Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Kidney Transplant Recipients and Timing of Treatment With TURP: Impact on Renal Graft Survival and Function.

BACKGROUND: With the aging of recipients of renal transplantation (RT) one of the emerging issues is the incidence of low urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which may have negative consequences on the graft survival and function. The aim of our study was to assess the influence of LUTS and the treatment with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on the outcome of RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data from men over 55 who underwent RT at our center from January 2007 to December 2016. We analyzed the incidence of LUTS; the rate of treatment with TURP; the eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate) at 6 months and 1, 3, and 5 years from transplantation; and graft survival. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients out of 268 experienced LUTS, and 19 of them had a bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). Patients experiencing BOO had a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) of graft failure (HR 5.7, CI 1.56-21.4) compared to the other recipients. Of the 18 patients treated with TURP, 10 received the procedure within 6 months from the LUTS onset. They had a significantly absolute eGFR improvement at 6 months from the intervention (+14.25 mL/min ± 8.10) compared to the patients treated later (-8.4 mL/min ± 14.43). DISCUSSION: We showed the negative effects of LUTS on kidney graft function and survival. Although TURP is the standard therapy for such an issue, the best timing for it still has to be defined. Our experience supports the need for an early treatment of the LUTS for promoting the outcome of the RT.

The role of metronomic capecitabine for treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation.

The management of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma untreatable with surgical options is based on systemic therapy with sorafenib. Due to the high rates of adverse events connected to the therapy with sorafenib, metronomic capecitabine seems a promising strategy for these patients. We analyzed the data of 38 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma recurrent after liver transplantation performed at our center. We compared the outcome of 17 patients receiving metronomic capecitabine versus 20 patients experiencing best supportive care and versus the data of the literature about treatment with sorafenib. In the group treated with metronomic capecitabine we observed an increased survival after tumor recurrence at the univariate and multivariate analysis compared to the group of best supportive care (median 22 months vs. 7 months, p < 0.01). Data from the literature on the use of sorafenib showed outcomes like our study group, with similar patient and tumoral features. The episodes of acute rejection and the tumor stage at the recurrence showed a correlation with patient survival at the univariate analysis. The metronomic capecitabine for hepatocellular cancer recurrent after liver transplantation seems effective without important adverse events and comparable results to sorafenib.