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

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.

Impact of newly diagnosed prostate cancer at time of evaluation for renal transplantation

Systematic screening for prostate cancer is widely recommended in candidates for renal transplant at the time of listing. There are concerns that overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer may result in reducing access to transplant without demonstrated oncological benefits. The objective of the study was to assess the outcome of newly diagnosed prostate cancer in candidates for transplant at the time of listing, and its impact on transplant access and transplant outcomes according to treatment options. This retrospective study was conducted over 10 years in 12 French transplant centers. Patients included were candidates for renal transplant at the time of prostate cancer diagnosis. Demographical and clinical data regarding renal disease, prostate cancer, and transplant surgery were collected. The primary outcome of the study was the interval between prostate cancer diagnosis and active listing according to treatment options. Overall median time from prostate cancer diagnosis to active listing was 25.0 months [16.4-40.2], with statistically significant differences in median time between the radiotherapy and the active surveillance groups (p = .03). Prostate cancer treatment modalities had limited impact on access and outcome of renal transplantation. Active surveillance in low-risk patients does not seem to compromise access to renal transplantation, nor does it impact oncological outcomes.