From cancer to transplantation: an evaluation of period analysis for calculating up-to-date long-term survival estimates

Does anybody really know what (the kidney median waiting) time is?

The median waiting time (MWT) to deceased donor kidney transplant is of interest to patients, clinicians, and the media but remains elusive due to both methodological and philosophical challenges. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data from January 2003 to March 2022 to estimate MWTs using various methods and timescales, applied overall, by era, and by candidate demographics. After rising for a decade, the overall MWT fell to 5.19 years between 2015 and 2018 and declined again to 4.05 years (April 2021 to March 2022), based on the Kaplan-Meier method applied to period-prevalent cohorts. MWTs differed markedly by blood type, donor service area, and pediatric vs adult status, but to a lesser degree by race/ethnicity. Choice of methodology affected the magnitude of these differences. Instead of waiting years for an answer, reliable kidney MWT estimates can be obtained shortly after a policy is implemented using the period-prevalent Kaplan-Meier approach, a theoretical but useful construct for which we found no evidence of bias compared with using incident cohorts. We recommend this method be used complementary to the competing risks approach, under which MWT is often inestimable, to fill the present information void concerning the seemingly simple question of how long it takes to get a kidney transplant in the United States.

Posttransplant outcome assessments at listing: Long-term outcomes are more important than short-term outcomes

Posttransplant outcome assessments are publicly reported for patient and regulatory use. However, the currently reported 1-year posttransplant graft survival assessments are commonly criticized for not identifying clinically meaningful differences between programs, and not providing information about longer-term posttransplant outcomes. We investigated the association of different posttransplant outcome assessments available to patients at the time of listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival. The posttransplant assessments were from period prevalent, rather than incident, cohorts with more timely 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up and 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-month cohort windows. The association of these assessments at listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival included candidates listed between July 12, 2011, and December 15, 2015, who subsequently underwent transplant before December 31, 2018. The assessments with 1-year follow-up had uniformly weaker associations than the assessments with 3- and 5-year follow-up. The assessments with 5-year follow-up had the strongest association in kidney and liver transplantation. For kidney, liver, and lung transplantation, assessment windows of at least 18 months typically had the strongest associations with subsequent graft survival. Posttransplant assessments with 5-year follow-up and 18-30-month cohort windows are better than the current posttransplant assessment with 1-year follow-up, particularly at the time of listing.

Assessment of long-term survival of cancer patients using cancer registry data from eastern China: Period analysis is superior to traditional methods

We aimed to provide a systematical evaluation of the performance of period analysis compared to traditional cohort and complete methods, using cancer registry data from Taizhou, eastern China. Overall, 5-year relative survival (RS) estimate was calculated using cohort analysis, complete analysis and period analysis, respectively; further analyses were stratified by sex, region, age at diagnosis and cancer sites. Deviation value (DV), defined as the deviation between the estimated 5-year RS obtained from each method and the observed actual survival, was calculated to evaluate the accuracy of each method. Overall, 5-year RS derived by period analysis were much closer to the observed actual survival (51.4%), compared to those by complete and cohort methods, with the estimates of 48.7% (DV: -2.7%), 43.2% (DV: -8.2%) and 36.3% (DV: -15.1%), respectively. Further stratifications by sex, age at diagnosis, region and cancer sites also supported period analysis provided more precise estimates, compared to complete and cohort methods. We found, for first time systematically using cancer registry data from eastern China, period analysis provided more up-to-date precise estimates of long-term survival for overall and stratifications by sex, age at diagnosis, region and cancer sites, compared to traditional cohort and complete methods. Nevertheless, further investigations using large cancer registry data across China are warranted for the widespread use of period analysis in China.

Kidney graft survival in Europe and the United States: strikingly different long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Kidney graft survival has never been systematically compared between Europe and the United States.

METHODS

Applying period analysis to first deceased-donor (DD) and living-donor kidney grafts from the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for the United States and the Collaborative Transplant Study for Europe, we compared overall and age-specific 1-, 5-, and 10-year graft survival for Europeans and white, African, and Hispanic Americans for the 2005 to 2008 period. A Cox regression model was used to adjust for differences in patient characteristics.

RESULTS

For the 2005 to 2008 period, 1-year survival for DD grafts was equal (91%) between Europeans and white and Hispanic Americans, whereas it was slightly lower for African Americans (89%). In contrast, overall 5- and 10-year graft survival rates were considerably higher for Europe (77 and 56%, respectively) than for any of the three U.S. populations (whites, 71 and 46%, Hispanic, 73 and 48%, and African American, 62 and 34%). Differences were largest for recipient ages 0 to 17 and 18 to 29 and generally increased beyond 3 to 4 years after transplantation. Survival patterns for living-donor grafts were similar as those seen for DD grafts. Adjusted hazard ratios for graft failure in United Network for Organ Sharing white Americans ranged between 1.5 and 2.3 (all P<0.001) for 2 to 5 years after transplantation, indicating that lower graft survival is not explained by differences in baseline patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term kidney graft survival rates are markedly lower in the United States compared with Europe. Identifying actionable factors explaining long-term graft survival differences between Europe and the United States is a high priority for improving long-term graft survival.