Jacqueline Garonzik Wang

Truncal Sarcomas and Abdominal Desmoids

This article gives a brief overview of the common histologic subtypes seen in truncal sarcomas and discusses fundamental diagnostic and treatment principles. It also provides a general review of abdominal desmoids. For both truncal sarcomas and desmoids, recurrence rates are high, and definitive recommendations regarding optimal treating are lacking. A multidisciplinary approach to these entities therefore is critical to select appropriate therapeutic strategies for individual patients.

Kidney exchange match rates in a large multicenter clearinghouse

Kidney paired donation (KPD) can facilitate living donor transplantation for candidates with an incompatible donor, but requires waiting for a match while experiencing the morbidity of dialysis. The balance between waiting for KPD vs desensitization or deceased donor transplantation relies on the ability to estimate KPD wait times. We studied donor/candidate pairs in the National Kidney Registry (NKR), a large multicenter KPD clearinghouse, between October 2011 and September 2015 using a competing‐risk framework. Among 1894 candidates, 52% were male, median age was 50 years, 66% were white, 59% had blood type O, 42% had panel reactive antibody (PRA)>80, and 50% obtained KPD through NKR. Median times to KPD ranged from 2 months for candidates with ABO‐A and PRA 0, to over a year for candidates with ABO‐O or PRA 98+. Candidates with PRA 80‐97 and 98+ were 23% (95% confidence interval , 6%‐37%) and 83% (78%‐87%) less likely to be matched than PRA 0 candidates. ABO‐O candidates were 67% (61%‐73%) less likely to be matched than ABO‐A candidates. Candidates with ABO‐B or ABO‐O donors were 31% (10%‐56%) and 118% (82%‐162%) more likely to match than those with ABO‐A donors. Providers should counsel candidates about realistic, individualized expectations for KPD, especially in the context of their alternative treatment options.

Persistent regional and racial disparities in nondirected living kidney donation

Nondirected living donors (NDLDs) are an important and growing source of kidneys to help reduce the organ shortage. In its infancy, NDLD transplantation was clustered at a few transplant centers and rarely benefited African American (AA) recipients. However, NDLDs have increased 9.4‐fold since 2000, and now are often used to initiate kidney paired donation chains. Therefore, we hypothesized that the initial geographic clustering and racial disparities may have improved. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to compare NDLDs and their recipients between 2008‐2015 and 2000‐2007. We found that NDLD increased an average of 12% per year, from 20 in 2000 to 188 in 2015 (IRR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.11‐1.13, P < .001). In 2000‐2007, 18.3% of recipients of NDLD kidneys were AA; this decreased in 2008‐2015 to 15.7%. NDLD transplants initially became more evenly distributed across centers (Gini 0.91 in 2000 to Gini 0.69 in 2011), but then became more clustered at fewer transplant centers (Gini 0.75 in 2015). Despite the increased number of NDLDs, racial disparities have worsened and the center‐level distribution of NDLD transplants has narrowed in recent years.

Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the Use of Mobile Health Technologies for Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up: Survey Study

Background In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement, <50% of transplant centers have been able to collect and report the required data. Previous work identified a number of barriers to living kidney donor follow-up, including logistical and administrative barriers for transplant centers and cost and functional barriers for donors. Novel smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies might reduce the burden of living kidney donor follow-up for centers and donors. However, the attitudes and perceptions toward the incorporation of mHealth into postdonation care among living kidney donors are unknown. Understanding donor attitudes and perceptions will be vital to the creation of a patient-oriented mHealth system to improve living donor follow-up in the United States. Objective The goal of this study was to assess living kidney donor attitudes and perceptions associated with the use of mHealth for follow-up. Methods We developed and administered a cross-sectional 14-question survey to 100 living kidney donors at our transplant center. All participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study of long-term outcomes in living kidney donors. The survey included questions on smartphone use, current health maintenance behaviors, accessibility to health information, and attitudes toward using mHealth for living kidney donor follow-up. Results Of the 100 participants surveyed, 94 owned a smartphone (35 Android, 58 iPhone, 1 Blackberry), 37 had accessed their electronic medical record on their smartphone, and 38 had tracked their exercise and physical activity on their smartphone. While 77% (72/93) of participants who owned a smartphone and had asked a medical question in the last year placed the most trust with their doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals regarding answering a health-related question, 52% (48/93) most often accessed health information elsewhere. Overall, 79% (74/94) of smartphone-owning participants perceived accessing living kidney donor information and resources on their smartphone as useful. Additionally, 80% (75/94) perceived completing some living kidney donor follow-up via mHealth as useful. There were no significant differences in median age (60 vs 59 years; P=.65), median years since donation (10 vs 12 years; P=.45), gender (36/75, 36%, vs 37/75, 37%, male; P=.57), or race (70/75, 93%, vs 18/19, 95%, white; P=.34) between those who perceived mHealth as useful for living kidney donor follow-up and those who did not, respectively. Conclusions Overall, smartphone ownership was high (94/100, 94.0%), and 79% (74/94) of surveyed smartphone-owning donors felt that it would be useful to complete their required follow-up with an mHealth tool, with no significant differences by age, sex, or race. These results suggest that patients would benefit from an mHealth tool to perform living donor follow-up.

Who can tolerate a marginal kidney? Predicting survival after deceased donor kidney transplant by donor-recipient combination

The impact of donor quality on post–kidney transplant (KT) survival may vary by candidate condition. Characterizing this variation would increase access to KT without sacrificing outcomes. We developed a tool to estimate post‐KT survival for combinations of donor quality and candidate condition. We studied deceased donor KT recipients (n = 120 818) and waitlisted candidates (n = 376 272) between 2005 and 2016 by using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Donor quality and candidate condition were measured by using the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) and the Estimated Post Transplant Survival (EPTS) score. We estimated 5‐year post‐KT survival based on combinations of KDPI and EPTS score using random forest algorithms and waitlist survival by EPTS score using Weibull regressions. Survival benefit was defined as absolute reduction in mortality risk with KT. For candidates with an EPTS score of 80, 5‐year waitlist survival was 47.6%, and 5‐year post‐KT survival was 78.9% after receiving kidneys with a KDPI of 20 and was 70.7% after receiving kidneys with a KDPI of 80. The impact of KDPI on survival benefit varied greatly by EPTS score. For candidates with low EPTS scores (eg, <40), the KDPI had limited impact on survival benefit. For candidates with middle or high EPTS scores (eg, >40), survival benefit decreased with higher KDPI but was still substantial even with a KDPI of 100 (>16 percentage points). Our prediction tool (www.transplantmodels.com/kdpi-epts) can support individualized decision‐making on kidney offers in clinical practice.

Temporal changes in the composition of a large multicenter kidney exchange clearinghouse: Do the hard-to-match accumulate?

One criticism of kidney paired donation (KPD) is that easy‐to‐match candidates leave the registry quickly, thus concentrating the pool with hard‐to‐match sensitized and blood type O candidates. We studied candidate/donor pairs who registered with the National Kidney Registry (NKR), the largest US KPD clearinghouse, from January 2012‐June 2016. There were no changes in age, gender, BMI, race, ABO blood type, or panel‐reactive antibody (PRA) of newly registering candidates over time, with consistent registration of hard‐to‐match candidates (59% type O and 38% PRA ≥97%). However, there was no accumulation of type O candidates over time, presumably due to increasing numbers of nondirected type O donors. Although there was an initial accumulation of candidates with PRA ≥97% (from 33% of the pool in 2012% to 43% in 2014, P = .03), the proportion decreased to 17% by June 2016 (P < .001). Some of this is explained by an increase in the proportion of candidates with PRA ≥97% who underwent a deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) after the implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS), from 8% of 2012 registrants to 17% of 2015 registrants (P = .02). In this large KPD clearinghouse, increasing participation of nondirected donors and the KAS have lessened the accumulation of hard‐to‐match candidates, but highly sensitized candidates remain hard‐to‐match.

Liver Transplantation and Waitlist Mortality for HCC and Non‐HCC Candidates Following the 2015 HCC Exception Policy Change

Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non‐HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6 months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013‐2017 SRTR data, we identified 39 350 adult, first‐time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non‐HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013‐October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015‐October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non‐HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6‐fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHR = 3.49 3.69 3.89) and a 2.2‐fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHR = 2.09 2.21 2.34). Compared to non‐HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHR = 0.54 0.63 0.73) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHR = 0.81 0.95 1.11). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest‐first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non‐HCC candidates.

Living donor postnephrectomy kidney function and recipient graft loss: A dose-response relationship

Development of end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) in living kidney donors is associated with increased graft loss in the recipients of their kidneys. Our goal was to investigate if this relationship was reflected at an earlier stage postdonation, possibly early enough for recipient risk prediction based on donor response to nephrectomy. Using national registry data, we studied 29 464 recipients and their donors from 2008‐2016 to determine the association between donor 6‐month postnephrectomy estimated GFR (eGFR) and recipient death‐censored graft failure (DCGF). We explored donor BMI as an effect modifier, given the association between obesity and hyperfiltration. On average, risk of DCGF increased with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02‐1.10, P = .007). The association was attenuated with higher donor BMI (interaction P = .049): recipients from donors with BMI = 20 (aHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04‐1.19, P = .002) and BMI = 25 (aHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03‐1.12, P = .001) had a higher risk of DCGF with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR, whereas recipients from donors with BMI = 30 and BMI = 35 did not have a higher risk. The relationship between postdonation eGFR, donor BMI, and recipient graft loss can inform counseling and management of living donor kidney transplant recipients.

Better graft outcomes from offspring donor kidneys among living donor kidney transplant recipients in the United States

A recent study reported that kidney transplant recipients of offspring living donors had higher graft loss and mortality. This seemed counterintuitive, given the excellent HLA matching and younger age of offspring donors; we were concerned about residual confounding and other study design issues. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2001‐2016 to evaluate death‐censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality for recipients of offspring versus nonoffspring living donor kidneys, using Cox regression models with interaction terms. Recipients of offspring kidneys had lower DCGF than recipients of nonoffspring kidneys (15‐year cumulative incidence 21.2% vs 26.1%, P < .001). This association remained after adjustment for recipient and transplant factors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.730.770.82, P < .001), and was attenuated among African American donors (aHR 0.770.850.95; interaction: P = .01) and female recipients (aHR 0.770.840.91, P < .001). Although offspring kidney recipients had higher mortality (15‐year mortality 56.4% vs 37.2%, P < .001), this largely disappeared with adjustment for recipient age alone (aHR = 1.021.061.10, P = .002) and was nonsignificant after further adjustment for other recipient characteristics (aHR = 0.930.971.01, P = .1). Kidneys from offspring donors provided lower graft failure and comparable mortality. An otherwise eligible donor should not be dismissed because they are the offspring of the recipient, and we encourage continued individualized counseling for potential donors.