Subject Review: Malignancy Transmission

Status: 
Ready to upload
Record number: 
1561
Adverse Occurrence type: 
Estimated frequency: 
N/A: LIterature review
Time to detection: 
N/A: Literature review
Alerting signals, symptoms, evidence of occurrence: 
N/A: Literature review
Demonstration of imputability or root cause: 
N/A: Literature review
Imputability grade: 
Not Assessable
Groups audience: 
Suggest new keywords: 
Malignancy
Review
melanoma
lung carcinoma
small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma
leukemia, promyelocytic (new)
choriocarcinoma
lymphoma
breast cancer
colon adenocarcinoma (new)
astrocytoma
medulloblastoma
GBM (glioblastoma multiforme)
Subject review
Malignancy
Suggest references: 
AAA
Note: 
What malignancy types? Should we list the different malignancy types as key words or mention them as free text in the present record? Should we link the reference with existing records of the specific malignancy types and delete the present record? - PLEASE INDICATE HOW TO PROCEED (EP) I added the transmitted malignancies that were mentioned in the paper. Mike N I believe we are assembling a library, which implies that people use this as a guide to the literature. A subject review, entitled as such, is a valid entry. By definition it will derive from the individual case reports, but those can be listed separately as well. We can discuss this further at our meeting. Mike N 5/20/18: After thinking about this some more, the idea of cloned reports is a) an unnecessary amount of work, especially on a volunteer basis and b) likely to result in a large number of rpeorts, especially in a paper like this that discusses multiple tumor types and allograft types. I think moving to keywords is the best approach for now. Perhaps a separate "multiple" tumor type would be useful to have in the dropdown box, the only alternative is to make an arbitrary choice, even though this is suboptimal. I would still clone records for specific transmission reports that have several allograft types, however. 5/22/18: Agree to Mike´s suggestions. Second review done. Ready toupload from my side.
Expert comments for publication: 
Review of malignancy transmission reports as of 2005 with no new case reports. Divided into donor-derived cancer and discussion of donors with history of CNS or non-CNS cancer. Israel Penn series of 1968-1997 showed 43% overall transmission rate; (generally regarded as overestimate due to voluntary reporting); OPTN reported 0.02% tumor transmission rate from 1994-2001 (considered under-reporting since denominator was all donors with or without cancer). Denmark series of 1969-1996 found 1 transmission (melanoma) in 20 recipients of organs from donors with cancer. Discussion of donors with history of non-CNS tumors stresses risk of transmission of some tumors even with long tumor-free intervals (melanoma, choriocarcinoma, lymphoma, lung, breast, kidney and colon cancers). Discussion of donors with history of CNS tumors cites overall low frequency of transmission, also mentions exceptions and advises according to Council of Europe 1997 recommendations, which are superseded by current Council of Europe guidelines. Management of recipients with donor-derived malignancy and strategies to minimize transmission risk are also briefly discussed.