4.7 Article

The janus face of immunosuppression - de novo malignancy after renal transplantation: the experience of the Transplantation Center Munich

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 71, 期 12, 页码 1271-1278

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002154

关键词

de novo malignancies; kidney recipients; chronic immunosuppression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After decades of successful organ transplantation clinicians continue to be troubled by the increasing incidence of cancers under maintenance immunosuppression. In this study, we examined rates of malignancies in 2419 renal transplant recipients transplanted in our institution between 1978 and 2005. In renal transplant recipients the cumulative incidence of cancer after 25 years was 49.3% for all tumors and 39.7% excluding non-melanoma skin cancers, compared with 21% for a normal sex- and age-matched population. The most frequent tumors observed were non-melanoma skin cancers (20.5%), kidney cancers (12.0%), and cancers of the pharynx, larynx, or oral cavity (8.2%). The general increase of cancer risk was 4.3-fold. Independent risk factors for the development of a tumor were male gender, older recipient age, the presence of preformed antibodies before transplantation, and the time on immunosuppression. Interestingly, the use of IL-2-receptor antagonists significantly reduced the tumor risk of transplant recipients. The tumor risk between immunosuppressive drugs typically used for maintenance immunosuppression was not significantly different. However, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor-based immunosuppressive protocols showed a clear tendency for lower malignancy rates. De novo malignancies following renal transplantation represent a serious problem endangering the prognosis of otherwise successfully transplanted patients. Future studies will have to address whether optimized immunosuppressive regimens including mTOR-inhibitors are capable of reducing the incidence or preventing the development of posttransplant malignancies.

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

4.7
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