Adjuvant Chemotherapy With Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin for Kidney Transplant Patients With Locally Advanced Transitional Cell Carcinoma

Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma with or without Kidney Transplantation

Background: The incidence of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is uniquely high in kidney transplant (KT) recipients in Taiwan. The evidence of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in UTUC is contradictory. We have sought to determine whether AC is associated with potential benefits related to locally advanced UTUC after KT. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 134 patients with locally advanced UTUC (at least stage T2) and patients who were administrated AC after unilateral or bilateral nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff excision. Of these 134 patients, 57 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We used 23 KT and 34 non-KT locally advanced UTUC patients for comparison. Results: The mean follow-up time was 52.35 ± 34.56 and 64.71 ± 42.29 months for the KT and non-KT groups, respectively. The five-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 45.7% vs. 70.2% and 62.8% vs. 77.6%, for the KT and non-KT groups. The Kaplan-Meier curve and the log rank test revealed significant differences in the DFS and OS rates between the two groups, p = 0.015 and 0.036. The influence of chemotherapy on graft kidney function was mild. Only three in the KT group and two in the non-KT group developed > grade 2 nephrotoxicity. Conclusions: Our study suggested that KT patients with locally advanced UTUC who had been administered AC after surgery presented worse OS and DFS than non-KT patients. KT patients tolerated the AC course well, and their nephrotoxicity levels were mild and acceptable.

Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with de novo urothelial carcinoma: thirty years of experience from a single center

BACKGROUND

De novo urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a leading cause of death after kidney transplant (KT). The efficacy of various treatments, apart from surgery, and the prognosis for patients with urothelial carcinoma after kidney transplantation remain unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the efficacy of chemotherapy with gemcitabine + cisplatin (GC) or gemcitabine + carboplatin (GCa), bladder infusion chemotherapy, and immunosuppression therapy for de novo UC in kidney transplantation recipients at different sites and T stages. We evaluated the prognosis and compared the difference using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of the 97 kidney transplantation recipients with de novo UC, 51 (52.6%) were diagnosed with upper urinary tract carcinoma (UTUC), 17 (17.5%) with bladder carcinoma (BC), and 29 (29.9%) with both UTUC and BC. The five-year survival rates for BC, UTUC, and BC + UTUC with ≤ T1 stage were 100%, 88.2%, and 57.7%, respectively, while the survival rates for UTUC, BC + UTUC with ≥ T2 stage were 90.2% and 48.2%. Cyclosporine A significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in UTUC with ≤ T1 stage (p = 0.017). Rapamycin significantly improved PFS in UTUC with ≥ T2 stage (p = 0.026). Bladder infusion chemotherapy and GC/GCa chemotherapy had no significant effect on each T stage and site. Patients with UTUC + BC had the poorest overall survival (OS) compared with those with BC and UTUC.

CONCLUSION

The prognosis of UC in different sites varies. GC/GCa chemotherapy and bladder infusion chemotherapy appear to have no effect on prognosis. Rapamycin can delay the progression of advanced UTUC.

Chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy: Which drugs can be safely used in the solid organ transplant recipients?

In solid organ transplant recipients, cancer is associated with worse prognosis than in the general population. Among the causes of increased cancer‐associated mortality, are the limitations in selecting the optimal anticancer regimen in solid organ transplant recipients, because of the associated risks of graft toxicity and rejection, drug‐to‐drug interactions, reduced kidney or liver function, and patient frailty and comorbid conditions. The advent of immunotherapy has generated further challenges, mainly because checkpoint inhibitors increase the risk of rejection, which may have life‐threatening consequences in recipients of life‐saving organs. In general, there are no safe or unsafe anticancer drugs. Rather, the optimal choice of the anticancer regimen results from a careful risk/benefit assessment, from the awareness of potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug‐to‐drug interactions, and of the risk of drug overexposure in patients with kidney or liver dysfunction. In this review, we summarize general principles that may help the oncologists and transplant physicians in the multidisciplinary management of recipients of solid organ transplantation with cancer who are candidates for chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy.

Management of the kidney transplant patient with Cancer: Report from a Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is the second most common cause of mortality and morbidity in Kidney Transplant Recipients (KTRs). Immunosuppression can influence the efficacy of cancer treatment and modification of the immunosuppressive regimen may restore anti-neoplastic immune responses improving oncologic prognosis. However, patients and transplant physicians are usually reluctant to modify immunosuppression, fearing rejection and potential graft loss. Due to the lack of extensive and recognised data supporting how to manage the immunosuppressive therapy in KTRs, in the context of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and loco-regional treatments, a Consensus Conference was organised under the auspices of the European Society of Organ Transplantation and the Italian Society of Organ Transplantation. The conference involved a multidisciplinary group of transplant experts in the field across Europe.

METHODS

The overall process included a) the formulation of 12 specific questions based on the PICO methodology, b) systematic literature review and summary for experts for each question, c) a two-day conference celebration and the collection of experts' agreements. The conference was articulated in three sessions: "Immunosuppressive therapy and immunotherapy", "Systemic therapy", "Integrated Therapy", while the final experts' agreement was collected with a televoting procedure and defined according to the majority criterion.

RESULTS

Twenty-six European experts attended the conference and expressed their vote. A total of 14 statements were finally elaborated and voted. Strong agreement was found for ten statements, moderate agreement for two, moderate disagreement for one and uncertainty for the last one.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus statements provide guidance to transplant physicians caring for kidney transplant recipients with cancer and indicate key aspects that need to be addressed by future clinical research.

Urologic malignancies in kidney transplantation

With advances in immunosuppression, graft and patient outcomes after kidney transplantation have improved considerably. As a result, long-term complications of transplantation, such as urologic malignancies, have become increasingly important. Kidney transplant recipients, for example, have a 7-fold risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and 3-fold risk of urothelial carcinoma (UC) compared with the general population. While extrapolation of data from the general population suggest that routine cancer screening in transplant recipients would allow for earlier diagnosis and management of these potentially lethal malignancies, currently there is no consensus for posttransplantation RCC or UC screening as supporting data are limited. Further understanding of risk factors, presentation, optimal management of, and screening for urologic malignancies in kidney transplant patients is warranted, and as such, this review will focus on the incidence, surveillance, and treatment of urologic malignancies in kidney transplant recipients.