A report from a high-volume single center indicated a survival benefit of receiving a kidney transplant from an HLA-incompatible live donor as compared with remaining on the waiting list, whether or not a kidney from a deceased donor was received. The generalizability of that finding is unclear. In a 22-center study, we estimated the survival benefit for 1025 recipients of kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors who were matched with controls who remained on the waiting list or received a transplant from a deceased donor (waiting-list-or-transplant control group) and controls who remained on the waiting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-list-only control group). We analyzed the data with and without patients from the highest-volume center in the study. Recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors had a higher survival rate than either control group at 1 year (95.0%, vs. 94.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 89.6% for the waiting-list-only control group), 3 years (91.7% vs. 83.6% and 72.7%, respectively), 5 years (86.0% vs. 74.4% and 59.2%), and 8 years (76.5% vs. 62.9% and 43.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with the two control groups). The survival benefit was significant at 8 years across all levels of donor-specific antibody: 89.2% for recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors who had a positive Luminex assay for anti-HLA antibody but a negative flow-cytometric cross-match versus 65.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 47.1% for the waiting-list-only control group; 76.3% for recipients with a positive flow-cytometric cross-match but a negative cytotoxic cross-match versus 63.3% and 43.0% in the two control groups, respectively; and 71.0% for recipients with a positive cytotoxic cross-match versus 61.5% and 43.7%, respectively. The findings did not change when patients from the highest-volume center were excluded. This multicenter study validated single-center evidence that patients who received kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors had a substantial survival benefit as compared with patients who did not undergo transplantation and those who waited for transplants from deceased donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.)

Incompatible live donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) offers a survival advantage over dialysis to patients with anti‐HLA donor‐specific antibody (DSA). Program‐specific reports (PSRs) fail to account for ILDKT, placing this practice at regulatory risk. We collected DSA data, categorized as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF) (n = 185), positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC) (n = 536) or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC) (n = 304), from 22 centers. We tested associations between DSA, graft loss and mortality after adjusting for PSR model factors, using 9669 compatible patients as a comparison. PLNF patients had similar graft loss; however, PFNC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15–2.23, p = 0.007) and PCC (aHR = 5.01, 95% CI: 3.71–6.77, p < 0.001) were associated with increased graft loss in the first year. PLNF patients had similar mortality; however, PFNC (aHR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.28–3.26; p = 0.003) and PCC (aHR = 4.59; 95% CI: 2.98–7.07; p < 0.001) were associated with increased mortality. We simulated Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services flagging to examine ILDKT's effect on the risk of being flagged. Compared to equal‐quality centers performing no ILDKT, centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PFNC had a 1.19‐, 1.33‐ and 1.73‐fold higher odds of being flagged. Centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PCC had a 2.22‐, 4.09‐ and 10.72‐fold higher odds. Failure to account for ILDKT's increased risk places centers providing this life‐saving treatment in jeopardy of regulatory intervention.

Following successful completion of a general surgery residency, board certification is a 2-step process that requires passing a written qualifying examination followed by an oral certifying examination administered by the American Board of Surgery (ABS). In preparation for these examinations, the ABS administers an annual in-training examination (ABSITE) to all residents. Recently, the ABS began publishing online the 5-year first-time pass rates for all surgical residency programs in the United States. First-time pass rates are used by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) as one of the measures of the educational success of a surgical residency. It is a requirement that at least 65% of surgical residents in a residency program pass both the certifying and qualifying examinations the first time. Given the importance of these examinations for surgical residency programs, the purpose of this multi-institutional study was to determine whether residents at risk of failing could be identified early, thus allowing for early academic intervention.

To evaluate the effect of pretransplant bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence and survival after liver transplantation (LT) in patients meeting Milan criteria (MC). Pre-LT LRT mitigates tumor progression and waitlist dropout in HCC patients within MC, but data on its impact on post-LT recurrence and survival remain limited. Recurrence-free survival and post-LT recurrence were compared among 3601 MC patients with and without bridging LRT utilizing competing risk Cox regression in consecutive patients from 20 US centers (2002–2013). Compared with 747 LT recipients not receiving LRT, 2854 receiving LRT had similar 1, 3, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (89%, 77%, 68% vs 85%, 75%, 68%; P = 0.490) and 5-year post-LT recurrence (11.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.474). Increasing LRT number [3 LRTs: hazard ratio (HR) 2.1, P < 0.001; 4+ LRTs: HR 2.5, P < 0.001), and unfavorable waitlist alphafetoprotein trend significantly predicted post-LT recurrence, whereas LRT modality did not. Treated patients achieving complete pathologic response (cPR) had superior 5-year RFS (72%) and lower post-LT recurrence (HR 0.52, P < 0.001) compared with both untreated patients (69%; P = 0.010; HR 1.0) and treated patients not achieving cPR (67%; P = 0.010; HR 1.31, P = 0.039), who demonstrated increased recurrence compared with untreated patients in multivariate analysis controlling for pretransplant and pathologic factors (HR 1.32, P = 0.044). Bridging LRT in HCC patients within MC does not improve post-LT survival or HCC recurrence in the majority of patients who fail to achieve cPR. The need for increasing LRT treatments and lack of alphafetoprotein response to LRT independently predict post-LT recurrence, serving as a surrogate for underlying tumor biology which can be utilized for prioritization of HCC LT candidates.

Research from JAMA Surgery — Factors Associated With General Surgery Residents’ Desire to Leave Residency Programs — A Multi-institutional Study

In the context of organ shortage, the opioid epidemic, and effective direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for hepatitis C (HCV), more HCV‐infected donor organs may be used for liver transplantation. Current data regarding outcomes after donor‐derived HCV in previously non‐viremic liver transplant recipients are limited. Clinical data for adult liver transplant recipients with donor‐derived HCV infection from March 2017 to January 2018 at our institution were extracted from the medical record. Ten patients received livers from donors known to be infected with HCV based on positive nucleic acid testing (NAT). Seven had a prior diagnosis of HCV and were treated before liver transplantation. All recipients were non‐viremic at the time of transplantation. All 10 recipients derived hepatitis C infection from their donor and achieved sustained virologic response at 12 weeks post‐treatment (SVR‐12) with DAA‐based regimens, with a median time from transplant to treatment initiation of 43 days (IQR 20‐59). There have been no instances of graft loss or death, with median follow‐up of 380 days (IQR 263‐434) post‐transplant. Transplantation of HCV‐viremic livers into non‐viremic recipients results in acceptable short‐term outcomes. Such strategies may be used to expand the donor pool and increase access to liver transplantation.