Me, Hay Me

ABSTRACT Background Post‐transplant malignancy is a major determinant of long‐term outcomes after solid organ transplantation. Whether simultaneous pancreas–kidney (SPK) transplantation confers a differential post‐transplant cancer risk compared With kidney transplantation alone (KA) remains uncertain. Methods We conducted a retrospective propensity score–matched cohort study of adult transplant recipients at three Mayo Clinic sites between 2001 and 2017. SPK recipients ( n = 484) were matched 1:1 with KA recipients using propensity scores. The primary outcome was post‐transplant cancer incidence analyzed using Fine–Gray competing risks regression with death as a competing event. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated relative to the US general population. Cox proportional hazards models with cancer modeled as a time‐varying covariate evaluated associations with mortality and death‐censored graft failure. Results Over a median follow‐up of 10 years, overall cancer incidence was similar between SPK and KA recipients (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.63–1.02; p = 0.07). The observed trend toward lower cancer incidence in SPK recipients was driven by a lower incidence of non‐melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) (sHR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53–0.97; p = 0.03), which was attenuated after age adjustment (sHR 0.76, p = 0.07). Incidence of other malignancies did not differ between groups. Compared with the US general population, cancer risk excluding NMSC was approximately twofold higher in both cohorts (SIR 2.18 for SPK vs. 2.23 for KA). Incident malignancy was strongly associated with increased mortality (HR 3.40 in KA and 2.07 in SPK) but not with a statistically significant increase in graft failure. Conclusions In this propensity score–matched cohort study, overall post‐transplant malignancy incidence was comparable between SPK and KA recipients. Both groups experienced substantially elevated cancer risk relative to the general population, and incident malignancy was strongly associated with mortality. These findings suggest that malignancy risk is driven primarily by shared immunologic and demographic factors rather than transplant type.

Kidney transplantation remains the gold standard for managing end-stage kidney disease, providing superior survival and quality-of-life outcomes compared to dialysis. Despite the ongoing gap between organ availability and demand, it is inevitable that kidney transplantation will continue to grow. This is owed to broader organ sharing, increased comfort of transplant programs with marginal kidney utilization, and the expansion of paired exchange among living donor kidneys. The evolution of kidney transplantation could not have been possible without the availability of effective immunosuppressive regimens that prevent rejection and maintain graft function. Mycophenolic acid and calcineurin inhibitors continue to serve as the foundation of modern maintenance immunosuppression. While these agents have markedly reduced acute rejection rates, their long-term efficacy in graft survival remains suboptimal. Alternative immunosuppressive therapies, including belatacept and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, have demonstrated potential benefits. However, concerns regarding an increased risk of rejection have limited their widespread adoption as primary treatment options. In addition to ongoing efforts to refine steroid- and calcineurin inhibitor-sparing strategies, the identification of practical and quantifiable biomarkers for predicting long-term graft survival remains a critical objective. This review evaluates contemporary immunosuppressive protocols, highlights existing challenges, and explores future directions for optimizing long-term transplant outcomes.

ABSTRACTBackgroundAdenovirus (ADV) infection can lead to significant morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients, particularly in those with hematopoietic stem cells or solid organ transplants. The incidence of ADV infection in kidney transplant (KT) is not well‐defined as ADV is often asymptomatic and not routinely checked.MethodsThis retrospective case‐series study included KT and simultaneous pancreas‐KT (SPKT) recipients from January 1, 2008, to January 31, 2024, across three Mayo Clinic sites (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota) with symptomatic adenovirus polymerase chain reaction cases. The primary outcomes were allograft function at various intervals post‐ADV infection, allograft, and patient survival.ResultsWe report one of the largest multi‐site case series regarding outcomes of ADV in KT with 17 patients. The median time to ADV infection was 30 weeks (5–74). Five patients (29%) developed disseminated infection. Nine patients (53%) of the entire cohort experienced graft loss within a median of 35 (4–168) weeks, with four (44%) of graft loss attributed to ADV. Nine patients (53%) developed rejections post‐ADV infection with a median of 4 (2–8) weeks after resolution. One patient died from acute hypoxic respiratory failure from ADV infection.ConclusionADV should be considered in KT/SPKT patients with renal dysfunction, hematuria, and with or without fever. Despite the low mortality rate, there is a significant risk of graft loss and rejection after ADV infection. It is crucial to screen for ADV and develop intervention strategies for treatment. Further multicenter studies are needed to better define, stage, and manage ADV infection. image

Introduction. The impact of renal allograft rejection treatment on infection development has not been formally defined in the literature. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 185 rejection (case) and 185 nonrejection (control) kidney transplant patients treated at our institution from 2014 to 2020 to understand the impact of rejection on infection development. Propensity scoring was used to match cohorts. We collected data for infections within 6 months of rejection for the cases and 18 months posttransplant for controls. Results. In 370 patients, we identified 466 infections, 297 in the controls, and 169 in the cases. Urinary tract infections (38.9%) and cytomegalovirus viremia (13.7%) were most common. Cumulative incidence of infection between the case and controls was 2.17 (CI 1.54–3.05); p<0.001. There was no difference in overall survival (HR 0.90, CI 0.49–1.66) or graft survival (HR 1.27, CI 0.74–2.20) between the groups. There was a significant difference in overall survival (HR 2.28, CI 1.14–4.55; p=0.019) and graft survival (HR 1.98, CI 1.10–3.56; p=0.023) when patients with infection were compared to those without. Conclusions. As previously understood, rejection treatment is a risk factor for subsequent infection development. Our data have defined this relationship more clearly. This study is unique, however, in that we found that infections, but not rejection, negatively impacted both overall patient survival and allograft survival, likely due to our institution’s robust post-rejection protocols. Clinicians should monitor patients closely for infections in the post-rejection period and have a low threshold to treat these infections while also restarting appropriate prophylaxis.