Pretransplant malignancy in pediatrics is not a risk factor for renal graft failure.

BACKGROUND: In adults, pretransplant malignancy (PTM) negatively impacts patient survival due to immunosuppression regimens influencing post-transplantation tumor growth. Few reports investigate the outcomes of pediatric kidney transplantation with PTM. We compare transplant outcomes for pediatric patients with PTM to matched controls, including cancer types extending beyond Wilms tumor. METHODS: The United Network of Organ Sharing Database was queried to identify pediatric transplant recipients with histories of PTM. All PTM patients were matched to non-PTM patients, at a 1:1 ratio, with 0.001 match tolerance. Matching variables included transplant year, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, donor type, and prior transplant. Death-censored graft and patient survival were analyzed. All statistics were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: After propensity matching, 285 PTM and 285 non-PTM patients were identified, with transplant dates from 1990 to 2020. Median Kidney Donor Profile Index values were comparable between cohorts, 17% and 12%, respectively (p = .065). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that PTM patients did not have a significantly different rate of death-censored graft failure, compared to the non-PTM group [HR 0.76; 95% CI (0.54-1.1)]. There was also no difference in the overall survival between the two groups of patients [HR 1.1; 95% CI (0.66-2.0)]. CONCLUSION: A history of pediatric malignancy has minimal independent effect on their post-transplant survival. Additionally, pediatric patients with PTM demonstrated equivalent rates of graft survival. Thus, in contrast to adults, renal failure in children with history of pediatric malignancies should not be considered a complicating factor for renal transplantation.

Challenges with non-descriptive compliance labeling of end-stage renal disease patients in accessibility for renal transplantation.

Non-descriptive and convenient labels are uninformative and unfairly project blame onto patients. The language clinicians use in the Electronic Medical Record, research, and clinical settings shapes biases and subsequent behaviors of all providers involved in the enterprise of transplantation. Terminology such as noncompliant and nonadherent serve as a reason for waitlist inactivation and limit access to life-saving transplantation. These labels fail to capture all the circumstances surrounding a patient's inability to follow their care regimen, trivialize social determinants of health variables, and bring unsubstantiated subjectivity into decisions regarding organ allocation. Furthermore, insufficient Medicare coverage has forced patients to ration or stop taking medication, leading to allograft failure and their subsequent diagnosis of noncompliant. We argue that perpetuating non-descriptive language adds little substantive information, increases subjectivity to the organ allocation process, and plays a major role in reduced access to transplantation. For patients with existing barriers to care, such as racial/ethnic minorities, these effects may be even more drastic. Transplant committees must ensure thorough documentation to correctly encapsulate the entirety of a patient's position and give voice to an already vulnerable population.

Renal Cell Carcinoma in End-Stage Kidney Disease and the Role of Transplantation.

Kidney transplant patients have a higher risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) compared to non-transplanted end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. This increased risk has largely been associated with the use of immunosuppression; however, recent genetic research highlights the significance of tissue specificity in cancer driver genes. The implication of tissue specificity becomes more obscure when addressing transplant patients, as two distinct metabolic environments are present within one individual. The oncogenic potential of donor renal tissue is largely unknown but assumed to pose minimal risk to the kidney transplant recipient (KTR). Our review challenges this notion by examining how donor and recipient microenvironments impact a transplant recipient's associated risk of renal cell carcinoma. In doing so, we attempt to encapsulate how ESKD-RCC and KTR-RCC differ in their incidence, pathogenesis, outcome, and approach to management.