The patient underwent a robot-assisted living donor kidney transplantion using the kidney donated by his wife. As immunosuppressive treatment, he was given methylprednisolone in the induction period and the maintenance was provided with mycophenolic acid, tacrolimus, and prednisolone.
The patient was followed up with routine annual ultrasonography (US). Two years after surgery, based on the noncontrast computed tomography taken while examining the patient for exhaustion and weight loss, lesions were detected in the left kidney. The largest having dimensions of 38x27 mm which were evaluated as complicated hemorrhagic cysts. There was a lymph node in the left aortorenal junction and hyperdense lesions were noticed on the right iliac bone, right femoral neck, and left pubic bone. There was no evidence of malignancy in the endoscopy and colonoscopy of the patient who also had microcytic iron deficiency anemia. Multiple suspicious metastatic lesions were detected in the liver in the contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MR) of the patient, the biggest of them was in segment 8 and had a diameter of 12 mm. Multiple simple and complicated hemorrhagic cortical cysts were noticed in both kidneys. There were multiple lymph nodes around the left renal vein, the biggest of them had the dimensions of 25x16 mm and a mass suggesting renal malignancy in the first place with a size of 39.5x24.5 mm in the upper-middle zone of the left kidney were observed (Figure 1). Multiple metastatic nodules were noticed in all bones in the sections covered in the abdomen MR imaging area.
Whole-body bone scintigraphy of the patient was compatible with multiple bone metastases and prostate cancer metastasis were first considered since the patient had prostate cancer diagnosis before transplantation. The latest PSA level of the patient was 0.28 ng/mL and heterogeneous foci of low-level gallium-68 uptake were observed in the skeletal system in prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) and Ga-68 PSMA uptake was not observed in other metastatic lesions. Ga-68 PSMA uptake was detected in the lesion in the left kidney. Since diagnosis of prostate cancer metastasis was not quite possiblly made based on these findings, whole body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/ CT) was performed. A hypermetabolic mass lesion in the left kidney, multiple parenchymal and subpleural millimetric nodules in both lung parenchymas, multiple hypermetabolic lesions in the liver, and the skeletal system multiple hypermetabolic lymph nodes in the left aortorenal junction, and increased uptake of contrast material in the area of mural induration in the distal part of the duodenum were observed (Figure 2).
A core needle biopsy was performed from the metastatic mass in the right lobe of the liver, and the result was renal cell carcinoma (RCC) metastasis (Figure 3). Immunohistochemistry evaluation demonstrated positive staining for PAX-8, CK19, CD10 and negative staining for CK7, CK20, GATA-3, NAPSIN A, TTF-1, PSAP, glutamine synthetase and arginase. All these findings suggested that the primary focus of these metastases was the 4-cm mass in the left native kidney. The patient was started on sunitinib therapy and palliative radiotherapy was planned for bone metastases.
The mechanism of RCC development in kidney transplant patients is still not fully elucidated. As is known, the best-defined risk factors for RCC are smoking, hypertension, obesity and family history [5]. In addition to the well-known general risk factors, in transplant kidney recipients; the type of immunosuppression, primary disease of the native kidney, recipient/donor age, duration of dialysis before transplantation, and presence of microscopic hematuria are other risk factors for the development of RCC [6].
To maintain long-term allograft function, use of potent immunosuppressive agents is imperative to prevent acute and chronic allograft rejection. Immunosuppressive treatment is related to the increase in the prevalence of malignancies after transplantation [3]. It is also well known that RCC is an immunogenic phenotype that is sensitive to immunotherapy by inducing a potential immune response. It has been shown that RCC cells could escape from the immune cells such as T-cells by down-regulating HLA molecules in immunosuppressed recipients [7].
As in our patient, RCC occurs almost only in native kidneys in transplant recipients [3]. The risk of RCC in native kidneys in the acquired cystic disease of the kidney and end-stage renal failure is 3-7%, which is nearly 100 times its incidence in the general population [8]. In the recent study performed by Eggers et al., prevalence of RCC was found to be 1.2% in native kidneys and 0.4% in allografts [9]. In the study of Moris et al., the average time until the diagnosis of RCC in native kidneys after transplant was 151 months. Most of these patients were diagnosed incidentally. Compared to other malignancies (stomach, lung, colorectal, prostate, and breast cancers), RCC was observed at a later stage of the disease in these patients. However, its prognosis was better compared to other malignancies, except for breast cancer [10].
The prognosis of RCC largely depends on the presence or absence of metastatic disease. The most appropriate treatment for the non-metastatic disease is surgery, and the associated survival is prolonged, while 5-year survival rate in metastatic disease decreases to 10% [11]. The incidence of metastatic disease is directly proportional to the size of the primary mass. Metastasis is less likely in masses smaller than 5 cm in diameter [12].
Most RCCs detected in transplant recipients are asymptomatic, usually incidentally diagnosed, and have a good prognosis because they are mostly low grade and stage. However, the prognosis of metastatic RCC is poor [10]. Metastatic disease is quite rare in small renal masses and thus active surveillance can also be an option for these lesions. The primary mass of our patient can also be defined as a small renal mass since it was only 4 cm in diameter. In the retrospective study conducted by Thompson et al., among 781 patients with a tumor mass less than 3 cm in diameter, only one patient had metastatic disease at diagnosis [13].
RCC, which makes up about 2% of all cancers, has been seen more frequently in the last 50 years with the development of imaging techniques [12]. Most transplant units do not take a specific approach to screening for RCC in native kidneys or renal allografts of renal transplant recipients due to its low incidence. Studies for modeling the performance of US scanning has shown that its cost-effectiveness is low. According to Wong et al., with routine annual US screening for RCC, survival can increase by 25%. However, there is no evidence of its cost-effectiveness, even for kidney recipients at high risk for disease [14].
Studies contrary to this view are also present. Klein et al. recommended US once in every two years for the early detection of RCC [5]. Eggers et al. supported this approach and even recommended annual screening for patients getting ready for a kidney transplant and ESRD patients receiving dialysis treatment [9]. Moris et al. also defended the necessity of routine ultrasound scanning for renal transplant patients during the first five years after transplantation for early stage detection of a malignancy [10]. In our institute, we also perform screening with US annually after renal transplantation.
In kidney transplant patients, immunosuppressive agents constitute a risk factor for the development of malignancy. Renal malignancies are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. Survival in RCC is significantly associated with the presence of metastases, which can be rarely seen in small renal masses. In this respect, the early diagnosis of RCC provides an advantage in terms of survival. Because of the risk of RCC, regular US scanning of the native kidneys of kidney recipients should be considered.
Ethics Committee Approval: N / A.
Informed Consent: An informed consent was obtained from the patient.
Publication: The results of the study were not published in full or in part in form of abstracts.
Peer-review: Externally and internally peer-reviewed.
Authorship Contributions: Any contribution was not made by any individual not listed as an author. Concept – Y.C., D.N.O.; Design – S.K., Z.S.K.; Supervision – Y.C., D.N.O.; Resources – S.K., Z.S.K.; Materials – Y.C., S.K.; Data Collection and/or Processing – Z.S.K., D.N.O.; Analysis and/or Interpretation – Y.C., S.A.; Literature Search – Y.C., S.A.; Writing – Y.C., D.N.O.; Critical Review – Y.C.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that this study received no financial support.
1) Végsö G, Toronyi E, Hajdu M, Piros L, Görög D, Deák
PA, et al. Renal Cell Carcinoma of the Native Kidney:
A Frequent Tumor After Kidney Transplantation with
Favorable Prognosis in Case of Early Diagnosis. Transplant
Proc 2011;43:1261-3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.03.068.
2) Moris D, Lu L, Qian S. Mechanisms of Liver-induced
Tolerance. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2017;22:71-8.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MOT.0000000000000380.
3) Penn I. Primary Kidney Tumours Before and After Renal
Transplantation. Transplantation 1995;59:480-5.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7878750/.
4) Farrugia D, Mahboob S, Cheshire J, Begaj I, Khosla S, Ray
D, et al. Malignancy-related Mortality Following Kidney
Transplantation is Common. Kidney Int 2014;85:1395-403.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2013.458.
5) Klein JA, Gonzalez SA, Fischbach BV, Yango AF, Rajagopal
A, Rice KM, et al. Routine Ultrasonography Surveillance
of Native Kidneys for Renal Cell Carcinoma in Kidney
Transplant Candidates. Clin Transplant 2016;30:946-53.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.12769.
6) Filocamo MT, Zanazzi M, Li Marzi V, Guidoni L, Villari
D, Dattolo E, et al. Renal Cell Carcinoma of Native Kidney
After Renal Transplantation: Clinical Relevance of Early
Detection. Transplant Proc 2009;41:4197-201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.08.082.
7) Tomita Y, Nishiyama T, Fujiwara M, Sato S.
Immunohistochemical Detection of Major
Histocompatibility Complex Antigens and Quantitative
Analysis of Tumour-infiltrating Mononuclear Cells in Renal
Cell Cancer. Br J Cancer 1990;62:354-9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1990.296.
8) Tickoo SK, dePeralta-Venturina MN, Harik LR, Worcester
HD, Salama ME, Young AN, et al. Spectrum of Epithelial
Neoplasms in End-stage Renal Disease: An Experience
from 66 Tumor-bearing Kidneys with Emphasis on
Histologic Patterns Distinct from Those in Sporadic Adult
Renal Neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 2006;30:141-53.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000185382.80844.b1.
9) Eggers H, Güler F, Ehlers U, Ivanyi P, Peters I, Grünwald
V. Renal Cell Carcinoma in Kidney Transplant Recipients:
Descriptive Analysis and Overview of a Major German
Transplant Center. Future Oncol 2019;15:3739-50.
https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2019-0397.
10) Moris D, Kakavia K, Argyrou C, Garmpis N, Bokos J,
Vernadakis S, et al. De Novo Renal Cell Carcinoma of
Native Kidneys in Renal Transplant Recipients: A Singlecenter
Experience. Anticancer Res 2017;37:773-9.
https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11376.
11) Tosoian JJ, Cameron JL, Allaf ME, Hruban RH, Nahime
CB, Pawlik TM, et al. Resection of Isolated Renal Cell
Carcinoma Metastases of the Pancreas: Outcomes from the
Johns Hopkins Hospital. J Gastrointest Surg 2014;18:542-8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2278-2.
12) Mai KT, Landry DC, Robertson SJ, Commons AS, Burns
BF, Thijssen A, et al. A Comparative Study of Metastatic
Renal Cell Carcinoma with Correlation to Subtype and
Primary Tumor. Pathol Res Pract 2001;197:671-5.
https://doi.org/10.1078/0344-0338-00144.