Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening in Women on Dialysis

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of De Novo Malignancy following Kidney Transplantation

Introduction: Post-transplant malignancy is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality following kidney transplantation often emerging after medium- to long-term follow-up. To understand the risk factors for the development of de novo post-transplant malignancy (DPTM), this study aimed to assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of DPTM at a single nephrology centre over two decades. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 963 kidney transplant recipients who underwent kidney transplantation between January 2000 and December 2020 and followed up over a median follow-up of 7.1 years (IQR 3.9-11.4). Cox regression models were used to identify the significant risk factors of DPTM development, the association of DPTM with graft survival, and mortality with a functioning graft. Results: In total, 8.1% of transplant recipients developed DPTM, and the DPTM incidence rate was 14.7 per 100 patient-years. There was a higher mean age observed in the DPTM group (53 vs. 47 years, p < 0.001). The most affected organ systems were genitourinary (32.1%), gastrointestinal (24.4%), and lymphoproliferative (20.5%). Multivariate Cox analysis identified older age at transplant (aHR 9.51, 95%CI: 2.60-34.87, p < 0.001) and pre-existing glomerulonephritis (aHR 3.27, 95%CI: 1.10-9.77, p = 0.03) as significant risk factors for DPTM. Older age was significantly associated with poorer graft survival (aHR 8.71, 95%CI: 3.77-20.20, p < 0.001). When age was excluded from the multivariate Cox model, DPTM emerged as a significant risk factor for poor survival (aHR 1.76, 95%CI: 1.17-2.63, p = 0.006). Conclusion: These findings underscore the need for tailored screening, prevention, and management strategies to address DPTM in an aging and immunosuppressed kidney transplant population.

Patient preferences for cancer screening in chronic kidney disease: a best-worst scaling survey

BACKGROUND

Despite an increased cancer risk for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), uptake of cancer screening varies due to competing priorities and complex health-related issues. This study aimed to elicit the preferences and important attributes of cancer screening in patients with CKD.

METHODS

An on-line best-worst scaling survey was used to ascertain the relative importance of 22 screening attributes among CKD patients using an incomplete block design. Preference scores (0-1) were calculated by multinomial logistic regression. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 83 patients: 26 not requiring kidney replacement therapy, 20 receiving dialysis and 37 transplant recipients (mean age 59 years, 53% men, 75% prior to cancer screening). The five most important attributes were early detection {preference score 1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.10]}, decreased risk of cancer death [0.85 (0.75-0.94)], false negatives [0.71 (0.61-0.80)], reduction in immunosuppression if detected [0.68 (0.59-0.78)] and non-invasive interventions after positive results [0.68 (0.59-0.78)]. Preference heterogeneity reflected the stage of CKD. Immunosuppression reduction [mean difference 0.11 (95% CI 0.02-0.19)] and views of family/friends [0.10 (reference attribute)] were important for transplant recipients. Screening frequency [-0.18 (95% CI -0.26 to -0.10)] and overdiagnosis of harmless cancers [-0.14 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.10)] were important for dialysis patients.

CONCLUSION

Early detection, risk of cancer-related death, false negatives, immunosuppression reduction and non-invasive interventions following detection are important cancer screening considerations among CKD patients. Patient preferences are key to shared decision-making and individualized cancer screening.

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.

Sex differences in cancer risk and outcomes after kidney transplantation

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) experience a two- to four-fold increased risk of developing and dying from cancer compared with the general population. High cancer risk results from the interaction of both modifiable and non-modifiable factors. This mapping review explores the impact of sex disparity on cancer's increased incidence and mortality after kidney transplantation (KT). In terms of age, population-based studies indicate that younger recipients of both sexes experience a higher risk of cancer, but this is more pronounced in young women. On the contrary, older men are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, although their increased risk is not statistically significant compared with the general population. Regarding cancer type, studies show an increased risk of Kaposi sarcoma, gynecologic and lung cancer in women, and bladder and kidney cancer in men. Immune-related cancers such as pos-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders and melanoma are increased in both sexes. Mortality also shows differences between sexes. Although cancer is the second cause of death in both male and female KTRs, studies show higher overall mortality in men and elderly recipients. However, the relative risk of cancer mortality compared with the general population is higher at a younger age, with disparate results regarding sex. Female KTRs appear to die at a younger age than males when compared with the general population. Differences in cancer rates by sex after renal transplantation need further studies. A better understanding of sex-specific differences in cancer epidemiology after KT could help nephrologists to better address pre-transplant counseling, to establish early surveillance programs, and to plan modifiable risk factors such as immunosuppression.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation

The 2020 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation is intended to assist health care professionals worldwide who evaluate and manage potential candidates for deceased or living donor kidney transplantation. This guideline addresses general candidacy issues such as access to transplantation, patient demographic and health status factors, and immunological and psychosocial assessment. The roles of various risk factors and comorbid conditions governing an individual's suitability for transplantation such as adherence, tobacco use, diabetes, obesity, perioperative issues, causes of kidney failure, infections, malignancy, pulmonary disease, cardiac and peripheral arterial disease, neurologic disease, gastrointestinal and liver disease, hematologic disease, and bone and mineral disorder are also addressed. This guideline provides recommendations for evaluation of individual aspects of a candidate's profile such that each risk factor and comorbidity are considered separately. The goal is to assist the clinical team to assimilate all data relevant to an individual, consider this within their local health context, and make an overall judgment on candidacy for transplantation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Guideline recommendations are primarily based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and our assessment of the quality of that evidence, and the strengths of recommendations are provided. Limitations of the evidence are discussed with differences from previous guidelines noted and suggestions for future research are also provided.

When ESKD complicates cancer screening and cancer treatment

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) affects the recommended screening, incidence, treatment, and mortality of cancer. Cancer occurring in a patient with ESKD can influence candidacy for kidney transplantation as well as dialysis decision-making and cancer treatment. Certain cancers are more common among ESKD patients, notably, viral-mediated cancers that are associated with human papilloma or hepatitis viruses, and urothelial cancers associated with analgesic and Balkan nephropathies. Solid tumors are not believed to occur more frequently in ESKD patients. The presence of ESKD may confer a higher risk of post-surgical complications as well as mortality. The cost-effectiveness of cancer screening depends upon individual cancer risk and estimated overall survival. The high mortality associated with ESKD argues against routine cancer screening in dialysis patients. Cancer treatment in ESKD may be complicated by the need to avoid, adjust doses of and/or coordinate the timing of administration of imaging contrast, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy with dialysis treatments. There is a general dearth of information on the treatment of cancer in ESKD patients. These issues will be discussed, and some general guidelines presented based upon the current literature.

Cancer in kidney transplant recipients

Cancer is the second most common cause of mortality and morbidity in kidney transplant recipients after cardiovascular disease. Kidney transplant recipients have at least a twofold higher risk of developing or dying from cancer than the general population. The increased risk of de novo and recurrent cancer in transplant recipients is multifactorial and attributed to oncogenic viruses, immunosuppression and altered T cell immunity. Transplant candidates and potential donors should be screened for cancer as part of the assessment process. For potential recipients with a prior history of cancer, waiting periods of 2-5 years after remission - largely depending on the cancer type and stage of initial cancer diagnosis - are recommended. Post-transplantation cancer screening needs to be tailored to the individual patient, considering the cancer risk of the individual, comorbidities, overall prognosis and the screening preferences of the patient. In kidney transplant recipients diagnosed with cancer, treatment includes conventional approaches, such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, together with consideration of altering immunosuppression. As the benefits of transplantation compared with dialysis in potential transplant candidates with a history of cancer have not been assessed, current clinical practice relies on evidence from observational studies and registry analyses.

Oncology in nephrology comes of age: A focus on chronic dialysis patients

Dialysis is the commonest modality of renal replacement therapy for patients suffering from end-stage kidney disease. Different registry studies showed that the risks of overall cancer occurrence were significantly higher in chronic dialysis patients than in the age-matched general population. However, the frequency and pattern of different cancers may vary among different geographical areas. Since chronic dialysis patients tend to have multiple comorbidities and a shorter life expectancy, routine cancer screening in all dialysis patients may not be cost-effective; rather screening should be personalized according to the patient's expected survival, candidacy for kidney transplant together with patient preferences.

Minding the gap and overlap: a literature review of fragmentation of primary care for chronic dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Care coordination is a challenge for patients with kidney disease, who often see multiple providers to manage their associated complex chronic conditions. Much of the focus has been on primary care physician (PCP) and nephrologist collaboration in the early stages of chronic kidney disease, but less is known about the co-management of the patients in the end-stage of renal disease. We conducted a systematic review and synthesis of empirical studies on primary care services for dialysis patients.

METHODS

Systematic literature search of MEDLINE/PubMED, CINAHL, and EmBase databases for studies, published until August 2015. Inclusion criteria included publications in English, empirical studies involving human subjects (e.g., patients, physicians), conducted in US and Canadian study settings that evaluated primary care services in the dialysis patient population.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles examined three major themes of primary care services for dialysis patients: perceived roles of providers, estimated time in providing primary care, and the extent of dialysis patients' use of primary care services. There was general agreement among providers that PCPs should be involved but time, appropriate roles, and miscommunication are potential barriers to good primary care for dialysis patients. Although many dialysis patients report having a PCP, the majority rely on primary care from their nephrologists. Studies using administrative data found lower rates of preventive care services than found in studies relying on provider or patient self-report.

DISCUSSION

The extant literature revealed gaps and opportunities to optimize primary care services for dialysis patients, foreshadowing the challenges and promise of Accountable Care / End-Stage Seamless Care Organizations and care coordination programs currently underway in the United States to improve clinical and logistical complexities of care for this commonly overlooked population. Studies linking the relationship between providers and patients' receipt of primary care to outcomes will serve as important comparisons to the nascent care models for ESRD patients, whose value is yet to be determined.

Cancer Screening Recommendations for Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at increased risk of developing and dying from cancer. However, controversies exist around cancer screening in this population owing to reduced life expectancy and competing causes of death. This systematic review assesses the availability, quality and consistency of cancer screening recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We systematically searched bibliographic databases and gray literature to identify CPGs and assessed their quality using AGREE II. Recommendations were extracted along with their supporting evidence. Thirteen guidelines were included in the review. CPGs for kidney recipients were the most frequent source of screening recommendations, and recommendations for skin cancer screening were most frequently presented. Some screening recommendations differed from those for the general population, based on literature demonstrating higher cancer incidence among SOTRs versus direct evidence of screening effectiveness. Relevant stakeholders such as oncology specialists, primary care providers and public health experts were not involved in the formulation of the screening recommendations. In conclusion, although several guidelines make recommendations for cancer screening in SOTRs, the availability of cancer screening recommendations varied considerably by transplanted organ. More studies are required to inform cancer screening recommendations in SOTRs, and guideline development should involve transplant patients, oncologists and cancer screening specialists.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapies for chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis: a case for excluding dialysis costs

In many jurisdictions, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) plays an important role in determining drug coverage and reimbursement and, therefore, has the potential to impact patient access. Health economic guidelines recommend the inclusion of future costs related to the intervention of interest within CEAs but provide little guidance regarding the definition of 'related'. In the case of CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis but do not impact the need for or the intensity of dialysis, the determination of the relatedness of future dialysis costs to the therapy of interest is particularly ambiguous. The uncertainty as to whether dialysis costs are related or unrelated in these circumstances has led to inconsistencies in the conduct of CEAs for such products, with dialysis costs included in some analyses while excluded in others. Due to the magnitude of the cost of dialysis, whether or not dialysis costs are included in CEAs of such therapies has substantial implications for the results of such analyses, often meaning the difference between a therapy being deemed cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are excluded) or not cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are included). This paper explores the issues and implications surrounding the inclusion of dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of dialysis patients but do not impact the need for dialysis. Relevant case studies clearly demonstrate that, regardless of the clinical benefits of a life-extending intervention for dialysis patients, and due to the high cost of dialysis, the inclusion of dialysis costs in the analysis essentially eliminates the possibility of obtaining a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio. This raises the significant risk that dialysis patients may be denied access to interventions that are cost effective in other populations due solely to the high background cost of dialysis itself. Finally, the paper presents a case for excluding dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients receiving dialysis but do not impact the need for dialysis. The argument is founded on the following: (i) health economic guidelines imply that dialysis costs are unrelated to such therapies and therefore should not be included in CEAs of such therapies; (ii) the high cost and cost-effectiveness ratio associated with dialysis place an unreasonable and insurmountable barrier to demonstrating the cost effectiveness of such therapies, particularly since the decision to fund dialysis has already been made; and (iii) current clinical and reimbursement practices include the use of such therapies for patients with CKD receiving dialysis. We conclude that the exclusion of dialysis costs in such cases is methodologically correct given current health economic guidelines and is consistent with current practices regarding the treatment of dialysis patients.

Critical and honest conversations: the evidence behind the "Choosing Wisely" campaign recommendations by the American Society of Nephrology

Estimates suggest that one third of United States health care spending results from overuse or misuse of tests, procedures, and therapies. The American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, in partnership with Consumer Reports, initiated the "Choosing Wisely" campaign to identify areas in patient care and resource use most open to improvement. Nine subspecialty organizations joined the campaign; each organization identified five tests, procedures, or therapies that are overused, are misused, or could potentially lead to harm or unnecessary health care spending. Each of the American Society of Nephrology's (ASN's) 10 advisory groups submitted recommendations for inclusion. The ASN Quality and Patient Safety Task Force selected five recommendations based on relevance and importance to individuals with kidney disease.Recommendations selected were: (1) Do not perform routine cancer screening for dialysis patients with limited life expectancies without signs or symptoms; (2) do not administer erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to CKD patients with hemoglobin levels ≥10 g/dl without symptoms of anemia; (3) avoid nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in individuals with hypertension, heart failure, or CKD of all causes, including diabetes; (4) do not place peripherally inserted central catheters in stage 3-5 CKD patients without consulting nephrology; (5) do not initiate chronic dialysis without ensuring a shared decision-making process between patients, their families, and their physicians.These five recommendations and supporting evidence give providers information to facilitate prudent care decisions and empower patients to actively participate in critical, honest conversations about their care, potentially reducing unnecessary health care spending and preventing harm.

Cancer screening in people who have chronic disease: the example of kidney disease

Cancer screening in people with chronic illness has been the subject of considerable debate recently. Despite the increased incidence of cancer and higher risk of cancer deaths in selected populations, such as those with kidney disease, the benefits-to-harms ratio of cancer screening is uncertain and is likely to be different to people without chronic illnesses because of the expected higher competing risk of death from disease other than cancer, and a higher risk of complications associated with the screening, the diagnostic, and the treatment processes. Using kidney disease as an example, the authors reviewed the current evidence for early cancer detection through screening in people with two or more coexistent chronic diseases, discussed the accepted principles underpinning cancer screening, and the applicability of these concepts to individuals with chronic disease. This review suggests that future research that evaluates the screening test accuracy, quality of life of having cancer, and cancer treatment effectiveness, targeting those with chronic illnesses are necessary for the development of an effective, safe, and acceptable cancer screening program among people with two or more chronic diseases.