Katariya, Nitin N

Abstract Biliary strictures are a complicated entity that requires careful thought and dedicated workup to define, understand, and plan the proper management pathway. From a surgical standpoint, it can be a mixed bag at the time of presentation. Even then, the information may not be fully diagnostic and often requires multiple interventions to assess the pathology and extent of the disease. In most cases, there is concern for malignancy with no effective screening tools and small surgical windows for cure. Therefore, a dedicated multidisciplinary team of surgeons, interventional radiologists, advanced endoscopists, hepatologists, and oncologists is always necessary to work together efficiently to gather information, diagnose, prevent secondary complications, and create an effective treatment plan with aligned goals of care.

ABSTRACTThis single‐center retrospective study investigated subclinical rejection prevalence and significance in simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant (SPKT) recipients. We analyzed 352 SPKT recipients from July 2003 to April 2022. Our protocol included pancreas allograft surveillance biopsies at 1, 4, and 12months post‐transplant. After excluding 153 patients unable to undergo pancreas biopsy, our study cohort comprised 199 recipients. Among the 199 patients with protocol pancreas biopsies, 107 had multiple protocol pancreas biopsies in the first year, totaling 323. Subclinical rejection was identified in 132 episodes (41%). Of these, 72% were Grade 1, 20% were indeterminate, and 8% were Banff Grade 2 or higher. All episodes of subclinical rejection were treated. Rates of pancreas graft loss (10% vs. 7%) and clinical rejection (21% vs. 20%) at 3 years were similar between those with and without subclinical rejection. Subclinical rejection Banff Grade 2 or more was associated with poor pancreas graft survival HR of 5.5 (95% CI: 1.24–24.37, p = 0.025). Of 236 simultaneous protocol kidney and pancreas biopsies, 102 (43%) showed pancreas subclinical rejection, while only 17% had concurrent kidney subclinical rejection. Our findings suggest limited predictive value of pancreatic enzymes and euglycemia in detecting pancreas rejection. Furthermore, poor concordance existed between pancreas and kidney subclinical rejection.

AbstractThe objective of this study was to compare the long‐term outcomes of Hispanic versus white recipients who underwent simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation (SPKT). This single‐center study, conducted from 2003 to 2022, had a median follow‐up of 7.5 years. The study included 91 Hispanic and 202 white SPKT recipients. The mean age (44 vs. 46 years), percentage of males (67% vs. 58%), and body mass index (BMI) (25.6 vs. 25.3 kg/m2) were similar between the Hispanic and white groups. The Hispanic group had more recipients with type 2 diabetes (38%) compared to the white group (5%, p < .001). The duration of dialysis was longer in Hispanics (640 vs. 473 days, p = .02), and fewer patients received preemptive transplants (10% vs. 29%, p < .01) compared to whites. Hospital length of stay, rates of BK Viremia, and acute rejection episodes within 1 year were similar between the groups. The estimated 5‐year kidney, pancreas, and patient survival rates were also similar between the groups, 94%, 81%, and 95% in Hispanics, compared to 90%, 79%, and 90% in whites. Increasing age and longer duration of dialysis were risk factors for death. Although Hispanic recipients had a longer duration on dialysis and fewer preemptive transplants, the survival rates were similar to those of white recipients. However, referring providers and many transplant centers continue to overlook pancreas transplants for appropriately selected patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly among minority populations. As a transplant community, it is crucial that we make efforts to comprehend and tackle these obstacles to transplantation.

Background. Surgical-site infection (SSI) is the most common early infectious complication after pancreas transplantation (PT). Although SSI has been shown to worsen outcomes, little data exist to guide optimal choices in perioperative prophylaxis. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of PT recipients from 2010–2020 to examine the effect of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis with Enterococcus coverage. Enterococcus coverage included antibiotics that would be active for penicillin-susceptible Enterococcus isolates. The primary outcome was SSI within 30 d of transplantation, and secondary outcomes were Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and a composite of pancreas allograft failure or death. Outcomes were analyzed by multivariable Cox regression. Results. Of 477 PT recipients, 217 (45.5%) received perioperative prophylaxis with Enterococcus coverage. Eighty-seven recipients (18.2%) developed an SSI after a median of 15 d from transplantation. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, perioperative Enterococcus prophylaxis was associated with reduced risk of SSI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.96; P = 0.034). Anastomotic leak was also significantly associated with elevated risk of SSI (HR 13.95; 95% CI, 8.72-22.32; P < 0.001). Overall, 90-d CDI was 7.4%, with no difference between prophylaxis groups (P = 0.680). SSI was associated with pancreas allograft failure or death, even after adjusting for clinical factors (HR 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.23; P = 0.011). Conclusions. Perioperative prophylaxis with Enterococcus coverage was associated with reduced risk of 30-d SSI but did not seem to influence risk of 90-d CDI after PT. This difference may be because of the use of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, which provide better activity against enteric organisms such as Enterococcus and anaerobes compared with cephalosporin. Risk of SSI was also related to anastomotic leak from surgery, and SSI itself was associated with subsequent risk of a poor outcome. Measures to mitigate or prevent early complications are warranted.

Background. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of older (50–65 y) type 1 diabetics with body mass index <35 kg/m2 and type 2 diabetics with body mass index <30 kg/m2 who received simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation (SPKT) versus living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs). All subjects had insulin-dependent diabetes. Methods. This is a retrospective single-center study from July 2003 to March 2021 with a median follow-up of 7.5 y. Results. There were 104 recipients in the SPKT and 80 in the LDKT group. The mean age was 56 y in SPKT and 58 y in LDKT. There were 55% male recipients in the SPKT group versus 75% in LDKT. The duration of diabetes was 32 y in SPKT versus 25 y in LDKT. The number of preemptive transplants and length of dialysis were similar. However, the wait time was shorter for LDKT (269 versus 460 d). Forty-nine percent of the LDKT recipients received the organ within 6 mo of being waitlisted compared with 28% of SPKT recipients (P = 0.001). Donor age was lower in the SPKT group (27 versus 41 y). The estimated 5-y death censored kidney survival was 92% versus 98%, and 5-y patient survival was 86% versus 89% for SPKT versus LDKT. Death censored kidney and patient survival, acute kidney rejection by 1 y, and BK viremia were similar between the 2 groups. There were 17 pancreas graft losses within 1 y of transplant, the majority related to surgical complications, and it was not associated with increased mortality. Conclusions. SPKT in selected recipients aged 50 and above can have excellent outcomes similar to LDKT recipients.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading indications for liver transplantation and has been the treatment of choice due to the oncologic benefit for patients with advanced chronic liver disease (AdvCLD) and small tumors for the last 25 years. For HCC patients undergoing liver transplantation, alpha fetoprotein (AFP) has increasingly been applied as an independent predictor for overall survival, disease free recurrence, and waitlist drop out. In addition to static AFP, newer studies evaluating the AFP dynamic response to downstaging therapy show enhanced prognostication compared to static AFP alone. While AFP has been utilized to select HCC patients for transplant, despite years of allocation policy changes, the US allocation system continues to take a uniform approach to HCC patients, without discriminating between those with favorable or unfavorable tumor biology. We aim to review the history of liver allocation for HCC in the US, the utility of AFP in liver transplantation, the implications of weaving AFP as a biomarker into policy. Based on this review, we encourage the US transplant community to revisit its HCC organ allocation model, to incorporate more precise oncologic principles for patient selection, and to adopt AFP dynamics to better stratify waitlist dropout risk.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is the most common liver malignancy and third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. For early- and intermediate-stage disease, liver-directed therapies for locoregional control, or down-staging prior to definitive surgical therapy with hepatic resection or liver transplantation, have been studied broadly, and are the mainstays of current treatment guidelines. As HCC incidence has continued to grow, and with more patients presenting with advanced disease, our current treatment modalities do not suffice, and better therapies are needed to improve disease-specific and overall survival. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy utilized, and was associated with dismal results. The advent of immuno-oncology has been of significant interest, and has changed the paradigm of therapy for HCC. Lately, combination regimens including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; durvalumab plus tremelimumab; and pembrolizumab plus Lenvatinib have shown impressive responses of between 25–35%; this is much higher than responses observed with single agents. Complete responses with checkpoint inhibitor therapy have been observed in advanced-stage HCC patients. These dramatic results have naturally led to several questions. Can or should checkpoint inhibitors, or other immunotherapy combinations, be used routinely before resection or transplant? Is there a synergistic effect of immunotherapy with locoregional therapy, and will pre-treatment increase disease-free survival after surgical intervention? Is it immunologically safe to use these therapies prior to transplantation? Much is still to be learned in terms of the dosing, timing, and overall utility of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for pre-transplant care and down-staging. More studies will be needed to understand the management of adverse events while maximizing the therapeutic window of these agents. In this review, we look at the current data on therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced HCC, with a focus on pre-transplant treatment prior to liver transplant.

Background. The risk of donor-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in solid organ (heart, lung, liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestine) transplant recipients is poorly understood. Since hematogenous transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been documented to date, nonlung solid organs might be suitable for transplantation since they likely portend a low risk of viral transmission. Methods. Abdominal solid organs from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors were transplanted into uninfected recipients. Results. Between April 18, 2021, and October 30, 2021, we performed transplants of 2 livers, 1 simultaneous liver and kidney, 1 kidney, and 1 simultaneous kidney and pancreas from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors into 5 uninfected recipients. None of the recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection or coronavirus disease 2019, and when tested, allograft biopsies showed no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Conclusions. Transplanting nonlung organs from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors into uninfected recipients demonstrated no evidence of virus transmission.