Variations in Risk of Cancer and Death From Cancer According to Kidney Allograft Function, Graft Loss, and Return to Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence and mortality may change with varying kidney allograft function and after graft loss. We aimed to quantify cancer incidence and mortality during periods with a functioning graft and after graft loss. METHODS: We included all adult Australians aged 20 and above who commenced kidney replacement therapy between 1982 and 2014 using data from Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. We calculated the standardized incidence ratios and standardized mortality ratios (standardized against the Australian general population) for dialysis patients and transplant recipients during periods with a functioning graft and after graft loss. RESULTS: A total of 44 765 dialysis patients without transplants, 13 443 with first kidney transplants, 2951 after first graft loss, 1010 with second transplants, and 279 after second graft loss were followed for 274 660 patient-years. Cancer incidence and mortality (per 100 000 patient-years) were 1564 and 760 in dialysis patients, 1564 and 689 in recipients of first transplants, 1188 and 390 after first graft loss, 1525 and 693 after second transplants, and 1645 and 779 after second graft loss. Cancer standardized incidence ratios and standardized mortality ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.15 (1.11-1.20) and 1.29 (1.21-1.36) for dialysis patients, 2.03 (1.94-2.13) and 2.50 (2.33-2.69) for recipients following their first transplant, 1.55 (1.29-1.85) and 1.40 (1.00-1.90) after first graft loss, 2.18 (1.79-2.63) and 3.00 (2.23-3.96) for second transplants, 2.59 (1.56-4.04) and 3.82 (1.75-7.25) after second graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: In kidney transplant recipients, cancer incidence and mortality are highest during periods with a functioning graft and remained higher than in the general population even after graft loss.

Factors Associated With Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients With CKD.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The risk of developing colorectal cancer in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is twice that of the general population, but the factors associated with colorectal cancer are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with advanced colorectal neoplasia in patients with CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients with CKD stages 3-5, including those treated with maintenance dialysis or transplantation across 11 sites in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Spain, were screened for colorectal neoplasia using a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as part of the Detecting Bowel Cancer in CKD (DETECT) Study. EXPOSURE: Baseline characteristics for patients at the time of study enrollment were ascertained, including duration of CKD, comorbidities, and medications. OUTCOME: Advanced colorectal neoplasia was identified through a 2-step verification process with colonoscopy following positive FIT and 2-year clinical follow-up for all patients. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Potential factors associated with advanced colorectal neoplasia were explored using multivariable logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed using grouped LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1,706 patients who received FIT-based screening-791 with CKD stages 3-5 not receiving kidney replacement therapy (KRT), 418 receiving dialysis, and 497 patients with a functioning kidney transplant-117 patients (6.9%) were detected to have advanced colorectal neoplasia (54 with CKD stages 3-5 without KRT, 34 receiving dialysis, and 29 transplant recipients), including 9 colorectal cancers. The factors found to be associated with advanced colorectal neoplasia included older age (OR per year older, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.03-1.07], P<0.001), male sex (OR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.45-3.54], P<0.001), azathioprine use (OR, 2.99 [95% CI, 1.40-6.37], P=0.005), and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use (OR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.22-3.03], P=0.005). Grouped LASSO logistic regression revealed similar associations between these factors and advanced colorectal neoplasia. LIMITATIONS: Unmeasured confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Older age, male sex, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and azathioprine were found to be significantly associated with advanced colorectal neoplasia in patients with CKD.

Health-Related Quality of Life in People Across the Spectrum of CKD.

INTRODUCTION: People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience reduced quality of life (QoL) because of the high symptom and treatment burden. Limited data exist on the factors associated with overall and domain-specific QoL across all CKD stages. METHODS: Using data from a prospective, multinational study (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Spain) in 1696 participants with CKD, we measured overall and domain-specific QoL (pain, self-care, activity, mobility, anxiety/depression) using the EuroQoL, 5 dimension, 3 level. Multivariable linear regression and logistic modeling were used to determine factors associated with overall and domain-specific QoL. RESULTS: QoL for patients with CKD stages 3 to 5 (n = 787; mean, 0.81; SD, 0.20) was higher than in patients on dialysis (n = 415; mean, 0.76; SD, 0.24) but lower than in kidney transplant recipients (n = 494; mean, 0.84; SD, 0.21). Factors associated with reduced overall QoL (ß [95% confidence intervals]) included being on dialysis (compared with CKD stages 3-5: -0.06 [-0.08 to -0.03]), female sex (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.006]), lower educational attainment (- 0.04 [-0.06 to -0.02), lacking a partner (-0.04 [-0.06 to -0.02]), having diabetes (-0.05 [-0.07 to -0.02]), history of stroke (-0.09 [-0.13 to -0.05]), cardiovascular disease (-0.06 [-0.08 to -0.03]), and cancer (-0.03 [-0.06 to -0.009]). Pain (43%) and anxiety/depression (30%) were the most commonly affected domains, with dialysis patients reporting decrements in all 5 domains. Predictors for domain-specific QoL included being on dialysis, presence of comorbidities, lower education, female sex, and lack of a partner. CONCLUSIONS: Being on dialysis, women with CKD, those with multiple comorbidities, lack of a partner, and lower educational attainment were associated with lower QoL across all stages of CKD.

Perioperative antibiotics for preventing post-surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk for infections due to the complexity of surgical procedures combined with the impact of immunosuppression. No consensus exists on the role of antibiotics for surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic antimicrobial agents for preventing surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to 21 April 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in any language assessing prophylactic antibiotics in preventing surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients at any time point after transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were surgical site infections and antimicrobial resistance. Other outcomes included urinary tract infections, pneumonias and septicaemia, death (any cause), graft loss, graft rejection, graft function, adverse reactions to antimicrobial agents, and outcomes identified by the Standardised Outcomes of Nephrology Group (SONG), specifically graft health, cardiovascular disease, cancer and life participation. Summary effect estimates were obtained using a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using the risk of bias and the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight eligible studies (718 randomised participants). Overall, five studies (248 randomised participants) compared antibiotics versus no antibiotics, and three studies (470 randomised participants) compared extended duration versus short duration antibiotics. Risk of bias was assessed as high for performance bias (eight studies), detection bias (eight studies) and attrition bias (two studies). It is uncertain whether antibiotics reduce the incidence of surgical site infections as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.85; 5 studies, 226 participants; I2 = 25%). The certainty of the evidence was very low for all other reported outcomes (death, graft loss, and other infections). It is uncertain whether extended duration antibiotics reduces the incidence of surgical site infections in either solid organ transplant recipients (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.48; 2 studies, 302 participants; I2 = 0%) or kidney-only transplant recipients (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.48; 1 study, 205 participants) as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all other reported outcomes (death, graft loss, and other infections). None of the eight included studies evaluated antimicrobial agent adverse reactions, graft health, cardiovascular disease, cancer, life participation, biochemical and haematological parameters, intervention cost, hospitalisation length, or overall hospitalisation costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to methodological limitations, risk of bias and significant heterogeneity, the current evidence for the use of prophylactic perioperative antibiotics in transplantation is of very low quality. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs would help better inform clinical practice.

The Pathophysiology and Impact of Inflammation in Nonscarred Renal Interstitium: The Banff i Lesion.

BACKGROUND: Interstitial inflammation (i-INT) is the driver of T-cell-mediated rejection. Its causes, pathophysiology, kinetics, and outcomes are poorly documented. METHODS: The role of i-INT was evaluated in 2055 biopsies from 775 renal transplant recipients. RESULTS: i-INT was present in 374 (18.2% prevalence) from acute and subclinical rejection (67.4%); interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (14.4%); BK virus nephropathy (BKVAN) 9.9%; and acute tubular necrosis (ATN with i-INT) in 5.9% of cases. i-INT was predicted by prior T-cell-mediated rejection and BKVAN, human leukocyte antigen mismatch, cyclosporine therapy, and indication biopsy for dysfunction. It correlated with tubulitis, arteritis, and antibody markers within concurrent histology (P < 0.001). After treatment, renal functional recovery was best with histological ATN, milder i-INT, and early posttransplant biopsy times. The initial histological improvement of inflammation depended on baseline i-INT severity. Complete resolution to Banff i0 was predicted by early biopsy time, antilymphocyte therapy, recipient age, and medication compliance (all P < 0.001). Clearance i-INT was followed by delayed resolution of tubulitis (P < 0.001). i-INT was associated with histological ATN, renal dysfunction, and increased incident fibrosis on sequential pathology. Progressive fibrosis following related-rejection i-INT was dependent on tubulitis using multivariable analysis. In contrast, fibrogenesis after BKVAN or ATN was unrelated to inflammation. i-INT cases were followed by recurrent rejection in 35.3%, increased graft loss, and greater patient mortality. Multiple complementary outcome analyses determined the optimal lower diagnostic threshold for inflammation was Banff i1 score. CONCLUSIONS: i-INT is a heterogeneous pathological phenotype that results in adverse functional and structural outcomes, for which active and robust therapy should be considered.

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I; sirolimus and everolimus) for primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the therapy of choice for many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with an improvement in survival rates and satisfactory short term graft survival. However, there has been little improvement in long-term survival. The place of target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I) (sirolimus, everolimus), which have different modes of action from other commonly used immunosuppressive agents, in kidney transplantation remains uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short and long-term benefits and harms of TOR-I (sirolimus and everolimus) when used in primary immunosuppressive regimens for kidney transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 20 September 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which drug regimens, containing TOR-I commenced within seven days of transplant, were compared to alternative drug regimens, were included without age restriction, dosage or language of report. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE MAIN RESULTS: Seventy studies (17,462 randomised participants) were included; eight studies included two comparisons to provide 78 comparisons. Outcomes were reported at six months to three years post transplant. Risk of bias was judged to be low for sequence generation in 25 studies, for allocation concealment in 23 studies, performance bias in four studies, detection bias in 65 studies, attrition bias in 45 studies, selective reporting bias in 48 studies, and for other potential bias in three studies. Risk of bias was judged to be at high risk of bias for sequence generation in two studies, allocation concealment in two studies, performance bias in 61 studies, detection bias in one study, attrition bias in four studies, for selective reporting bias in 11 studies and for other potential risk of bias in 46 studies. Compared with CNI and antimetabolite, TOR-I with antimetabolite probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.98; 19 studies) or malignancies (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.48; 10 studies); probably increases graft loss censored for death (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.81; 15 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.04; 15 studies), need to change treatment (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.11; 14 studies) and wound complications (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.36; 12 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); but reduces CMV infection (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.63; 13 studies) (high certainty evidence). Compared with antimetabolites and CNI, TOR-I with CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.33; 31 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; 26 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; 24 studies); and malignancies (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07; 17 studies); probably increases the need to change treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.90; 25 studies), and wound complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.91; 17 studies); but probably reduces CMV infection (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58; 25 studies) (moderate certainty evidence). Lower dose TOR-I and standard dose CNI compared with higher dose TOR-I and reduced dose CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.78; 9 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.20; 8 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.13; 8 studies), and CMV infection (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.60; 5 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to wound complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.71; 3 studies), malignancies (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.04; 7 studies), and the need to change treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 5 studies) (low certainty evidence). Lower dose of TOR-I compared with higher doses probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; 13 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 12 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.43; 11 studies), CMV infection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 9 studies), wound complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.29; 7 studies), and malignancy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.32; 10 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to the need to change treatments (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 studies) (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether sirolimus and everolimus differ in their effects on kidney function and lipid levels because the certainty of the evidence is very low based on a single small study with only three months of follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In studies with follow-up to three years, TOR-I with an antimetabolite increases the risk of graft loss and acute rejection compared with CNI and an antimetabolite. TOR-I with CNI potentially offers an alternative to an antimetabolite with CNI as rates of graft loss and acute rejection are similar between interventions and TOR-I regimens are associated with a reduced risk of CMV infections. Wound complications and the need to change immunosuppressive medications are higher with TOR-I regimens. While further new studies are not required, longer-term follow-up data from participants in existing methodologically robust RCTs are needed to determine how useful immunosuppressive regimens, which include TOR-I, are in maintaining kidney transplant function and survival beyond three years.

One-Time Fecal Immunochemical Screening for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients with CKD (DETECT Study).

BACKGROUND: In patients with CKD, the risk of developing colorectal cancer is high and outcomes are poor. Screening using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is effective in reducing mortality from colorectal cancer, but performance characteristics of FIT in CKD are unknown. METHODS: To determine the detection rates and performance characteristics of FIT for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) in patients with CKD, we used FIT to prospectively screen patients aged 35-74 years with CKD (stages 3-5 CKD, dialysis, and renal transplant) from 11 sites in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Spain. All participants received clinical follow-up at 2 years. We used a two-step reference standard approach to estimate disease status. RESULTS: Overall, 369 out of 1706 patients who completed FIT (21.6%) tested positive; 323 (87.5%) underwent colonoscopies. A total of 1553 (91.0%) completed follow-up; 82 (4.8%) had died and 71 (4.2%) were lost. The detection rate of ACN using FIT was 6.0% (5.6%, 7.4%, and 5.6% for stages 3-5 CKD, dialysis, and transplant). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of FIT for ACN were 0.90, 0.83, 0.30, and 0.99, respectively. Of participants who underwent colonoscopy, five (1.5%) experienced major colonoscopy-related complications, including bowel perforation and major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: FIT appears to be an accurate screening test for patients with CKD, such that a negative test may rule out the diagnosis of colorectal cancer within 2 years. However, the risk of major complications from work-up colonoscopy are at least ten-fold higher than in the general population.

Overall and Site-Specific Cancer Mortality in Patients on Dialysis and after Kidney Transplant.

Background Patients with ESRD have a substantially increased cancer risk, but few studies have examined the patterns of cancer mortality along a patient's journey from dialysis to transplantation. METHODS: We identified all Australian patients on dialysis and patients with transplants from 1980 to 2014 from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. Using standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), we compared cancer mortality among patients on dialysis and patients with transplants versus the general population (overall and by age, sex, year, and site); we also performed a subgroup analysis excluding patients with preexisting cancers. RESULTS: We followed 52,936 patients on dialysis and 16,820 transplant recipients for 170,055 and 128,352 patient-years, respectively. There were 2739 cancer deaths among patients on dialysis and 923 cancer deaths among transplant recipients. Overall, cancer SMRs were 2.6 for patients on dialysis and 2.7 for transplant recipients. For patients on dialysis, SMRs were highest for multiple myeloma (30.5), testicular cancer (17.0), and kidney cancer (12.5); for transplant recipients, SMRs were highest for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (10.7), kidney cancer (7.8), and melanoma (5.8). Some 61.0% of patients on dialysis and 9.6% of transplant recipients who experienced cancer death had preexisting cancer. The SMRs for de novo cancer was 1.2 for patients on dialysis and 2.6 for transplant recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients on dialysis and transplant recipients experienced >2.5-fold increased risk of cancer death compared with the general population. This increased risk was largely driven by preexisting cancers in patients on dialysis and de novo cancers in patients with transplants.

Does tubulitis without interstitial inflammation represent borderline acute T cell mediated rejection?

Tubulitis without interstitial inflammation (Banff i0), termed "isolated tubulitis" (ISO-T), has been controversially included within the Banff "borderline" category of acute T cell mediated rejection (TCMR). This single-center, retrospective, observational study of 2055 consecutive biopsies from 775 recipients, determined the clinical significance of ISO-T. ISO-T prevalence was 19.1%, comprising mild tubulitis (i0t1) in 97.2%. Independent clinical predictors of tubulitis were HLA mismatch, prior TCMR and antibody-mediated rejection, pulse corticosteroids, and BKVAN (P = .006 to P < .001 by multivariable analysis). Histological associations of tubulitis included interstitial inflammation, peritubular capillaritis, tubular atrophy, and SV40T (P = .005 to <.001). The dominant pathological diagnoses in ISO-T (n = 393) were interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IF/TA, 44.5%) or normal/minimal (31.8%). Subanalysis of ISO-T from indication biopsies (n = 107) found acute tubular injury (37.4%), IF/TA (28.0%), normal/minimal (12.1%), acute rejection (9.3%, vascular or antibody), chronic-active TCMR (2.8%), and BKVAN (5.6%). Allograft function of ISO-T frequently improved, affected by early biopsy timing and underlying disease diagnosis. Subsequent histology of 1197 ISO-T biopsy-pairs was generally benign. The 1- and 5-year death-censored graft survivals of ISO-T were 98.8% and 92.7%. In summary, tubulitis without inflammation does not represent borderline TCMR. We suggest its removal from the borderline category, and reinstatement of i1 as the diagnostic threshold.

Weekend effect on early allograft outcome after kidney transplantation- a multi-centre cohort study.

Weekend surgery may be associated with a higher risk of early complications, but the effect of the timing of kidney transplant surgery on early allograft outcome remains uncertain. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the association between weekend transplant surgery and allograft failure was modified by prevalent vascular disease. Using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant registry, we examined the association between weekend status and 90-day and 1-year allograft failure in deceased donor transplant recipients between 1994-2012. Two-way interaction between vascular disease and weekend status was examined. Of 6622 recipients, 1868 (28.2%) received transplants during weekends. Compared with weekday transplants, weekend transplants were associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 90-day and 1-year allograft failure of 0.99 (0.78-1.25; P = 0.917) and 0.93 (0.76-1.13, P = 0.468), respectively. There was a significant interaction between prevalent vascular disease and weekend status for 90-day allograft failure (Pinteraction = 0.008) but not at 1-year, such that patients with vascular disease were more likely to experience 90-day allograft failure if transplanted on weekend (versus weekdays), particularly failures secondary to vascular complications. Timing of transplantation does not impact on allograft outcome, although those with vascular disease may benefit from more intensive post-transplant follow-up for potential vascular complications.

The clinical and pathological significance of borderline T cell-mediated rejection.

The pathological diagnosis of borderline rejection (BL-R) denotes possible T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR), but its clinical significance is uncertain. This single-center, cross-sectional cohort study compared the functional and histological outcomes of consecutive BL-R diagnoses (n = 146) against normal controls (n = 826) and acute TCMR (n = 55) from 551 renal transplant recipients. BL-R was associated with the following: contemporaneous renal dysfunction, acute tubular necrosis, and chronic tubular atrophy (P < .001); progressive tubular injury with fibrosis by longitudinal sequential histology (45.3% at 1 year); increased subsequent acute rejection (39.4%), allograft failure (P < .001), and patient mortality (P = .007). BL-R detected by biopsy indicated for impaired function was followed by suboptimal functional recovery (46.3%), persistent inflammation (27.2%), and acute rejection episodes (50.0%) despite antirejection treatment in 83.3%. By 1 year after BL-R, the incidence of new-onset microvascular inflammation (9.3%), C4d staining (22.3%), transplant glomerulopathy (13.3%), and de novo donor-specific antibodies (31.5%) exceeded normal controls (P < .05-.001). BL-R inflammation in protocol biopsy persisted in 28.0% and progressed to acute rejection in 32.6%; however, it resolved in 61.6% of the untreated cases. In summary, BL-R is a heterogeneous diagnostic grouping, ranging from mild inconsequential inflammation to clinically significant TCMR, which is capable of immune-mediated tubular injury resulting in inferior functional, immunological, and histological consequences.

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.

Range and Consistency of Outcomes Reported in Randomized Trials Conducted in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The potential for clinical trials to impact patient care may be limited if the outcomes reported vary by trial and lack direct relevance to patients. Despite the many trials conducted in kidney transplantation, premature death due to cardiovascular disease, infection, and malignancy remains high. We aimed to assess the range and consistency of outcomes reported in trials in kidney transplantation. METHODS: We searched for randomized trials conducted in kidney transplantation. We extracted the outcome measures, classified them into outcome domains, and into categories (clinical, surrogate or patient-reported outcome [PRO]). We assessed the measures used for the top 4 domains. RESULTS: Overall, 397 trials reported 12 047 outcomes measures and time points (median, 19 per trial; interquartile range, 9-42) across 106 different domains, of which 55 (52%) were surrogate, 35 (33%) clinical, and 16 (15%) PRO. The 4 most frequently reported were graft function (322 [81%] trials, 118 outcome measures), acute rejection (234 [59%], 93 measures), graft loss (215 [54%], 48 measures), and mortality (204 [51%], 51 measures). The remaining 102 domains were reported in less than 50% of trials. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality- and graft-related outcome domains were frequently reported and assessed with a multiplicity of measures. Most outcome domains were surrogate outcomes, and the reporting of relevant life-threatening complications and PRO were uncommon. Establishing core outcomes based on the shared priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals in kidney transplantation may improve the relevance and consistency of outcome reporting in trials to better inform clinical decision making.

The causes, significance and consequences of inflammatory fibrosis in kidney transplantation: The Banff i-IFTA lesion.

Inflammation within areas of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (i-IFTA) is associated with adverse outcomes in kidney transplantation. We evaluated i-IFTA in 429 indication- and 2052 protocol-driven biopsy samples from a longitudinal cohort of 362 kidney-pancreas recipients to determine its prevalence, time course, and relationships with T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR), immunosuppression, and outcome. Sequential histology demonstrated that i-IFTA was preceded by cellular interstitial inflammation and followed by IF/TA. The prevalence and intensity of i-IFTA increased with developing chronic fibrosis and correlated with inflammation, tubulitis, and immunosuppression era (P < .001). Tacrolimus era-based immunosuppression was associated with reduced histologic inflammation in unscarred and scarred i-IFTA compartments, ameliorated progression of IF, and increased conversion to inactive IF/TA (compared with cyclosporine era, P < .001). Prior acute (including borderline) TCMR and subclinical TCMR were followed by greater 1-year i-IFTA, remaining predictive by multivariate analysis and independent of humoral markers. One-year i-IFTA was associated with accelerated IF/TA, arterial fibrointimal hyperplasia, and chronic glomerulopathy and with reduced renal function (P < .001 versus no i-IFTA). In summary, i-IFTA is the histologic consequence of active T cell-mediated alloimmunity, representing the interface between inflammation and tubular injury with fibrotic healing. Uncontrolled i-IFTA is associated with adverse structural and functional outcomes.

The Lived Experience of "Being Evaluated" for Organ Donation: Focus Groups with Living Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive evaluations are required to safeguard voluntarism and minimize harm to living kidney donors. This process is lengthy, invasive, and emotionally challenging, with up to one fifth of potential donors opting out. We aimed to describe donors' experiences of the evaluation process. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted 14 focus groups involving 123 kidney donors who completed donation from three transplant centers (Australia and Canada). Transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: We identified six themes reflecting donors' experiences of evaluation. The themes that related to perseverance included emotional investment (prioritizing the recipient's health, desperation for a normal life, protecting eligibility, shame of disappointing others, and overcoming opposition), undeterred by low risks (medical confidence and protection, worthwhile gamble, inherent invincibility, and normalizing risks), and mental preparation (avoiding regret, resolving decisional ambivalence, and managing expectations of recovery). The challenges included underlying fears for health (processing alarming information, unsettling uncertainty, and preoperative panic), system shortfalls (self-advocacy in driving the process, stressful urgency, inconsistent framing of safety, unnerving bodily scrutiny, questioning risk information, and draining finances); and lifestyle interference (living in limbo, onerous lifestyle disruption, and valuing flexibility). CONCLUSIONS: Previous donors described an emotional investment in donating and determination to protect their eligibility, despite having concerns for their health, financial and lifestyle disruption, and opposition from their family or community. Our findings suggest the need to prepare donors for surgery and recovery, minimize anxiety and lifestyle burdens, ensure that donors feel comfortable expressing their fears and concerns, reduce unnecessary delays, and make explicit the responsibilities of donors in their assessment process.

Toward Establishing Core Outcome Domains For Trials in Kidney Transplantation: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation Consensus Workshops.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions in kidney transplantation requires patients and clinicians to weigh the benefits and harms of a broad range of medical and surgical interventions, but the heterogeneity and lack of patient-relevant outcomes across trials in transplantation makes these trade-offs uncertain, thus, the need for a core outcome set that reflects stakeholder priorities. METHODS: We convened 2 international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation stakeholder consensus workshops in Boston (17 patients/caregivers; 52 health professionals) and Hong Kong (10 patients/caregivers; 45 health professionals). In facilitated breakout groups, participants discussed the development and implementation of core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified. Reinforcing the paramount importance of graft outcomes encompassed the prevailing dread of dialysis, distilling the meaning of graft function, and acknowledging the terrifying and ambiguous terminology of rejection. Reflecting critical trade-offs between graft health and medical comorbidities was fundamental. Contextualizing mortality explained discrepancies in the prioritization of death among stakeholders-inevitability of death (patients), preventing premature death (clinicians), and ensuring safety (regulators). Imperative to capture patient-reported outcomes was driven by making explicit patient priorities, fulfilling regulatory requirements, and addressing life participation. Specificity to transplant; feasibility and pragmatism (long-term impacts and responsiveness to interventions); and recognizing gradients of severity within outcome domains were raised as considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders support the inclusion of graft health, mortality, cardiovascular disease, infection, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes (ie, life participation) in a core outcomes set. Addressing ambiguous terminology and feasibility is needed in establishing these core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation.