4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Clinical risk factors associated with nonmelanoma skin cancer in renal transplant recipients

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 167-176

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/ajkd.2000.8290

Keywords

renal transplantation; skin cancer; kidney graft; immunosuppression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A single-center, cross-sectional, longitudinal study was conducted to determine the prevalence, annual incidence, and clinical risk factors for skin cancer in a white renal transplant population. One hundred eighty-two white patients (95% of population) with functioning allografts, a mean age at transplantation of 38.9 +/- 15.6 (SD) years, and a mean follow-up of 8.5 +/- 6.3 years were interviewed and examined between May 1997 and June 1999. All case notes were carefully reviewed. Since transplantation, 16.5% of the patients had developed nonmelanoma skin cancer; 15.4%, actinic keratoses (AK); 53%, viral warts; and 1.6%, lentigo maligna melanoma (n = 3). Thirty-nine percent of the tumors were detected as a consequence of this study and 20% of these occurred on covered body sites. The squamous cell (SCC)-basal cell carcinoma (BCC) ratio was 3.8:1, Eighty-two percent of the patients were examined a second time 12 months after the initial assessment. Using these data to identify new lesions, the annual incidence was calculated at 6.5%, increasing to 10.5% at more than 10 years posttransplantation. Duration of Immunosuppression, older age at transplantation, presence of AK, male sex, and outdoor occupation were significantly associated with both SCC and BCC; SCC alone was associated with a history of having smoked tobacco. Early identification of those at greatest risk using a clinical risk profile may allow the development of more structured preventative and surveillance strategies than currently exist. (C) 2000 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available