Introduction: The impact of imuunosuppression (IS) on biological aggressiveness of cancer prostate (PCa) is unclear. We aim to assess the adverse pathological (AP) outcomes in men on IS who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods: We reviewed 1582 men who underwent RP at our institution from 2005 to 2016. The cohort was then stratified based on prior use of IS medications including cyclosporine, Mycophenolate mofetil, Tacrolimus, Bortezomib, Thymoglobulin, Basiliximab, Belatacept, Sirolimus and Rituximab. AP was defined as Gleason sum upgrading (GS ≥ 7), positive surgical margins, extraprostatatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and/or lymph node invasion, if lymphadenectomy was performed. Univariate analysis was performed by chi-square and Fisher's exact testing to assess the relationship between IS and AP at RP.

Results: Of the 1582 men, 50 (3.2 %) received IS prior to RP. There were no statistically significant differences in the demographic and clinical variables between those with or without IS, but those with IS had a higher positive family history (32% vs 18.7%, p=0.02). At the time of surgery, there was no difference in Gleason upgrade (38% vs 34.2%, p= 0.6), positive surgical margins (26% vs 29.1%, p=0.6), EPE (32.7% vs 38%, p=0.4), SVI (6.1% vs 7.9%, p=0.7) and lymph node invasion (0% vs 4.7%, p=0.2) (Table 1).

Conclusion: Compared to the general population, men with localized PCa who received IS do not have an increased risk of adverse pathological outcome at radical prostatectomy. Our findings suggests IS patients with newly diagnosed PCa should be offered the same treatment options and within a similar time frame.

CITATION INFORMATION: Eltemamy M., Elshafei A., Nyame Y., Crane A., Wee A., Krishnamurthi V., Klein E., Jones S. Immunosuppression Does Not Affect Adverse Pathological Outcomes in Men Who Underwent Radical Prostatectomy Am J Transplant. 2017;17 (suppl 3).

« Back to 2018 American Transplant Congress