Cemiplimab for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in kidney transplant recipients.

Background: Kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are at increased risk of cancer due to chronic immunosuppression. Non-melanoma skin cancer has an excess risk of approximately 250 times higher than the general population. Moreover, in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) these cancers have a more aggressive behavior, with an increased risk of metastasis and death. Cemiplimab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody against programmed cell death (PD-1) has shown considerable clinical activity in metastatic and locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) in patients for whom no widely accepted standard of care exists. Cemiplimab has therefore been approved since 2018 for the treatment of advanced cSCC. However, data regarding the use of cemiplimab in SOTR and particularly in KTR are scarce and based on published case reports and small case series. In this study, we report on the real-life outcome of cemiplimab use in a Belgian cohort of seven KTR suffering from advanced cSCC. Objective: To report on the overall response rate (ORR) and safety of cemiplimab in KTR in Belgium. Results: Seven patients suffering from advanced cSCC, treated with cemiplimab, between 2018 and 2022, in Belgium were identified. Three patients were on corticosteroid monotherapy, one patient on tacrolimus monotherapy and three patients were on at least 2 immunosuppressants at start of cemiplimab. The ORR was 42.8%, stable disease was seen in 14.3% and progressive disease was found in 42.8% of the patients, respectively. The median administered number of cycles was 12, interquartile range (IQR) 25-75 [3.5 - 13.5]. All patients were treated with surgery before administration of cemiplimab, 71.4% received additional radiotherapy and only 1 patient was treated with chemotherapy prior to receiving cemiplimab. Biopsy-proven acute renal allograft rejection was observed in one patient, who eventually lost his graft function but showed a complete tumor response to treatment. Low grade skin toxicity was seen in one patient of the cohort. Conclusion: The present case series shows that the use of cemiplimab in KTR with advanced cSCC who failed to respond to previous surgery, chemo - and/or radiotherapy treatment is associated with an ORR of 42.8% with minimal risk of graft rejection (14.3%) and good tolerance.

Induction Therapy for Kidney Transplant Recipients: Do We Still Need Anti-IL2 Receptor Monoclonal Antibodies?

Induction therapy with antilymphocyte biological agents is widely used after kidney transplantation, most commonly T lymphocyte-depleting rabbit-derived antithymocyte globulin (rATG) or an IL-2 receptor antagonist (IL2RA). Early randomized trials showed that rATG or IL2RA induction reduces early acute rejection, prompting recommendations by Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes that IL2RA induction be used routinely in first-line therapy after kidney transplantation, with lymphocyte-depleting induction reserved for high-risk cases. These studies, however, mainly used outdated maintenance regimens. No large randomized trial has examined the effect of IL2RA or rATG induction versus no induction in patients receiving tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid and steroids. With this triple maintenance therapy, the addition of induction may achieve an absolute risk reduction for acute rejection of only 1-4% in standard-risk patients without improving graft or patient survival. In contrast, rATG induction lowers the relative risk of acute rejection by almost 50% versus IL2RA in patients with high immunological risk. These recent data raise questions about the need for IL2RA in kidney transplantation, as it may no longer be beneficial in standard-risk transplantation and may be inferior to rATG in high-risk situations. Updated evidence-based guidelines are necessary to support clinicians deciding whether and what induction therapy is required for their transplant patients today.

Single-Center Case Series of Donor-Related Malignancies: Rare Cases With Tremendous Impact.

BACKGROUND: Donor-related malignancy is a rare complication of organ transplantation. METHODS: In this case series, we discuss three cases of donor-related cancers in kidney transplant recipients who were registered in our center between 1979 and 2015. They account for an incidence of 0.29% of donor-related malignancies of a total of 1015 transplanted kidney grafts (deceased and living donors). The three cases that we describe presented in different ways and with different severity, although the response to the initiated treatment was comparable. RESULTS: All three patients not only survived their cancer episode but also had a complete oncological remission and underwent successful second kidney transplantation, accounting for a 100% survival rate in our small cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the very low incidence of this complication, transplant clinicians must be aware of the occurrence of donor-related malignancies when selecting a donor and should be able to diagnose and treat a case of donor-related cancer.

Daclizumab Versus Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin in High-Risk Renal Transplants: Five-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Study.

We previously reported a randomized controlled trial in which 227 de novo deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients were randomized to rabbit antithymocyte (rATG, Thymoglobulin) or daclizumab if they were considered to be at high immunological risk, defined as high panel reactive antibodies (PRA), loss of a first kidney graft through rejection within 2 years of transplantation, or third or fourth transplantation. Patients treated with rATG had lower incidences of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and steroid-resistant rejection at 1 year. Patients were followed to 5 years posttransplant in an observational study; findings are described here. Treatment with rATG was associated with a lower rate of BPAR at 5 years (14.2% vs. 26.0% with daclizumab; p = 0.035). Only one rATG-treated patient (0.9%) and one daclizumab-treated patient (1.0%) developed BPAR after 1 year. Five-year graft and patient survival rates, and renal function, were similar between the two groups. Overall graft survival at 5 years was significantly higher in patients without BPAR (81.0% vs. 54.8%; p < 0.001). In conclusion, rATG is superior to daclizumab for the prevention of BPAR among high-immunological-risk renal transplant recipients. Overall graft survival at 5 years was approximately 70% with either induction therapy, which compares favorably to low-risk cohorts.

Cost analysis in favor of a combined approach for cytomegalovirus after kidney transplantation: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: In kidney transplant recipients, cytomegalovirus (CMV) can cause significant morbidity, mortality, and costs, which can be prevented by universal antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy. METHODS: With the aim to improve our understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of these interventions, we documented resource use for 101 consecutive kidney transplant recipients in our center receiving preemptive therapy and estimated resource use for 2 alternative scenarios. RESULTS: At 100 days after transplantation, the mean total costs of our preemptive strategy including monitoring and treatment with intravenous ganciclovir was €2545 per patient. At €4853 per patient, these costs were highest for the CMV-positive donor/CMV-negative recipient (D+/R-) patient subgroup (n = 28), who frequently require recurrent treatment. A treatment scenario with valganciclovir prophylaxis for D+/R- and R+ patients, in which we ignored late-onset disease after discontinuation of prophylaxis, resulted in an estimated cost of €1892 per patient. A combined approach using valganciclovir prophylaxis in the D+/R- group and a preemptive strategy in the R+ groups would result in the lowest mean and median costs per patient (€1701). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that a combined approach, using valganciclovir prophylaxis in D+/R- patients and preemptive treatment in R+ patients, may result in the lowest cost. This approach seems reasonable as it restricts expensive prophylactic drug therapy to those who would benefit the most, whereas it limits the risk for drug toxicity and late-onset disease in those at lower risk for CMV.