Journal of Clinical and Experimental Transplantation
Open Access

Kidney transplantation; Small renal mass; Renal cancer; Treatment kidney

Introduction

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the best swap treatment for end-stage renal sickness (ESRD) and showed strong benefits over haemodialysis as far as endurance and horribleness [1]. The main drawback of this strategy right now is the disparity between the number of people on a transplant list and the number of organs available. Nowadays, in order to circumvent this limitation, the majority of grafts come from deceased donors who are typically over 60 years old and die most frequently from a cerebrovascular event. When a living donor’s graft is available, it is only used in a few cases. The use of donated kidneys from older patients in conjunction with ongoing immunosuppressive therapy raises the risk of graft tumors [2], which are typically identified as asymptomatic incidental small renal tumors in the majority of cases. In addition, another significant factor in the transplantation decisionmaking process is the coincidental discovery of a small renal mass (SRM) in a candidate patient. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the current impact of incidentally diagnosed de novo SRMs and their clinical management in donors and recipients [3].

Kidney transplant recipients with a history of pretransplant SRMid

Patients with ESRD and a cancer diagnosis prior to kidney transplantation (KT) are considered a challenging group because of the increased risk of posttransplant malignancies, graft loss, and decreased OS [4]. There is no reason to avoid KT if you have cancer in the past. However, due to the fact that the risk of recurrence is considered to be the highest within the first five years after transplantation, the majority of centers recommend an arbitrary waiting period ranging from no waiting period to five years, depending on the stage at diagnosis. Patients with cT1 RCC need not wait between tumor treatment and KT, according to the Canadian Society of Transplantation’s guidelines [5]. On the other hand, patients who have a history of symptomatic RCC should wait at least two years and patients with locally advanced disease should wait at least five years before KT.

Malignancies that occur after a transplant typically occur in the same area as previous cancers, suggesting that they may be recurrences [6]. The recurrence rate of kidney cancer is the highest of all cancers in kidney transplant recipients. A 4.7% occult RCC rate was found in a retrospective study of 258 kidney transplant recipients who had native nephrectomy at the time of transplantation. At a median follow-up of 56 months, a higher rate of RCC was found in the remaining native kidney, despite the fact that the incidence of acute graft rejection was the same in both groups (with or without occult RCC) [7]. Recent studies demonstrated that cancer history does not increase the CSS of transplant recipients who develop cancer [8]. In addition, patients with cancer recurrence following transplantation and patients with new cancers were found to have comparable CSS and OS [9].

Discussion

Kidney transplant recipients are more likely to develop cancer as a result of immunosuppression after the transplant. Cancer is the third leading cause of death in these patients, with calcineurin inhibitors being regarded as the most carcinogenic. Anew renal cancers, both of the allograft, or the local kidney [10], are analyzed in around 4.6% of kidney relocate beneficiaries, with the last option being the most successive site. However, it has been reported that the majority of tumors diagnosed are of a low grade and early stage, and there is no significant difference in the mortality rate between KT patients with and without RCC. On the other hand, patients with RCC appear to have a lower graft survival rate, most likely as a result of the immunosuppressive regimen being scaled back.

In the context of acquired cystic disease or previous long-term dialysis, SRMs in transplant recipients’ native kidneys are more frequently diagnosed. Ultrasonography should be used to check in on high-risk patients on a regular basis. The standard treatment, radical nephrectomy, has a favourable postoperative prognosis.

Conclusion

The need to expand the organ pool for KT is highlighted by the rising demand for kidney grafts for ESRD patients. After tumor excision at the bench in both living and deceased donors, the use of graft in conjunction with SRM may be regarded as a secure option. NSS is the recommended treatment for preserving renal function in the event that a SRM is found in the graft following KT on periodic US-evaluation. Patients who are elderly or weak may benefit from adjunctive treatments. In the event of SMR finding in the local kidneys after KT, extremist nephrectomy is suggested. Finally, despite the presence of SRM in either the native kidney or the graft, immunosuppressive therapy can be administered safely.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

1. Kohler H, Pashov AD, Kieber-Emmons T (2019) Commentary: Immunology's Coming of Age. Front Immunol 10: 21-75.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Germain RN (2004) An innately interesting decade of research in immunology. Nat Med 10(12): 1307-1320.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Manna PR, Gray ZC, Reddy PH (2022) Healthy Immunity on Preventive Medicine for Combating COVID-19. Nutrients 14(5): 100-104.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Koehne G, Giralt S (2012) Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: curative but not the standard of care. Curr Opin Oncol 24(6): 720-726.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Leone P, Solimando AG, Malerba E, Fasano R, Buonavoglia A, et al. (2020) Actors on the Scene: Immune Cells in the Myeloma Niche. Front Oncol 10: 597-598.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Kageyama T, Yoshimura C, Myasnikova D, Kataoka K, Nittami T, et al. (2018) Spontaneous hair follicle germ (HFG) formation in vitro, enabling the large-scale production of HFGs for regenerative medicine. Biomaterials 154: 291-300.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Stenn KS, Cotsarelis G (2005) Bioengineering the hair follicle: fringe benefits of stem cell technology. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16(5): 493-497.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Abreu CM, Marques AP (2021) Recreation of a hair follicle regenerative microenvironment: Successes and pitfalls. Bioeng Transl Med 7(1): 102-135.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Negrini NC, Volponi AA, Higgins CA, Sharpe PT, Celiz AD (2021) Scaffold-based developmental tissue engineering strategies for ectodermal organ regeneration. Mater Today Bio 10: 100-107.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Jang S, Ohn J, Kang BM, Park M, Kim KH, et al. (2020) "Two-Cell Assemblage" Assay: A Simple in vitro Method for Screening Hair Growth-Promoting Compounds. Front Cell Dev Biol 8: 581-589.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref