Evolution of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance in Kidney Transplant Recipients at the CHUM (Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal) — a Single-Institution Retrospective Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Recommendations guiding the care of patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) in the setting of kidney transplant are scarce. Nevertheless, monoclonal gammopathies carry a risk of neoplastic progression to hematologic malignancies and may induce renal injury from their deposition in the kidney (monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance - MGRS). However, it remains largely uncertain if these considerations translate into adverse outcomes in the setting of transplantation, as immunosuppression might favor malignant evolution of MGUS or, alternatively, a nephrotoxic paraprotein could lead to graft loss. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of patients who received a kidney transplant at our institution between Jan 1, 2000 and Jan 1, 2016. We included patients with at least one available serum protein electrophoresis at any time before or after transplantation. Exclusion criteria consisted of age Results Out of 1009 eligible transplant recipients, 755 patients were included in our study based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirteen patients were found to have MGUS prior to transplant and a monoclonal gammopathy appeared in 43 patients after transplant corresponding to a 5-year incidence rate of 2.7%. Median patient follow-up was 7.5 years. Of the patients with MGUS prior to transplant, 2 developed light chain deposition disease (LCDD) after a follow-up of 1 and 2 years and 2 evolved to smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) at 1 month and 4 years post-transplant. Of the 43 patients who developed MGUS after transplant, 1 transformed into multiple myeloma (MM) 8 years later and 1 progressed to LCDD 2 months after transplant. None of the 6 patients who evolved to malignancy after transplantation had a systematic hematologic workup prior to allograft implantation questioning whether SMM or MGRS may have already been present before transplant. Figure 1 summarizes the evolution of monoclonal gammopathies in our study population. Of monoclonal gammopathies appearing after transplantation, most remained stable (n=26, 60%) and 9 (21%) were found to be transient. Median size was 0.76 g/L (range 0.1 - 21.6 g/L). Twenty-two (74%) were of IgG isotype and an abnormal kappa/lambda ratio was present in 6 cases (14%). We conducted a univariate analysis to compare allograft outcomes between patients who developed post-transplant MGUS (n=43) and patients who did not (n=699). No differences in induction immunosuppression, occurrence of graft loss (18% and 11%, p=0.14) and acute rejection rates (26% and 27%, p=0.866) were observed between these two groups, respectively. However, the former were found to have an increased risk of CMV (26% and 12%, p=0.01) and polyoma BK virus (26% and 14%, p=0.04). Of note, 7 cases of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) were identified in our study population and none was preceded by MGUS. Conclusion Our study suggests a reassuring evolution of true MGUS in the setting of renal transplantation. Indeed, the cases of plasma cell malignancies diagnosed in transplant recipients may have already been present before transplant, yet undetected from lack of systematic investigation. We therefore highlight the importance of identifying and diligently investigating monoclonal immunoglobulins in transplant candidates. If a paraprotein is found before transplant, further investigations with bone marrow biopsy and review of native kidney biopsy appear warranted in order to identify cases of plasma cell dyscrasias (such as SMM) and MGRS prior to transplant. Additionally, MGUS arising after transplant appear to carry a favorable evolution. They also tend to be transient and their appearance may be related to prior CMV and BK virus infections. Download : Download high-res image (166KB) Download : Download full-size image Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».