Predicted Cure and Survival Among Transplant Recipients With a Previous Cancer Diagnosis

Cancer Surveillance in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With a Pretransplant History of Malignancy: Multidisciplinary Collaborative Expert Opinion

With improved medical treatments, the prognosis for many malignancies has improved, and more patients are presenting for transplant evaluation with a history of treated cancer. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with a prior malignancy are at higher risk of posttransplant recurrence or de novo malignancy, and they may require a cancer surveillance program that is individualized to their specific needs. There is a dearth of literature on optimal surveillance strategies specific to SOT recipients. A working group of transplant physicians and cancer-specific specialists met to provide expert opinion recommendations on optimal cancer surveillance after transplantation for patients with a history of malignancy. Surveillance strategies provided are mainly based on general population recurrence risk data, immunosuppression effects, and limited transplant-specific data and should be considered expert opinion based on current knowledge. Prospective studies of cancer-specific surveillance models in SOT recipients should be supported to inform posttransplant management of this high-risk population.

Prior cancer history and suitability for kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for most patients with kidney failure. For patients with a prior history of treated cancers, listing and transplant eligibility decisions are complex. Patients and health professionals are obliged to consider the time-periods between cancer cure and transplantation, the risk of cancer recurrence under the influence of immunosuppression and anti-cancer treatment options if the disease recurs. Cancer recurrence is associated with a high mortality rate, thus potentially reduces the projected survival benefit of transplantation, and dampens the utility of scarce organs. In view of the uncertain risk of harms, clinicians may consider transplantation for candidates with prior cancer history only after an extended period of cancer-free interval, as the fear of disease recurrence and shortened life expectancy may outweigh the benefits of receiving a kidney transplant compared with dialysis. Over the past decade, the evolution of novel anti-cancer therapies coupled with improved understanding of cancer genomics have led to considerable improvement in cancer-free survival. It is therefore justifiable to make individualized transplant suitability decisions based the joint effects of cancer biology, available therapeutic options and prognostic covariates on clinical outcomes. In this review, we first summarized the cancer epidemiology in kidney transplant recipients. We then explored how the probability of cancer cure, risk of recurrence and outcomes in candidates with a prior cancer history may influence the decisions to transplant. Finally, the role of shared decision-making between health professionals and patients regarding the optimal management options, and considerations of patients' preferences and values are discussed.

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in Patients with a History of Treated Solid Tumours: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel

BACKGROUND

Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, "In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?"

METHODS

We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic.

RESULTS

We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks.

Mortality among solid organ transplant recipients with a pretransplant cancer diagnosis

Little is known about the outcomes among solid organ transplant recipients with a pretransplant cancer diagnosis. We used linked data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients with 33 US cancer registries. Cox proportional hazards models assessed associations of pretransplant cancer with overall mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and development of a new posttransplant cancer. Among 311 677 recipients, the presence of a single pretransplant cancer was associated with increased overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.15-1.23) and cancer-specific mortality (aHR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.76-2.12); results for 2+ pretransplant cancers were similar. Cancer-specific mortality was not significantly increased for uterine, prostate, or thyroid cancers (aHRs were 0.83, 1.22, and 1.54, respectively) but strongly elevated for lung cancer and myeloma (aHRs were 3.72 and 4.42, respectively). A pretransplant cancer diagnosis was also associated with increased risk of developing posttransplant cancer (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23-1.40). Among 306 recipients whose cancer death was confirmed by cancer registry data, 158 deaths (51.6%) were from a de novo posttransplant cancer and 105 (34.3%) from the pretransplant cancer. Pretransplant cancer diagnoses are associated with increased mortality after transplantation, but some deaths are related to posttransplant cancers and other causes. Improved candidate selection and cancer screening and prevention may reduce mortality in this population.