New scoring system identifies kidney outcome with radiation therapy in acute renal allograft rejection.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of radiation therapy for acute refractory renal rejection after failure of medical intervention, and to identify risk factors that influence graft survival following radiation therapy. METHODS: Between June 1989 and December 1995, 53 renal transplant recipients (34 men and 19 women) were treated with localized radiation therapy for acute renal allograft rejection. Graft rejection was defined as an increase in serum creatinine with histologic evidence of rejection on renal biopsy. Ninety-one percent were cadaveric transplant recipients. The majority of patients who experienced acute graft rejection initially received corticosteroid therapy, except for 25% who were referred for radiation therapy and steroids for the first rejection. In more recent years, patients with moderate or severe steroid-resistant or recurrent rejection received OKT3, a polyclonal antilymphocyte antibody (ATGAM), tacrolimus (FK506), or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Patients who failed to respond to medical treatment were then referred for radiation therapy. Ultrasound was performed for kidney localization. Treatment consisted of a dose of 600 cGy given in 3 or 4 fractions using 6 MV photons, delivered AP or AP/PA. RESULTS: The overall actuarial graft survival from the initiation of RT was 83% at 1 month, 60% at 1 year, and 36% at 5 years. The median follow-up from the date of transplant to the last follow-up was 22 months. The median time from the date of transplant to the initiation of radiotherapy was 3 months, and the median time from the initiation of radiotherapy to the last follow-up was 10 months. Variables evaluated were as follows: human leukocyte antigen matching on HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DR, the transplant panel-reactive antibodies (PRA) at transplantation, number of acute rejection episodes, interval from the date of the transplant to the first rejection, serum creatinine levels at the time of the first radiation treatment, number of transplants, and concomitant immunosuppressive therapy. Independent factors examined by Cox regression modeling were: gender (p = 0.005), creatinine levels (p = 0.000), HLA-DR (p70% (p = 0.014). Each factor was scored using integral coefficients to generate four different groups. The Kaplan-Meier survival analyzed by group produces an interpretable separation of the risk factors for graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome in patients treated with radiation therapy for acute renal graft rejection can be predicted by a novel scoring system. Patients with scores of three or less are able to achieve 100% renal graft salvage, while patients who have scores of 12 or higher are not able to be salvaged with the current radiation therapy regimen. Future studies should be directed toward identifying more effective treatment for patients who have a high score based on our criteria. The scoring system should be utilized to identify patients at risk who could benefit from radiation therapy. Further study with a randomized trial utilizing this scoring system is needed to confirm the validity of the scoring system in predicting graft survival and the efficacy of radiation in patients who receive radiation therapy for acute graft rejection.

Complications in 100 living-liver donors.

OBJECTIVE: A review of 100 living-liver donors was performed to evaluate the perisurgical complications of the procedure and thus to help quantify the risks to the donor. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Despite the advantages of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the procedure has received criticism for the risk it imposes on healthy persons. A paucity of data exists regarding the complications and relative safety of the procedure. METHODS: One hundred LDLTs performed between November 1989 and November 1996 were reviewed. Donor data were obtained by chart review, anesthesia records, and the computerized hospital data base. Patient variables were compared by Fisher's exact test and the Student's t test. RESULTS: There were 57 women and 43 men with a median age of 29. Donors were divided into two groups: group A (first 50 donors), and group B (last 50 donors). There were 91 left lateral segments and 9 left lobes. There were no deaths. Fourteen major complications occurred in 13 patients; 9 occurred in group A and 5 in group B. Biliary complications consisted of five bile duct injuries (group A = 4, group B = 1) and two cut edge bile leaks. Complications were more common in left lobe resections (55%) than in left lateral segment grafts (10%). Minor complications occurred in 20% of patients. A significant reduction in overall complications (major and minor) was observed between the groups (group A, n = 24 [45%] vs. group B, n = 10 [20%]). In addition, surgical time and hospital stay were both significantly reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Although the procedure is safe, many LDLT donors have a perisurgical complication. Surgical experience and technical modifications have resulted in a significant reduction in these complications, however. To minimize the risks for these healthy donors, LDLT should be performed at institutions with extensive experience.