Expanding the criteria of organ procurement from donors with prostate cancer: the application of the new Italian guidelines

Donors risk assessment in transplantation: From the guidelines to their real-world application

Transplantation of an organ from a donor carries an unavoidable risk of tumor transmission. The need to extend the donor pool increases the use of organs from donors with malignancies and potential disease transmission is a constant tension influencing donor suitability decisions. Current classification systems for the assessment of donor malignancy transmission risk have evolved from reports of potential transmission events in recipients to national donation and transplant surveillance agencies. Although the risk of malignancy transmission is very low in the general transplant setting it must constantly be balanced with the transplant benefits. Guidelines are mainly based on large registries and sparse case reports of transmission, so they cannot cover all the possible situations. For this reason, in 2004 in Italy, the National Transplant Center gave rise to the Second Opinion Service, charged by the Ministry of Health, by structuring expertise in diagnostic oncology and risk transmission and making it available to the Italian Transplant Centers. In this paper the registry of the Italian Oncological Second Opinion was reviewed, from 2016 to 2018, to detail the most frequent and problematic neoplastic topics addressed, those are separately reported and discussed. Furthermore, a review of the most recent strategies and risk stratification is provided, according to the most recent literature evidence and to the European Guidelines.

Prevention and Management of Donor-transmitted Cancer After Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-SETH Consensus Conference

As with any other intervention in health, liver transplantation (LT) entails a variety of risks, including donor-transmitted cancers (DTCs). At present, 2%-4% of used deceased organ donors are known to have a current or past history of malignancy. The frequency of DTCs is consistently reported at 3-6 cases per 10 000 solid organ transplants, with a similar frequency in the LT setting. A majority of DTCs are occult cancers unknown in the donor at the time of transplantation. Most DTCs are diagnosed within 2 y after LT and are associated with a 51% probability of survival at 2 y following diagnosis. The probability of death is greatest for DTCs that have already metastasized at the time of diagnosis. The International Liver Transplantation Society-Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático working group on DTC has provided guidance on how to minimize the occurrence of DTCs while avoiding the unnecessary loss of livers for transplantation both in deceased and living donor LT. The group endorses the Council of Europe classification of risk of transmission of cancer from donor to recipient (minimal, low to intermediate, high, and unacceptable), classifies a range of malignancies in the liver donor into these 4 categories, and recommends when to consider LT, mindful of the risk of DTCs, and the clinical condition of patients on the waiting list. We further provide recommendations to professionals who identify DTC events, stressing the need to immediately alert all stakeholders concerned, so a coordinated investigation and management can be initiated; decisions on retransplantation should be made on a case-by-case basis with a multidisciplinary approach.

Follow-up Survey of Donor Candidates for Living Related Kidney Transplantation With Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

With the increasing number of elderly kidney donor candidates due to the lack of available donors, prostate cancer has sometimes been detected in these candidates during pretransplant screening examinations. There are currently no guidelines or consensus on prostate cancer screening and treatment in donors. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical course of donor candidates with prostate cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2016, 9 donor candidates for living related kidney transplantation were incidentally diagnosed with prostate cancer at our institution. All male kidney transplant donor candidates routinely received prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. The patients with PSA levels > 4.0 ng/mL underwent prostate biopsies. For future kidney transplantation, treatment for localized prostate cancer was prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Seven low- or intermediate-risk patients according to the D'Amico risk classification underwent endoscopic prostatectomy, while 2 high-risk patients underwent high dose-rate brachytherapy to prioritize prostate cancer treatment. Of the 7 who underwent surgery, 3 patients ultimately became living related kidney transplantation donors for their wives. There was no recurrence of PSA elevation after treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that donor candidates with prostate cancer could safely donate a kidney after a thorough evaluation to exclude those with high-risk prostate cancer. Transmission of prostate cancer through kidney transplantation seems unlikely and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy may be feasible for donor candidates with localized prostate cancer.

Prostate Cancer in Deceased Organ Donors: Loss of Organ or Transplantation With Active Surveillance

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer has become an important clinical issue within deceased organ donors. There is still a considerable number of undiagnosed cancers, especially in early stage, despite frozen section analysis. The aim of the study was to evaluate outcomes of orthotopic liver transplants (OLTx) with organs from donors with prostate cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed in deceased liver donors whose prostate glands were harvested for histologic examinations because of prostate cancer suspicion. The study group consisted of 72 men reported as potential liver donors between 2011 and November 2017. Prostate glands were primarily assessed by frozen sections and afterward in routine examination. Generally cancer diagnosed in frozen specimen was not considered for OLTx. Recipients who received an organ from the donor with prostate cancer were actively surveilled.

RESULTS

There were 19 cases (26.40%) of prostate cancer diagnosed among the study group. In 12 cases diagnosis was made by frozen section assessment, of which 11 organs were disqualified from OLTx and 1 was transplanted. In 7 cases prostate cancer was diagnosed after OLTx in final routine histologic examination. Finally, 8 recipients (5 men and 3 women) received a new organ. Only 1 died during the perioperative period. In the remaining 7 patients the perioperative period was uneventful and no disease transmission was observed during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosis of prostate cancer in donors should not be treated as a contraindication for OLTx because the risk of disease transmission is low. Potential recipients must be fully informed and kept under oncological surveillance.

[Deceased donation in renal transplantation]

OBJECTIVES

To review epidemiologic data's and medical results of deceased donation in renal transplantation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Relevant publications were identified through Medline (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and Embase (http://www.embase.com) database using the following keywords, alone or in association, "brain death; cardiac arrest; deceased donation; organ procurement; transplantation". Articles were selected according to methods, language of publication and relevance. The reference lists were used to identify additional historical studies of interest. Both prospective and retrospective series, in French and English, as well as review articles and recommendations were selected. In addition, French national transplant and health agencies (http://www.agence-biomedecine.fr and http://www.has-sante.fr) databases were screened using identical keywords. A total of 2498 articles, 8 official reports and 17 newspaper articles were identified; after careful selection 157 publications were eligible for our review.

RESULTS

Deceased donation may involve either brain death or non-heartbeating donors (NHBD). Organ shortage led to the procurement of organs from expanded-criteria donors, with an increased age at donation and extended vascular disease, leading to inferior results after transplantation and underlining the need for careful donor management during brain death or cardiac arrest. Evolution of French legislation covering bioethics allowed procurement from Maastricht categories II and recently III non-heartbeating donors.

CONCLUSION

The increase of organ shortage emphasizes the need for a rigorous surgical technique during procurement to avoid loss of transplants. A history or current neoplasm in deceased-donors, requires attention to increase the pool of organs without putting the recipients at risk for cancer transmission. French NHBD program, especially from Maastricht category III, may stand for a potential source of valuable organs.

Renal donors with prostate cancer, no longer a reason to decline

OBJECTIVE

To fully assess the true risk of prostate cancer transmission in during renal transplantation.

METHODS

A full review of all existing literature relevant to the topic.

RESULTS

There has not been a single documented case of transmission of prostate cancer during renal transplant. Prostate cancer in deceased organ donors has an incidence estimated between 3% and 18.5% and over 100 transplants have been performed using organs from donor with proven prostate cancer without issue.

CONCLUSION

Transmission of prostate cancer through kidney transplantation seems very unlikely. The risks of remaining on the waiting list are outweighed by a transmission risk and the potential benefit makes the case to have clear guidelines about donor prostate malignancy when accepting potential organs.

Cancers among US organ donors: a comparison of transplant and cancer registry diagnoses

Transmission of cancer is a life-threatening complication of transplantation. Monitoring transplantation practice requires complete recording of donor cancers. The US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) captures cancers in deceased donors (beginning in 1994) and living donors (2004). We linked the SRTR (52,599 donors, 110,762 transplants) with state cancer registries. Cancer registries identified cancers in 519 donors: 373 deceased donors (0.9%) and 146 living donors (1.2%). Among deceased donors, 50.7% of cancers were brain tumors. Among living donors, 54.0% were diagnosed after donation; most were cancers common in the general population (e.g. breast, prostate). There were 1063 deceased donors with cancer diagnosed in the SRTR or cancer registry, and the SRTR lacked a cancer diagnosis for 107 (10.1%) of these. There were 103 living donors with cancer before or at donation, diagnosed in the SRTR or cancer registry, and the SRTR did not have a cancer diagnosis for 43 (41.7%) of these. The SRTR does not record cancers after donation in living donors and so missed 81 cancers documented in cancer registries. In conclusion, donor cancers are uncommon, but lack of documentation of some cases highlights a need for improved ascertainment and reporting by organ procurement organizations and transplant programs.

Urological involvement in renal transplantation

Historically, urologists were the primary surgeons in renal transplantation. Specialization and increased complexity of the field of transplantation, coupled with a de-emphasis of vascular surgical training in urology, has created a situation where many renal transplants are carried out by surgeons with a general surgery background. Because of its genitourinary nature, however, urological input in renal transplantation is still vital. For living donors, a urologist should be involved to help evaluate and prepare certain patients for eventual donation. This could involve both medical and surgical intervention. Additionally, urologists who carry out living donor nephrectomy maintain a sense of ownership in the renal transplant process and provide a unique opportunity to the trainees of that particular program. For renal transplant recipients, preoperative evaluation of voiding dysfunction and other genitourinary anomalies might be necessary before the transplant. Also, occasional surgical intervention to prepare a patient for renal transplant might be necessary, such as in a patient with a small renal mass that is detected by a screening pretransplant ultrasound. Intraoperatively, for patients with complex urological reconstructions that might be related to the etiology of the renal failure (urinary diversion, bladder augmentation), a urologist who is familiar with the anatomy should be available. Postoperatively, urological evaluation and intervention might be necessary for patients who had a pre-existing urological condition or who might have developed something de novo after the transplant. Although renal transplant programs could consult an on-call urologist for particular issues on an as-needed basis, having a urologist, who has repeated exposure to the particular issues and procedures that are involved with renal transplantation, and who is part of a dedicated multidisciplinary renal transplant team, provides optimal quality of care to these complex patients.