Objectives: To develop a scalable metric which quantifies kidney transplant (KT) centers' performance providing equitable access to KT for minority patients, based on the individualized prelisting prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Background: Racial and ethnic disparities for access to transplant in patients with ESRD are well described; however, variation in care among KT centers remains unknown. Furthermore, no mechanism exists that quantifies how well a KT center provides equitable access to KT for minority patients with ESRD. Methods: From 2013 to 2018, custom datasets from the United States Renal Data System and United Network for Organ Sharing were merged to calculate the Kidney Transplant Equity Index (KTEI), defined as the number of minority patients transplanted at a center relative to the prevalence of minority patients with ESRD in each center's health service area. Markers of socioeconomic status and recipient outcomes were compared between high and low KTEI centers. Results: A total of 249 transplant centers performed 111,959 KTs relative to 475,914 nontransplanted patients with ESRD. High KTEI centers performed more KTs for Black (105.5 vs 24, P < 0.001), Hispanic (55.5 vs 7, P < 0.001), and American Indian (1.0 vs 0.0, P < 0.001) patients than low KTEI centers. In addition, high KTEI centers transplanted more patients with higher unemployment (52 vs 44, P < 0.001), worse social deprivation (53 vs 46, P < 0.001), and lower educational attainment (52 vs 43, P < 0.001). While providing increased access to transplant for minority and low socioeconomic status populations, high KTEI centers had improved patient survival (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95). Conclusions:The KTEI is the first metric to quantify minority access to KT incorporating the prelisting ESRD prevalence individualized to transplant centers. KTEIs uncover significant national variation in transplant practices and identify highly equitable centers. This novel metric should be used to disseminate best practices for minority and low socioeconomic patients with ESRD.
TPS638 Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive malignancy, developing most often in the setting of liver cirrhosis (Sohal et al Current Oncol Rep 2011; Gordan et al JCO 2020). For advanced disease, immunotherapy has now become standard of care – a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has shown the best overall survival outcome so far (Finn et al NEJM 2020). For earlier stage disease, however, there is no systemic therapy standard. The best treatment for HCC in the setting of cirrhosis is a liver transplant allowing potential cure for both the cancer and cirrhosis. Nonetheless, 25-35% of patients fail to reach liver transplant because of disease progression while waiting for a transplant (Sinha et al, Hepatology 2019) and approximately 15% experience HCC recurrence after transplant (Mehta et al, Transplantation 2020). Taken together, this constitutes a large subset of this patient population who cannot achieve a cure. Given the success of immunotherapy in the advanced setting, it is imperative to study this in the pre-transplant setting, to improve the outcomes cited above. However, there is a theoretical risk of graft rejection with immunostimulatory treatment. Methods: This is a single-arm, open-label, Phase II, multicenter study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of durvalumab and tremelimumab for the treatment of HCC patients who have cirrhosis or portal hypertension and are eligible for listing for a liver transplant. Eligibility requirements include adult patients with HCC within UCSF criteria, a Child-Pugh score of up to 7, and ECOG PS of 0 or 1. Treatment includes an immunotherapy combination of 1 dose of tremelimumab and 5 doses of durvalumab for up to 4 months. After a minimum 28-day gap following the final durvalumab dose, patients undergo locoregional therapy per institutional standards. After a minimum 72-day gap from the end of immunotherapy, patients undergo liver transplant. Primary outcome is a binary endpoint, and it will be assessed in patients undergoing liver transplant. Historically, 10-20% of patients are expected to experience acute cellular rejection within 30 days of transplant. We propose that an observed proportion of 20% treatment failure will be a clear indicator of safety in this pilot study, whereas an observed proportion of 50% failure will be a clear indicator of failure. Using these guardrails, with at least 20 patients going to transplant, we will have 80.6% power to demonstrate a failure proportion of 20% (4 patients experiencing failure) versus a null of 50% (10 patients experiencing failure), with a one-sided alpha of 0.05. With 25 patients going to transplant, the power will increase to 86% (other parameters being the same). Correlative studies include tumor molecular profiling, peripheral blood immunophenotyping, and circulating tumor DNA for early recurrence detection. Clinical trial information: NCT05027425 .
Xu CQ, Yao F, Mohamad Y, et al. Evaluating the associations between the liver frailty index and Karnofsky performance status with waitlist mortality. Transplant Direct. 2021;7(2):e651.
TPS4188 Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive malignancy, developing most often in the setting of liver cirrhosis (Sohal et al Current Oncol Rep 2011; Gordan et al JCO 2020). For advanced disease, immunotherapy has now become standard of care – a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has shown the best overall survival outcome so far (Finn et al NEJM 2020). For earlier stage disease, however, there is no systemic therapy standard. The best treatment for HCC in the setting of cirrhosis is a liver transplant allowing potential cure for both the cancer and cirrhosis. Nonetheless, 25-35% of patients fail to reach liver transplant because of disease progression while waiting for a transplant (Sinha et al, Hepatology 2019) and approximately 15% experience HCC recurrence after transplant (Mehta et al, Transplantation 2020). Taken together, this constitutes a large subset of this patient population who cannot achieve a cure. Given the success of immunotherapy in the advanced setting, it is imperative to study this in the pre-transplant setting, to improve the outcomes cited above. However, there is a theoretical risk of graft rejection with immunostimulatory treatment. Methods: This is a single-arm, open-label, Phase II, multicenter study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of durvalumab and tremelimumab for the treatment of HCC patients who have cirrhosis or portal hypertension and are eligible for listing for a liver transplant. Eligibility requirements include adult patients with HCC within UCSF criteria, a Child-Pugh score of up to 7, and ECOG PS of 0 or 1. Treatment includes an immunotherapy combination of 1 dose of tremelimumab and 5 doses of durvalumab for up to 4 months. After a minimum 28-day gap following the final durvalumab dose, patients undergo locoregional therapy per institutional standards. After a minimum 72-day gap from the end of immunotherapy, patients undergo liver transplant. Primary outcome is a binary endpoint, and it will be assessed in patients undergoing liver transplant. Historically, 10-20% of patients are expected to experience acute cellular rejection within 30 days of transplant. We propose that an observed proportion of 20% treatment failure will be a clear indicator of safety in this pilot study, whereas an observed proportion of 50% failure will be a clear indicator of failure. Using these guardrails, with at least 20 patients going to transplant, we will have 80.6% power to demonstrate a failure proportion of 20% (4 patients experiencing failure) versus a null of 50% (10 patients experiencing failure), with a one-sided alpha of 0.05. With 25 patients going to transplant, the power will increase to 86% (other parameters being the same). Clinical trial information: NCT05027425 .
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.