to evaluate the feasibility and the safety of renal transplantation following pelvic radiotherapy.

METHODS

We collected characteristics and kidney transplant data from patients with a history of pelvic cancer treated with pelvic irradiation between 2005 and 2021. These data were collected via the prospective information system "Computerized Data Validated in Transplantation" (DIVAT) and medical records. We carried out a comparative study with a non-irradiated matched control group to compare the data of intraoperative surgeries, complications reported postoperatively as well as survival of the graft and the patient. Patients were matched on age, sex, side of graft implantation, and graft rank.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were collected with an average age of 65, 18 patients were treated for prostatic adenocarcinoma, 4 for gynecological cancer and 2 testicular cancers. Twenty-one patients were treated by radiotherapy, 3 by brachytherapy. Eight patients had a target dose on the iliac lymph nodes. The comparative study showed a significant difference in operative difficulty (n=15 versus n=1, P<0.01), operative duration (190min versus 149min, P=0.005), occurrence of lymphocele (P=0.041). Urinary anastomosis surgical techniques were different, 83.3% of control patients had an uretero-vesical anastomosis against 58.3% of patients with a history of irradiation (P=0.057) and about 29% of irradiated patients had an uretero-ureteral anastomosis. There was no other significant difference in per and postoperative criteria or survival.

DISCUSSION

A history of pelvic irradiation significantly increases the technical complexity of kidney transplantation without impacting safety and kidney graft survival. A history of pelvic irradiation should not be a contraindication to kidney transplant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Kidney transplantation in prostate cancer patients after local therapy with curative intent: a systematic review

PURPOSE

It is still unclear whether kidney transplantation can be safely performed in patients with prostate cancer after local therapy with curative intent.

METHODS

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. We systematically searched Google, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the ICTRP for studies, official standards, clinical practice guidelines and organ transplant laws. Two review authors independently examined the full-text reports and identified relevant studies and one review author extracted the data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 1346 references through electronic database searching and finally included 6 references for official standards, clinical practice guidelines, and organ transplant laws, and 6 references for retrospective studies with very low certainty of evidence. We identified no prospective or ongoing studies and reported all results narratively.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that decisions on kidney transplantation in patients with prostate cancer after local therapy with curative intent should be made on a case-by-case basis. It is indispensable to consult with health care professionals or specialists at transplant centers to obtain individualized information regarding the waiting time requirements for renal transplantation in prostate cancer patients after local therapy with curative intent. No recommendation can be made regarding the waiting times after prostate cancer therapy with curative intent.

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.

[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.

Prostate Cancer Recurrence in Kidney Transplant Recipient 15 Years After Radical Prostatectomy: A Case Report

Incidence of malignant tumors in kidney transplant recipients is higher than nontransplanted population due to many factors, such as immunosuppression therapy and complex donor-recipient interaction. Genitourinary malignancies have been reported as the second most common malignancy in kidney transplant recipients. In this regard, prostate cancer is the most common neoplasm. Herein, we describe a rare case of prostate cancer recurrence after 15 years in a patient who underwent kidney transplant after radical prostatectomy.

The Risk of Tumour Recurrence in Patients Undergoing Renal Transplantation for End-stage Renal Disease after Previous Treatment for a Urological Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Renal transplantation is the gold standard renal replacement therapy in end-stage renal disease owing to its superior survival and quality of life compared with dialysis. When the potential recipient has a history of cancer, the waiting period before renal transplantation is usually based on the Cincinnati Registry.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review all available evidence on the risk of cancer recurrence in end-stage renal disease patients with a history of urological cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 2017 for all relevant publications reporting oncologic outcomes of urological cancer in patients who subsequently received a transplantation or remained on dialysis. The primary outcome was time to tumour recurrence. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific and overall survival. Data were narratively synthesised in light of methodological and clinical heterogeneity. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Thirty-two retrospective studies enrolling 2519 patients (1733 dialysed, 786 renal transplantation) were included. For renal cell carcinomas, the risks of recurrence, cancer-specific, and overall survival were similar between transplantation and dialysis. For prostate cancer, most of the tumours had favourable prognoses consistent with nomograms. Studies dealing with urothelial carcinomas (UCs) mainly included upper urinary tract UC in the context of aristolochic acid nephropathy, for which the risks of synchronous bilateral tumour and recurrence were high. Data on testicular cancer were scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunosuppression after renal transplantation does not affect the outcomes and natural history of low-risk renal cell carcinomas and prostate cancer. Therefore, the waiting time from successful treatment for these cancers to transplantation could be reduced. Except in the particular situation of aristolochic acid nephropathy, more studies are needed to standardise the waiting period after UC owing to the paucity of data.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Renal transplantation does not appear to increase the risk of recurrence of renal carcinoma or the recurrence of low-risk prostate cancer compared with dialysis. More reliable evidence is required to recommend a standard waiting period especially for urothelial and testicular carcinomas.