4.6 Article

High Incidence and Early Onset of Urinary Tract Cancers in Patients with BK Polyomavirus Associated Nephropathy

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v13030476

关键词

BK polyomavirus; urinary tract cancers; BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy; kidney transplantation

类别

资金

  1. Chung Gang Medical Research Project [CMRPG3H0601, CMRPG3K0571, CMRPG5H0011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that BKPyVAN patients have increased risk of allograft losses, higher incidence of UTC, lower cancer-free survival rate, and earlier onset of UTC compared to non-BKPyVAN patients.
Over-immunosuppressed kidney transplant recipients are susceptible to malignancies and BK polyomavirus (BKPyV)-associated nephropathy (BKPyVAN). This study aimed to verify the association between BKPyV infection and urinary tract cancers (UTC). A total of 244 kidney transplant recipients were enrolled at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital from June 2000 to February 2020. Biopsy-proven BKPyVAN patients (n = 17) had worse kidney function (eGFR: 26 +/- 13.7 vs. 47.8 +/- 31.0 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). The 5-year allograft survival rates for patients with and without BKPyVAN were 67% and 93%, respectively (p = 0.0002), while the 10-year patient survival was not different between the two groups. BKPyVAN patients had a significantly higher incidence of UTC compared to the non-BKPyVAN group (29.4% vs. 6.6%). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the UTC-free survival rate was significantly lower in BKPyVAN patients, and the onset of UTC was significantly shorter in BKPyVAN patients (53.4 vs. 108.9 months). The multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that age (RR = 1.062) and BKVAN (RR = 6.459) were the most significant risk factors for the development of UTC. Our study demonstrates that BKPyVAN patients have greater allograft losses, higher incidence, a lower cancer-free survival rate, and an earlier onset with a higher relative risk of developing UTC compared to non-BKPyVAN patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据