A sticky, palpable area of the perinephric adipose tissue at organ donor procurement: highlights on the diagnostic challenge and transplant management

Second Opinion in the Italian Organ Procurement Transplantation: The Pathologist Is In

Second opinion consultation is a well-established practice in different clinical settings of diagnostic medicine. However, little is known about second opinion consultation activity in transplantation, and even less is known about it concerning donor assessment. The consultations provided by the second opinion service led to the safer and homogeneous management of donors with a history of malignancy or ongoing neoplasm by transplant centers. Indeed, two of the most important aspects are the reduction of semantic differences in cancer reporting and the standardization of procedures, which are mainly due to the different settings and logistics of different pathology services. This article aims to discuss the role and the future of the second opinion in Italy during organ procurement, highlighting the critical issues and areas for improvement.

Diffuse Micro-Nodules on Peritoneal Surfaces at Donor Organ Procurement: Highlights on the Diagnostic Challenge and Transplant Management

BACKGROUND Guidelines have been designed to stratify the risk of cancer transmission in donors with a history of or ongoing malignancy, although this evaluation is not always straightforward when unexpected and rare lesions are found. CASE REPORT Here, we present a case of a 41-year-old African female donor who died from a cerebral hemorrhage. Her medical history was unavailable. At procurement, multiple diffuse grayish small nodules were noticed along the peritoneal cavity, some of which were sent to the on-call pathologist for urgent frozen section evaluation. Histology showed a multinodular proliferation of uniform bland-appearing spindle cells, with no evidence of necrosis, nor nuclear atypia or mitoses. The overall picture was consistent with the diagnosis of disseminated peritoneal leiomyomatosis, with overlapping morphology with uterine leiomyoma. Given the rarity of the lesion and the potential for recurrence or malignant degeneration, only the liver and heart were allocated to recipients with life-threatening conditions. The decision was taken in a forcedly limited time and took into account the benefit of transplantation and the risk of disease transmission. CONCLUSIONS This case highlights challenges that transplant teams often have to deal with, as lesions that are difficult to diagnose during donor assessment are usually not covered in guidelines. The acceptance and usage of organs in such cases has to be decided in a team-based fashion, with the collaboration of all the transplant professionals involved to optimally assess the transmission risk, carefully balancing the benefits of transplantation for the recipients and the need to guarantee a reasonable degree of safety.