Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at increased risk of developing and dying from cancer. However, controversies exist around cancer screening in this population owing to reduced life expectancy and competing causes of death. This systematic review assesses the availability, quality and consistency of cancer screening recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We systematically searched bibliographic databases and gray literature to identify CPGs and assessed their quality using AGREE II. Recommendations were extracted along with their supporting evidence. Thirteen guidelines were included in the review. CPGs for kidney recipients were the most frequent source of screening recommendations, and recommendations for skin cancer screening were most frequently presented. Some screening recommendations differed from those for the general population, based on literature demonstrating higher cancer incidence among SOTRs versus direct evidence of screening effectiveness. Relevant stakeholders such as oncology specialists, primary care providers and public health experts were not involved in the formulation of the screening recommendations. In conclusion, although several guidelines make recommendations for cancer screening in SOTRs, the availability of cancer screening recommendations varied considerably by transplanted organ. More studies are required to inform cancer screening recommendations in SOTRs, and guideline development should involve transplant patients, oncologists and cancer screening specialists. IntroductionMalignancy is a leading cause of death among solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) (1-3). Transplant recipients are known to be at a higher risk of developing and dying of cancer compared to the general population (4-7), and malignancies that develop in SOTRs are challenging to treat and have worse prognosis (8-11). Although early cancer diagnosis may improve cancer outcomes in this population, the reduced life expectancy and multiple comorbidities that exist in SOTRs make cancer screening controversial (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18). No randomized controlled screening trials have been performed in SOTRs, and the performance of screening tests in this population is largely unknown (12).Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide valuable tools for evidence-based medicine by reviewing current research and creating recommendations based on 19). Given the limited available evidence for cancer screening in SOTRs, most recommendations generally parallel the guidelines available for the general population. A number of CPGs for long-term care of SOTRs issued by transplant organizations include various cancer screening recommendations; however, the quality of these guidelines, consistency of the recommendations and supporting evidence are unknown. The purposes of this systematic review were to identify and assess the quality and consistency of cancer screening recommendations in CPGs for long-term care of SOTRs and to summarize evidence supporting these recommendations. 103© Copyright...

In kidney transplant recipients, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death. The relationship of kidney function with CVD outcomes in transplant recipients remains uncertain. We performed a post-hoc analysis of the Folic Acid for Vascular Outcome Reduction in Transplantation (FAVORIT) Trial to assess risk factors for CVD and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Following adjustment for demographic, clinical and transplant characteristics, and traditional CVD risk factors, proportional hazards models were used to explore the association of estimated GFR with incident CVD and all-cause mortality. In 4016 participants, mean age was 52 years and 20% had prior CVD. Mean eGFR was 49±18 mL/min/1.73m2. In 3,676 participants with complete data, there were 527 CVD events over a median of 3.8 years. Following adjustment, each 5 mL/min/1.73m2 higher eGFR at levels below 45 mL/min/1.73m2 was associated with a 15% lower risk of both CVD [HR = 0.85 (0.80, 0.90)] and death [HR = 0.85 (0.79, 0.90)], while there was no association between eGFR and outcomes at levels above 45 mL/min/1.73m2. In conclusion, in stable kidney transplant recipients, lower eGFR is independently associated with adverse events, suggesting that reduced kidney function itself rather than pre-existing comorbidity may lead to CVD.

Competing events (or risks) preclude the observation of an event of interest or alter the probability of the event's occurrence and are commonly encountered in transplant outcomes research. Transplantation, for example, is a competing event for death on the waiting list because receiving a transplant may significantly decrease the risk of long-term mortality. In a typical analysis of time-to-event data, competing events may be censored or incorporated into composite end points; however, the presence of competing events violates the assumption of "independent censoring," which is the basis of standard survival analysis techniques. The use of composite end points disregards the possibility that competing events may be related to the exposure in a way that is different from the other components of the composite. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, this paper reviews the principles of competing risks analysis; outlines approaches for analyzing data with competing events (causespecific and subdistribution hazards models); compares the estimates obtained from standard survival analysis, which handle competing events as censoring events; discusses the appropriate settings in which each of the two approaches could be used; and contrasts their interpretation.

No abstract

The outcomes of kidney transplants that simultaneously exhibit donation after cardiac death (DCD) and expanded criteria donor (ECD) characteristics have not been well studied. We examined the outcomes of DCD versus non-DCD kidney transplants as a function of ECD status and the kidney donor risk index (KDRI interaction = 0.14).Moreover, the hazard ratios did not significantly vary by KDRI quintiles (p = 0.40). Similar trends were seen for death-censored graft failure and death with graft function. In conclusion, ECD status or higher KDRI score did not appreciably increase the relative hazard of adverse graft and patient outcomes in DCD KTR. These findings suggest that the judicious use of ECD/DCD donor kidneys may be an appropriate strategy to expand the donor pool.

The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and its impact on chronic kidney disease (CKD) following pediatric nonkidney solid organ transplantation is unknown. We aimed to determine the incidence of AKI and CKD and examine their relationship among children who received a heart, lung, liver, or multiorgan transplant at the Hospital for Sick Children between 2002 and 2011. AKI was assessed in the first year posttransplant. Among 303 children, perioperative AKI (within the first week) occurred in 67% of children, and AKI after the first week occurred in 36%, with the highest incidence among lung and multiorgan recipients. Twenty-three children (8%) developed CKD after a median follow-up of 3.4 years. Less than 5 children developed end-stage renal disease, all within 65 days posttransplant. Those with 1 AKI episode by 3 months posttransplant had significantly greater risk for developing CKD after adjusting for age, sex, and estimated glomerular filtration rate at transplant (hazard ratio: 2.77, 95% confidence interval, 1.13-6.80, P trend = .008). AKI is common in the first year posttransplant and associated with significantly greater risk of developing CKD. Close monitoring for kidney disease may allow for earlier implementation of kidney-sparing strategies to decrease risk for progression to CKD.

Population-based cancer screening recommendations are also suggested for solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR); however, recommendation adherence is unknown. In a population-based cohort of SOTR in Ontario between 1997 and 2010, we determined the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening tests and identified factors associated with up-to-date screening using recurrent event analysis. We identified 4436 SOTR eligible for colorectal, 2252 for cervical, and 1551 for breast cancer screening. Of those, 3437 (77.5%), 1572 (69.8%), and 1417 (91.4%), respectively, were not up-to-date for cancer screening tests during the observation period. However, these rates are likely an overestimate due to the inability to differentiate between tests done for screening or for diagnosis. SOTR with fewer comorbidities had higher rates of becoming screen up-to-date. Assessment by a primary care provider (PCP) was associated with becoming up-to-date with cancer screening (breast relative risk [RR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.76, cervical RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.06-1.57, colorectal RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.15-1.48). Similar results were observed for continuity of care by transplant specialist at a transplant center. In conclusion, cancer screening for most SOTR does not adhere to standard recommendations. Involvement of PCPs in posttransplant care and continuity of care at a transplant center may improve the uptake of screening.

In the United States, kidney transplant rates vary significantly across end-stage renal disease (ESRD) networks. We conducted a population-based cohort study to determine whether there was variability in kidney transplant rates across renal programs in a health care system distinct from the United States. We included incident chronic dialysis patients in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2013 and determined the 1-, 5-, and 10-year cumulative incidence of kidney transplantation in 27 regional renal programs (similar to U.S. ESRD networks). We also assessed the cumulative incidence of kidney transplant for "healthy" dialysis patients (aged 18-50 years without diabetes, coronary disease, or malignancy). We calculated standardized transplant ratios (STRs) using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for patient characteristics (maximum possible follow-up of 11 years). Among 23 022 chronic dialysis patients, the 10-year cumulative incidence of kidney transplantation ranged from 7.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8-10.7%) to 31.4% (95% CI 16.5-47.5%) across renal programs. Similar variability was observed in our healthy cohort. STRs ranged from 0.3 (95% CI 0.2-0.5) to 1.5 (95% CI 1.4-1.7) across renal programs. There was significant variation in kidney transplant rates across Ontario renal programs despite patients having access to the same publicly funded health care system.