Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Prevention of transmission of malignancy from donors to recipients is an aim of donor assessment. We report the most stringent interpretation of the Italian National Guidelines. METHODS: A two-step ALERT process was used: ALERT1 consisting of clinical, radiological, and laboratory tests; ALERT2, consisting of intraoperative assessment in suspicious lesions. RESULTS: Four hundred of 506 potential deceased donors entered the ALERT system. Forty-one of 400 (10%) donors were excluded due to unacceptable risk of transmission. Of the remaining 359 193 required histopathology, which excluded malignancy or determined acceptable risk in 161/193 (83%). Thirty-five malignancies were identified: 19 (54%) at ALERT1, four (11%) at ALERT2, nine (26%) picked up at ALERT1 and confirmed by ALERT2. Three (9%) were missed by ALERT and diagnosed at postmortem examination. Prostate (n=12%, 34%) and renal cell (n=7%, 20%) were the most frequent carcinomas. The majority (92%) of prostate adenocarcinomas were of low risk and donation proceeded compared to 43% of renal carcinomas. Four renal carcinomas, two breast carcinomas, and a single case of nine different malignancies excluded donation. Positive ALERT donors had statistically more malignant reports than negative ALERT donors (P=<.05). CONCLUSION: Histopathology is an essential component of the multidisciplinary assessment of donors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eccher et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: