Liver Transplantation From Donors With a History of Malignancy: A Single-Center Experience

Genitourinary tumors and liver transplantation: A comprehensive review

Liver transplantation is as a crucial therapeutic option for patients with end-stage liver disease, but the persistent organ shortage emphasizes a need to explore unconventional donor sources, including individuals with a history of malignancies. This review investigates the viability of liver donation from individuals with current or past genitourinary malignancies, focusing on renal, prostate and urinary bladder cancers. The rising incidence of urogenital malignancies among potential donors is thought to result from increasing donor age. Analysis of transmission risks reveals low rates of donor-derived cancer transmission, particularly for early-stage renal and prostate cancers. Recipients with a history of genitourinary malignancy pose complex challenges regarding post-transplant immunosuppression and cancer recurrence. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests acceptable outcomes can be achieved with careful patient selection and tailored management strategies. Recommendations for pre-transplant evaluation and post-transplant surveillance are discussed, highlighting the need for individualized approaches in this patient population. Further prospective studies are warranted to refine guidelines and optimize outcomes in liver transplantation for patients with genitourinary malignancies.

Incidental findings during donor liver assessment: Single center experience

Intraoperative consultation of donor liver is an important part of transplant evaluation and determination of liver eligibility. In this study, we describe incidental pathologic findings discovered during the pretransplant evaluation of liver donors in our Institution from 1/2010 to 12/2022. During this 13-year period 369 intraoperative consultations from 262 liver donors were performed. Of those cases, incidental findings were identified in 22 cases (5.9 %) from 19 donors (7.3 %); two donors had more than one lesion. The median age of this subset of patients was 53 years (range: 18-70) and females predominated (63 %). Sixteen of the donors had abnormal findings in the liver: 6 bile duct hamartoma (BDH), 5 hyalinized nodule with Histoplasma capsulatum, 5 focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), 2 bile duct adenomas (BDA), 1 biliary cyst and 1 hemangioma. One donor had both FNH and a BDH. One BDH and 1 BDA case was misdiagnosed as malignancy during the frozen section evaluation. Three donors had extrahepatic pathologies: a pancreatic tail schwannoma, a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, and a lymph node with metastatic endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Of the 19 livers, the final organ disposition was available for 9: 6 were transplanted (67 %) and 3 were discarded (33 %). Two of the 3 discarded organs were misdiagnosed BDH and BDA cases, and one was incorrectly reported as having 90 % microvesicular steatosis during the frozen assessment. We present the clinicopathologic characteristics of liver donors with incidental findings during the pre-transplant evaluation which could lead to unwarranted graft dismissal if misdiagnosed. Additionally, incidental fungal infections can have implications for immunosuppressive therapy and the decision to use or reject the graft.

Donors risk assessment in transplantation: From the guidelines to their real-world application

Transplantation of an organ from a donor carries an unavoidable risk of tumor transmission. The need to extend the donor pool increases the use of organs from donors with malignancies and potential disease transmission is a constant tension influencing donor suitability decisions. Current classification systems for the assessment of donor malignancy transmission risk have evolved from reports of potential transmission events in recipients to national donation and transplant surveillance agencies. Although the risk of malignancy transmission is very low in the general transplant setting it must constantly be balanced with the transplant benefits. Guidelines are mainly based on large registries and sparse case reports of transmission, so they cannot cover all the possible situations. For this reason, in 2004 in Italy, the National Transplant Center gave rise to the Second Opinion Service, charged by the Ministry of Health, by structuring expertise in diagnostic oncology and risk transmission and making it available to the Italian Transplant Centers. In this paper the registry of the Italian Oncological Second Opinion was reviewed, from 2016 to 2018, to detail the most frequent and problematic neoplastic topics addressed, those are separately reported and discussed. Furthermore, a review of the most recent strategies and risk stratification is provided, according to the most recent literature evidence and to the European Guidelines.

Perspective of a Pathologist on Benchmark Strategies for Artificial Intelligence Development in Organ Transplantation

Transplant pathology of donors is a highly specialized field comprising both the evaluation of organ donor biopsy for the oncological risk transmission and to guide the organ allocation. Timing is critical in transplant procurement since organs must be recovered as soon as possible to ensure the best possible outcome for the recipient. To all this is added the fact that the evaluation of a donor causes difficulties in many cases and the impact of these assessments is paramount, considering the possible recovery of organs that would have been erroneously discarded or, conversely, the possibly correct discarding of donors with unacceptable risk profiles. In transplant pathology histology is still the gold standard for diagnosis dictating the subsequent decisions and course of clinical care. Digital pathology has played an important role in accelerating healthcare progression and nowadays artificial intelligence powered computational pathology can effectively improve diagnostic needs, supporting the quality and safety of the process. Mapping the shape of the journey would suggest a progressive approach from supervised to semi/unsupervised models, which would involve training these models directly for clinical endpoints. In machine learning, this generally delivers better performance, compensating for a potential lack in interpretability. With planning and enough confidence in the performance of learning-based methods from digital pathology and artificial intelligence, there is great potential to augment the diagnostic quality and correlation with clinical endpoints. This may improve the donor pool and vastly reduce diagnostic and prognostic errors that are known but currently are unavoidable in transplant donor pathology.

[Breast cancer and organ transplantation: Systematic review and meta-analysis]

OBJECTIVES

Our main objective was to investigate donor-transmitted epithelial cancers of all origins in comparison with breast cancers, with analysis of the carcinological outcome of recipients. Our secondary objective was to define medical check-up to be performed before any organ procurement from a donor with a history of breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY

We performed a systematic review of the literature up to June 1st 2022 by including all original articles (including clinical cases) reporting cases of epithelial cancer transmitted from donor to recipient, followed by a meta-analysis of epidemiological and survival data.

RESULTS

In total, we included 52 articles (31 clinical cases and 21 cohort studies), representing 91,388 donors, 236,142 recipients, and 2591 cases of transmitted cancer. The risk of transmitted cancer was significantly higher with a history of breast cancer compared with a history of other cancer (RR=9.48 P=0.0025). In clinical cases, the pre-donation check-up was specified in only 33.3% of publications. The time between transplantation and cancer occurrence was longer in cases of breast cancer transmission compared to other epithelial cancers: 1435.8 days versus 297.6 (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Organ donation from a person previously treated for breast cancer or having a risk of occult breast cancer is possible in some situations but requires an adapted pre-donation assessment, the respect of good practice guidelines and an expert opinion in complex situations.

Prevention and Management of Donor-transmitted Cancer After Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-SETH Consensus Conference

As with any other intervention in health, liver transplantation (LT) entails a variety of risks, including donor-transmitted cancers (DTCs). At present, 2%-4% of used deceased organ donors are known to have a current or past history of malignancy. The frequency of DTCs is consistently reported at 3-6 cases per 10 000 solid organ transplants, with a similar frequency in the LT setting. A majority of DTCs are occult cancers unknown in the donor at the time of transplantation. Most DTCs are diagnosed within 2 y after LT and are associated with a 51% probability of survival at 2 y following diagnosis. The probability of death is greatest for DTCs that have already metastasized at the time of diagnosis. The International Liver Transplantation Society-Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático working group on DTC has provided guidance on how to minimize the occurrence of DTCs while avoiding the unnecessary loss of livers for transplantation both in deceased and living donor LT. The group endorses the Council of Europe classification of risk of transmission of cancer from donor to recipient (minimal, low to intermediate, high, and unacceptable), classifies a range of malignancies in the liver donor into these 4 categories, and recommends when to consider LT, mindful of the risk of DTCs, and the clinical condition of patients on the waiting list. We further provide recommendations to professionals who identify DTC events, stressing the need to immediately alert all stakeholders concerned, so a coordinated investigation and management can be initiated; decisions on retransplantation should be made on a case-by-case basis with a multidisciplinary approach.

Donor-Transmitted Cancers in Transplanted Livers: Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

The risk of transmission of malignancy from donor to recipient is low. However, this occurrence has dramatic consequences. Many reports of donor-derived cancers in liver transplant recipients have been published, but they have not been systematically summarized into a lucid and unified analysis. The present study is an attempt to provide clarity to this unusual but clinically important problem. We systematically reviewed all patient reports, patient series, and registries published on cancer transmission events through the end of December 2019. We identified a total of 67 publications with 92 transmission events. The most frequently transmitted cancers were lymphomas (30; 32.6%), melanomas (8; 8.7%), and neuroendocrine tumors (8; 8.7%). Most of the melanomas were metastasizing, whereas most of the lymphomas were localized to the graft. The median time to cancer diagnosis after transplantation was 7 months, with 78.1% of diagnoses established in the first year. Melanoma carried the worst prognosis, with no recipients alive at 1 year after cancer diagnosis. Lymphoma recipients had a better outcome, with more than 75% surviving at 2 years. A metastatic cancer carries a worse prognosis for recipients, and recipients with localized cancer can benefit from the chance to undergo transplantation again. The findings confirm the need to pay attention to donors with a history of melanoma but also suggest the need for a more careful evaluation of groups of donors, such as those dying from cerebral hemorrhage. Finally, recipients of organs from donors with cancer should be carefully followed to detect potential transmission.

Evaluation and application of donors with primary central nervous system tumors

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to explore the safety of donors with primary central nervous system tumors for kidney and liver transplantations.

METHODOLOGY

Clinical data of 29 donors with primary CNS tumors in January 2007 to December 2017, as well as the follow-up data of 16 liver transplant recipients and 46 kidney transplant recipients, were analyzed. According to the risk factors, the high-risk group was classified as Group 1, the low-risk factors were classified as Group 2, and the unknown risk group was classified as Group 3. The incidence of donor-transmitted CNS tumors was calculated and compared.

RESULTS

The duration from the diagnosis of 29 donors to donation was 5.67 ± 6.36 months. None of the liver and kidney transplant recipients who were followed up had tumor metastasis. Although the mean survival time of Group 1 was lower than that of Group 2 and Group 3, the Kaplan-Meier curve showed no significant difference in survival time.

CONCLUSION

No obvious difference was observed between high-risk and low-risk and unknown risk CNS tumors in terms of the survival rate of transplants and tumor metastasis rate. High-risk CNS tumor donors can be used with the informed consent of recipients after a full evaluation.

Severe atherosclerosis of donor hepatic arteries is a salvageable condition in liver transplantation to optimise the graft utilisation: A case series and review of the literature

•

We showed how to manage sever atherosclerosis in liver transplant with special technique.

•

This case report will help not to discard donated liver graft.

•

Management of sever artherosclerosis, liver transplantation.

Introduction

The presence of atherosclerosis of the common hepatic artery (CHA) in donor livers potentially contributes to vascular complications after liver transplantation, thereby most of those organs are traditionally discarded. Herein, we describe the successful outcome of three patients transplanted with grafts that had severe atherosclerosis of the donor CHA up to the level of the gastroduodenal artery (GDA).

Presentation of case

In all three cases, endarterectomies were performed by dissection between the atheromatous core and the artery intima using a dissecting spatula, allowing to secure the lumen of the vessel. The native CHA/GDA patch was aligned with the corresponding CHA/GDA patch from the graft for the arterial reconstruction. No vascular complications were seen post-operatively.

Discussion

Endarterectomy and anatomical reconstitution of the arterial tree, without any redundancy or kinking, allowed for the successful transplantation of organs that would be otherwise discarded. Further, the straight alignment of the arteries may enhance flow dynamics, preventing thrombosis.

Conclusion

This report might guide future studies targeting means to increase the utility of donor livers discarded due to arterial atherosclerosis.