[Immunological Markers in Organ Transplantation]. / Marker der Immunantwort bei Organtransplantation.

The immunological monitoring in organ transplantation is based mainly on the determination of laboratory parameters as surrogate markers of organ dysfunction. Structural damage, caused by alloreactivity, can only be detected by invasive biopsy of the graft, which is why inevitably rejection episodes are diagnosed at a rather progressive stage. New non-invasive specific markers that enable transplant clinicians to identify rejection episodes at an earlier stage, on the molecular level, are needed. The accurate identification of rejection episodes and the establishment of operational tolerance permit early treatment or, respectively, a controlled cessation of immunosuppression. In addition, new prognostic biological markers are expected to allow a pre-transplant risk stratification thus having an impact on organ allocation and immunosuppressive regimen. New high-throughput screening methods allow simultaneous examination of hundreds of characteristics and the generation of specific biological signatures, which might give concrete information about acute rejection, chronic dysfunction as well as operational tolerance. Even though multiple studies and a variety of publications report about important advances on this subject, almost no new biological marker has been implemented in clinical practice as yet. Nevertheless, new technologies, in particular analysis of the genome, transcriptome, proteome and metabolome will make personalised transplantation medicine possible and will further improve the long-term results and graft survival rates. This article gives a survey of the limitations and possibilities of new immunological markers in organ transplantation.

Does neoadjuvant treatment before oncologic esophagectomy affect the postoperative quality of life? A prospective, longitudinal outcome study.

To evaluate the cancer patients' quality of life (QoL) following esophagectomy the focus was placed on the impact of neoadjuvant treatment before surgery. For patients undergoing oncologic surgery, the QoL is generally accepted as an important outcome parameter in addition to clinical parameters. This prospective nonrandomized study evaluated QoL in patients treated by preoperative chemo(radio)therapy followed by either surgery or surgery alone with special focus on the postoperative course. QoL was assessed in 131 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 and a tumor-specific module were administered before surgery, at discharge, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Clinical data were collected prospectively and a follow up was performed every 6 months. The histological type of cancer was squamous cell carcinoma in 49.6% and adenocarcinoma in 50.4%. There was no significant difference between patients that were treated neoadjuvantly and those that were first operated on with regard to morbidity, mortality, and survival rates (5-year survival rate of 34%). Most QoL scores dropped significantly below the baseline in the early postoperative period and recovered slowly during the follow-up period to almost preoperative levels in many scores. There was no statistically significant difference in any of the QoL scales between neoadjuvantly treated or primary operated patients. Esophageal resections are associated with significant deterioration of QoL, which slowly recovers during the follow-up period to an almost preoperative level. Neoadjuvant treatment seems to not further negatively affect the QoL deterioration.

Development and multicentre validation of a prognostic model to predict resectability of pancreatic head malignancy.

BACKGROUND: At the time of planned pancreatoduodenectomy patients frequently undergo exploratory laparotomy without resection, leading to delayed systemic therapy. This study aimed to develop and validate a prognostic model for the preoperative prediction of resectability of pancreatic head tumours. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients undergoing attempted resection for confirmed malignant tumours of the pancreatic head in a university hospital in Hannover, Germany. The prognostic value of patient and tumour characteristics was investigated in a multivariable logistic regression model. External validation was performed using data from two other centres. RESULTS: Some 109 patients were included in the development cohort, with 51 and 175 patients in the two validation cohorts. Eighty patients (73·4 per cent) in the development cohort underwent resection, and 37 (73 per cent) and 141 (80·6 per cent) in the validation cohorts. The main reasons for performing no resection in the development cohort were: local invasion of vasculature or arterial abutment (15 patients, 52 per cent), and liver (12, 41 per cent), peritoneal (8, 28 per cent) and aortocaval lymph node (6, 21 per cent) metastases. The final model contained the following variables: time to surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0·99, 95 per cent c.i. 0·98 to 0·99), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 concentration (OR 0·99, 0·99 to 0·99), jaundice (OR 4·45, 1·21 to 16·36) and back pain (OR 0·02, 0·00 to 0·22), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUROC) of 0·918 in the development cohort. AUROC values were 0·813 and 0·761 in the validation cohorts. The positive predictive value of the final model for prediction of resectability was 98·0 per cent in the development cohort, and 91·7 and 94·7 per cent in the two external validation cohorts. [Corrections added on 18 July 2018, after first online publication: The figures for OR of the variables time to surgery and CA19-9 in the abstract and in Table 3 and Table 4 were amended from 1·00 to 0·99]. CONCLUSION: For preoperative prediction of the likelihood of resectability of pancreatic head tumours, this validated model is a valuable addition to CT findings.

Spontaneous decision of organ donation in patients signing informed consent for liver transplantation.

The shortage of postmortem donor organs is a well-known problem in Germany. Willingness in the general population is 80%, but less than 14% have an organ donor card. We evaluated the free decision of liver transplant candidates who filled out a donor card before signing the informed consent for the transplant procedure. We analyzed 122 patients of mean age 55.9 years (range, 15.4-74.1) who signed an informed consent for liver transplantation between January 10, 2007, and January 24, 2012. The patients received the original text of the German organ donor card with tick boxes on the informed consent form for liver transplantation. All patients were informed that their decision had no impact on further management. Patients were able to choose between (1) becoming a donor, (2) refusal, (3) transfer of the decision to another person, or (4) no decision. All patients signed the informed consent to be listed for liver transplantation: 73.8% (n = 90) chose to become a donor; 5.7% (n = 7) refused; 5.7% (n = 7) transferred the decision to another person; and 14.8% (n = 18) did not come to a decision. Interestingly, not all candidates for liver transplantation were willing to become an organ donor in the time of expressed consent. However, willingness to sign the donor card was much higher among liver transplant candidates compared with the general population.