To systematically review and critically appraise all treatment options for localised prostate cancer in renal transplant candidates and recipients.

A systematic review was conducted adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, the Transplant Library and Trip database for studies published up to September 2022. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions for non-randomised studies tool.

A total of 60 studies were identified describing 525 patients. The majority of studies were either retrospective non-randomised comparative or case series/reports of poor quality. The vast majority of studies were focussed on prostate cancer after renal transplantation. Overall, 410 (78%) patients underwent surgery, 93 (18%) patients underwent radiation therapy or brachytherapy, one patient underwent focal therapy (high-intensity frequency ultrasound) and 21 patients were placed on active surveillance. The mean age was 61 years old, the mean PSA level at diagnosis was 9.6 ng/mL and the mean follow-up time was 31 months. The majority of patients had low-risk disease with 261 patients having Gleason 6 prostate cancer (50%), followed by 220 Gleason 7 patients (42%). All prostate cancer mortality cases were in high-risk prostate cancer (≥Gleason 8). The cancer-specific survival results were similar between surgery and radiotherapy at 1 and 3 years.

Localised prostate cancer treatment in renal transplant patients should be risk stratified. Surgery and radiation treatment for localised prostate cancer in renal transplant patients appear equally efficacious. Given the limitations of this study, future research should concentrate on developing a multicentre RCT with long-term registry follow-up.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been shown to achieve excellent oncological outcomes with a low rate of complications in patients with prostate cancer. However, data on RARP in renal transplant recipients (RT) are dispersed. A literature search was conducted through April 2023 using PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases. The primary aim was to evaluate the safety, oncologic and clinical outcomes of RARP in RT recipients. The secondary aim was to identify surgical technique modifications required to avoid iatrogenic damage to the transplanted kidney. A total of 18 studies comprising 186 patients met the inclusion criteria. Age at the time of treatment ranged 43-79 years. Biopsy results showed a high prevalence of low- and intermediate-risk disease. Operative time ranged between 108.3 and 400 mins, while estimated blood loss ranged from 30 to 630 mL. Length of hospital stay ranged from 3 to 6 days whereas duration of catheterization was between 5 and 18 days. Perioperative complication rate was 17.1%. Overall positive surgical margin rate was 24.19%, while biochemical recurrence was observed in 10.21% (19/186 patients). Modifications to the standard surgical technique were described in 13/18 studies. Modifications in port placement were described in 7/13 studies and performed in 19/88 (21.6%) patients. Surgical technique for the development of the Retzius space was reported in 13/18 studies. Data on lymphadenectomy were reported in 15/18 studies. Bilateral lymphadenectomy was described in 3/18 studies and performed in 4/89 (4.5%) patients; contralateral lymphadenectomy was reported in 7/18 studies and performed in 41/125 (32.8%) patients. RARP in RTRs can be considered relatively safe and feasible. Oncological results yielded significantly worse outcomes in terms of PSM and BCR rate compared to the data available in the published studies, with an overall complication rate highly variable among the studies included. On the other hand, low graft damage during the procedure was observed. Main criticisms came from different tumor screening protocols and scarce information about lymphadenectomy techniques and outcomes among the included studies.

Immunosuppression (IS) therapy may contribute to cancer development. Some authors have proposed to reduce immunosuppression drugs dose in case of viral infections, in immunosuppression-related diseases, and in patients undergoing radiotherapy. The present analysis reports the results of a systematic review on kidney transplant recipients undergoing immunosuppression and radiotherapy.

To define if it is necessary reduce immunosuppression drugs during radiotherapy.

The literature search was based on three electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science) using selected keywords linked through the "AND" and "OR" Boolean operators to build specific strings for each electronic search engine. Two researchers independently screened the citations, and disagreement was resolved by discussion or through the intervention of a third author. The review was conducted and reported according to the PRISMA statement. Extracted data were narratively synthesized, and, where possible, frequencies, percentages, and ranges were calculated.

The literature search resulted in 147 citations. After abstracts screening, 21 records were selected for full-text evaluation. Fifteen of these were excluded, leaving six papers considered suitable for analysis. There is still no clear evidence that withdrawing antimetabolites and/or calcineurin inhibitors and/or mammalian target of rapamycin-inhibitors, as opposed to continuing maintenance IS, improves patient survival in kidney transplant recipients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Only few retrospective studies on small cancer patient cohorts are available in this setting, but without comparison of different immunosuppression treatments. Even where immunosuppression therapy was described, patient survival seemed to be correlated only with cancer stage and type.

The results of this systematic review do not support the reduction of immunosuppression dose in patients undergoing radiotherapy.

Cancer is the second most common cause of mortality and morbidity in Kidney Transplant Recipients (KTRs). Immunosuppression can influence the efficacy of cancer treatment and modification of the immunosuppressive regimen may restore anti-neoplastic immune responses improving oncologic prognosis. However, patients and transplant physicians are usually reluctant to modify immunosuppression, fearing rejection and potential graft loss. Due to the lack of extensive and recognised data supporting how to manage the immunosuppressive therapy in KTRs, in the context of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and loco-regional treatments, a Consensus Conference was organised under the auspices of the European Society of Organ Transplantation and the Italian Society of Organ Transplantation. The conference involved a multidisciplinary group of transplant experts in the field across Europe.

The overall process included a) the formulation of 12 specific questions based on the PICO methodology, b) systematic literature review and summary for experts for each question, c) a two-day conference celebration and the collection of experts' agreements. The conference was articulated in three sessions: "Immunosuppressive therapy and immunotherapy", "Systemic therapy", "Integrated Therapy", while the final experts' agreement was collected with a televoting procedure and defined according to the majority criterion.

Twenty-six European experts attended the conference and expressed their vote. A total of 14 statements were finally elaborated and voted. Strong agreement was found for ten statements, moderate agreement for two, moderate disagreement for one and uncertainty for the last one.

The consensus statements provide guidance to transplant physicians caring for kidney transplant recipients with cancer and indicate key aspects that need to be addressed by future clinical research.

For patients diagnosed with cancer who have previously received an organ transplant, radiotherapy represents a challenging clinical scenario without well established care algorithms. Immunosuppressive therapy can be a cause for concern among clinicians treating this category of patients. Potential immune modulation following irradiation could affect recipient organ tolerance and the outcomes of the transplantation itself. The main aim of this systematic review was to define the safety and effectiveness of radiotherapy in patients diagnosed with cancer who have previously received an organ transplant. We searched PubMed and Embase for articles published between Jan 1, 1995, and April 30, 2020 for studies in patients who had undergone radiotherapy for post-transplantation malignancies. The Review is framed by the PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) criteria, and primarily focuses on modern treatment techniques.

To define guidelines for the management of localized prostate cancer (PCa) in kidney transplant (KTx) candidates and recipients.

A systematic review (Medline) of the literature was conducted by the CTAFU to report prostate cancer epidemiology, screening, diagnosis and management in KTx candidates and recipients with the corresponding level of evidence.

KTx recipients are at similar risk for PCa as general population. Thus, PCa screening in this setting is defined according to global French guidelines from CCAFU. Systematic screening is proposed in candidates for renal transplant over 50 y-o. PCa diagnosis is based on prostate biopsies performed after multiparametric MRI and preventive antibiotics. CCAFU guidelines remain applicable for PCa treatment in KTx recipients with some specificities, especially regarding lymph nodes management. Treatment options in candidates for KTx need to integrate waiting time and access to transplantation. Current data allows the CTAFU to propose mandatory waiting times after PCa treatment in KTx candidates with a weak level of evidence.

These French recommendations should contribute to improve PCa management in KTx recipients and candidates, integrating oncological objectives with access to transplantation.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common neoplasia in men. With aging of solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR), its incidence is likely to increase. The aim of this study was to analyze PC screening results retrospectively in renal transplant recipients (RTR), hepatic transplant recipients (HTR) and cardiac transplant recipients (CTR).

A retrospective monocentric study of PC diagnosed in renal, hepatic or cardiac transplanted patients since 1989 was performed. All the patients were followed annually by digital rectal examination and prostate serum antigen (PSA) dosage.

57 PC were diagnosed in 1565 SOTR male patients (3.6%): 35 RTR, 15 HTR, and 7 CTR. Standard incidence ratio (SIR) was 41.9. Mean age at the time of diagnosis was 64.5 (60.5-69.2). Mean time between transplantation and PC diagnosis was 95.7 (39.0-139.5) months. Median PSA rate was 7.0 (6.2-13) ng/mL. Clinical stages were T1, T2, and T3, respectively, for 29, 22 and 6 patients. Diagnosis was done by screening in 52 patients, after prostatitis in 1 and bone pain in another. Three PC were discovered on prostate chips after transurethral resection. Two patients were treated by active surveillance. 39 (68%) patients (25 RTR, 11 HTR and 3 CTR) were treated by radical prostatectomy. Histological results were 30 pT2 and 9 pT3 tumors, with 7 positive surgical margins. Gleason score was 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in, respectively, in 2, 24, 11, 1 and 1 patients. One patient with positive pelvic nodes was treated with hormonal therapy (HT). One had a biochemical relapse at 10 months and underwent salvage radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 85.2 months (46.1-115.0). 23 (40.4%) patients died. Two (3.6%) RTR and 1 (1.8%) CTR died from their PC. Standard incidence ratio were, respectively, 42.4, 48.2 and 39 in RTR, HTR and CTR.

Systematic screening in male SOTR after 50 years old could not be recommended. In the last 3 decades, we diagnosed too many low-risk prostate cancers strongly increasing the SIR but failing to decrease prostate cancer related mortality. SOTR should undergo individual screening with prior MRI when PSA rates are high. Management should not be different from that of the general population.

Describe characteristics and outcomes of three patients treated with pelvic radiation therapy after kidney transplant.

The incidence of pelvic cancers in kidney transplant (KT) recipients is rising. Currently it is the leading cause of death. Moreover, treatment is challenging because anatomical variants, comorbidities, and associated treatments, which raises the concern of using radiotherapy (RT). RT has been discouraged due to the increased risk of urethral/ureteral stricture and KT dysfunction.

We reviewed the electronic health records and digital planning system of patients treated with pelvic RT between December 2013 and December 2018 to identify patients with previous KT.

We describe three successful cases of KT patients in which modern techniques allowed full standard RT for pelvic malignances (2 prostate and 1 vaginal cancer) with or without elective pelvic nodal RT, without allograft toxicity at short and long follow-up (up to 60 months).

When needed, RT modern techniques remain a valid option with excellent oncologic results and acceptable toxicity. Physicians should give special considerations to accomplish all OAR dose constraints in the patient's specific setting. Recent publications recommend KT mean dose <4 Gy, but graft proximity to CTV makes this unfeasible. We present 2 cases where dose constraint was not achieved, and to a short follow-up of 20 months renal toxicity has not been documented. We recommend the lowest possible mean dose to the KT, but never compromising the CTV coverage, since morbimortality from recurrent or progressive cancer disease outweighs the risk of graft injury.

Evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficiency of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in kidney transplant recipients, performed in high-volume French referral centres, and describe intra- and postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes.

A multicentre study was conducted on prospective RARP databases from 5 centres between 2008 and 2017. We retrospectively identified a first group (G1) of transplant patients. The following data were collected: age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, ISUP score, TNM stage, stratification according to d'Amico, renal function, renal disease, time between renal transplant and prostate cancer (PCa), operating time, bleeding, pre- and postoperative complications (according to Clavien). Group 1 data were matched with a second group (G2) of nontransplanted PTRA patients.

A total of 321 patients were included (G1 N = 39 and G2 N = 282). The median operating time was 180 minutes (interquartile range 125-227) for G1 and 150 minutes (120-180) in G2 (P = 0.0623) and the median bleeding volume was 150 mL (150-400) and 250 mL (175-400), respectively (P = 0.1826). No grafts were damaged by RARP. Postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in G1: 51.2% vs. G2: 8.2% with a majority of minor complications (41%) according to Clavien Dindo (P < 0.001). Pathological assessment was as follows in G1: T2 = 28 (71.8%), T3 = 11 (28.2%), and G2: T2 = 206 (73.3%), T3 = 75 (26.7%) (P = 0.77). Postoperative ISUP scores were mainly grade 1: G1 = 14 (35.9%) vs. 99 (35.2%) in G2 and grade 2: respectively 18 (46.1%) 94 (33.5%). The rate of positive surgical margins was comparable in both groups: 13.2% for transplant patients vs. 18.1% (P = 0.65). Renal function was not significantly different at one year (P = 0.07). The median follow-up was 47.9 months (42.3; 52.5).

RARP is conceivable to treat localized prostate cancer in kidney transplant recipients. This procedure does not appear to have any negative impact on graft renal function and cancer prognosis.

Incidence of malignant tumors in kidney transplant recipients is higher than nontransplanted population due to many factors, such as immunosuppression therapy and complex donor-recipient interaction. Genitourinary malignancies have been reported as the second most common malignancy in kidney transplant recipients. In this regard, prostate cancer is the most common neoplasm. Herein, we describe a rare case of prostate cancer recurrence after 15 years in a patient who underwent kidney transplant after radical prostatectomy.

To evaluate the safety and outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) based on available literature.

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science through "robot" AND "prostatectomy" AND "transplant." Three authors separately reviewed the records to select the relevant articles with any discrepancies solved by open discussion. Patient age, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and tumor stage were recorded as well as intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of stay, surgical margin status, and disease recurrence, if provided. The operative techniques and modification/adjustments to standard port placements were also reviewed. We also include our case report in this review.

We retrieved 10 articles reporting clinical data on RARP for kidney transplant patients, including 5 case series (level 4) and 5 case reports (level 4). A total of 35 kidney transplant recipients undergoing RARP were analyzed in this systematic review, one case in our institution included. None of the cases had major technical difficulties precluding the operation. Technical modifications to the standard technique were described in 10 of the 11 articles specifically including modifications to port placement (54% of patients), development of the space of Retzius (60% of patients), and performance of lymphadenectomy. Mean operative time was 220 minutes. Perioperative complication rate was 17.1% (6 of 35 patients), with only one Clavien III or greater complication. The rate of positive surgical margins was found to be 31.4%. Data on biochemical recurrence revealed a combined rate of 18.1%.

RARP is technically feasible for treating localized prostate cancer in RTRs. Graft function did not deteriorate in any patient. Modifications to the standard technique should be considered specifically for port placement, development of the space of Retzius, and performance of lymphadenectomy. Oncologic outcomes remain difficult to interpret given the small number of reported cases.

The management of Prostate cancer (PCa) in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is challenging and remain controversial. Currently there is no consensus about this condition. The aim of the study was to analyse our experience in the diagnosis and management of PCa in RTR.

Retrospective monocentric study of a prospective and consecutive database from 2003-2017. Inclusion of RTR diagnosed of PCa. Staging and treatment in agreement with the contemporary guidelines. The main outcome measures included clinical staging, type of treatment, oncological outcomes and follow-up.

1,330 renal transplants were performed (787 males), diagnosed of PCa in 33 RTR (4.2%), mean age 66years±6.3 (51-78). Median PSA was 8.8ng/ml and PSA ratio 0.19. Mean time between renal transplantation and PCa diagnosis 130months±90 (2-236).

Radical prostatectomy (RP) (n=22; 66.7%), Radiation therapy (RT) with Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (n=7; 21.2%), Active surveillance (n=3; 9.1%), ADT (n=1; 3%). No graft loss neither impaired renal function due to PCa treatment was reported. After RP two patients (9.1%) presented biochemical recurrence treated with RT. Remission of the 100%. Mean follow-up was 61months±37 (6-132).

PCa in renal transplant patients can be managed with the same therapeutic options as in the general population. Active surveillance should also be provided in RTR despite being under immunosuppressive therapy.

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of surgical prostatectomy in renal transplant recipients (RTRs).

Between January 2008 and February 2017, we identified 13 RTRs who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and underwent radical prostatectomy. We reviewed all available clinicopathologic data for these 13 patients.

The median patient age was 61 years and median serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 8.79 ng/mL. The mean period between transplantation and diagnosis of prostate cancer was 136 months. The sources for the kidney transplants included 10 living and 3 deceased donors. Biopsies indicated that the Gleason scores were 7 in 10 patients and 8 to 10 in 3 patients. Meanwhile, the D'Amico risk classification indicated an intermediate risk in 9 patients and a high risk in 4 patients. Eight patients were at stage cT1 and 5 were at stage cT2. The surgical procedure was retropubic radical prostatectomy in one recipient, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 3 recipients, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in 9 RTRs. Intraoperative complications were not noted in any patient, although one patient demonstrated postoperative complications (Clavien grade ≥ 3). An indwelling urinary catheter was required in 3 patients for over 3 weeks due to delayed wound healing. Biochemical recurrence evaluated by PSA monitoring occurred in four patients. Postoperative graft function was stable in all but one patient who required resumption of dialysis before prostatectomy; however, all patients are alive at the time of publication with 12 patients showing well-functioning renal allografts.

Prostatectomy may be a feasible and effective technique as an initial treatment for RTRs with localized prostate cancer.

To perform a state of the art about autosomal dominant polykystic kidney disease (ADPKD), management of its urological complications and end stage renal disease treatment modalities.

An exhaustive systematic review of the scientific literature was performed in the Medline database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and Embase (http://www.embase.com) using different associations of the following keywords (MESH): "autosomal dominant polykystic kidney disease", "complications", "native nephrectomy", "kidney transplantation". Publications obtained were selected based on methodology, language, date of publication (last 10 years) and relevance. Prospective and retrospective studies, in English or French, review articles; meta-analysis and guidelines were selected and analyzed. This search found 3779 articles. After reading titles and abstracts, 52 were included in the text, based on their relevance.

ADPKD is the most inherited renal disease, leading to end stage renal disease requiring dialysis or renal transplantation in about 50% of the patients. Many urological complications (gross hematuria, cysts infection, renal pain, lithiasis) of ADPKD required urological management. The pretransplant evaluation will ask the challenging question of native nephrectomy only in case of recurrent kidney complications or large kidney not allowing graft implantation. The optimum timing for native nephrectomy will depend on many factors (dialysis or preemptive transplantation, complication severity, anuria, easy access to transplantation, potential living donor).

Pretransplant management of ADPKD is challenging. A conservative strategy should be promoted to avoid anuria (and its metabolic complications) and to preserve a functioning low urinary tract and quality of life. When native nephrectomy should be performed, surgery remains the gold standard but renal arterial embolization may be a safe option due to its low morbidity.

Haematuria has a prevalence of 12% in the postrenal transplant patient population. It heralds potentially dangerous causes which could threaten graft loss. It is important to consider causes in light of the unique, urological, and immunological standpoints of these patients. We review the literature on common causes of haematuria in postrenal transplant patients and suggest the salient approach to the evaluation of this condition. A major cause of haematuria is urinary tract infections. There should be a higher index of suspicion for mycobacterial, fungal, and viral infection in this group of immunosuppressed patients. Measures recommended in the prevention of urinary tract infections include early removal of foreign bodies as well as prophylactic antibiotics during the early transplant phase. Another common cause of haematuria is that of malignancies, in particular, renal cell carcinomas. When surgically managing cancer in the setting of a renal transplant, one has to be mindful of the limited retropubic space and the need to protect the anastomoses. Other causes include graft rejections, recurrences of primary disease, and calculus formation. It is important to perform a comprehensive evaluation with the aid of an experienced multidisciplinary transplant team.

Allogeneic renal transplantation is the best treatment for many patients with chronic renal failure and end-stage kidney disease. Especially the health-related quality of life markedly improves after renal transplantation and the side effects of dialysis treatment as well as the progression of organ and tissue deterioration related to renal failure which are not treated effectively by dialysis are greatly reduced. To achieve good results of renal transplantation, however, the best possible preoperative as well as perioperative and postoperative conditions have to be established and patients on waiting lists need to be well prepared. Interdisciplinary patient care is needed before and after renal transplantation in order to achieve durable and long-term success of renal transplantation.