Allyson Hart1, Nicholas Salkowski, Jon J Snyder, Ajay K Israni, Bertram L Kasiske. 1. 1 Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 2 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN. 3 Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Median historical time to kidney transplant is misleading because it does not convey the competing risks of death or removal from the waiting list. We developed and validated a competing risk model to calculate likelihood of outcomes for kidney transplant candidates and demonstrate how this information differs from median time to transplant. METHODS: Data were obtained from the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The retrospective cohort included 163 636 adults listed for kidney transplant before December 31, 2011. Predictors were age, sex, blood type, calculated panel-reactive antibodies, donation service area, dialysis duration, comorbid conditions, and body mass index. Outcomes were deceased or living donor transplant, death or removal from the list due to deteriorating medical condition, or removal due to other reasons. We calculated hazards for the possible outcomes, then the cumulative incidence function for a given candidate using competing risk methodology. Discrimination and calibration were assessed through C statistics and calibration plots for each cause-specific Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: C statistics ranged from 0.64 to 0.73. Calibration plots showed good calibration. The competing risk model shows probability of all possible outcomes for up to 12 years given a candidate's characteristics, contrasted with the median waiting time for that candidate's donation service area. CONCLUSIONS: A competing risk model conveys more relevant information than the median waiting time for a given transplant center. This model will be updated to create a calculator reflecting the most recent outcomes and changes in allocation policy. It illustrates the conversations that should be initiated with transplant candidates.
BACKGROUND: Median historical time to kidney transplant is misleading because it does not convey the competing risks of death or removal from the waiting list. We developed and validated a competing risk model to calculate likelihood of outcomes for kidney transplant candidates and demonstrate how this information differs from median time to transplant. METHODS: Data were obtained from the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The retrospective cohort included 163 636 adults listed for kidney transplant before December 31, 2011. Predictors were age, sex, blood type, calculated panel-reactive antibodies, donation service area, dialysis duration, comorbid conditions, and body mass index. Outcomes were deceased or living donor transplant, death or removal from the list due to deteriorating medical condition, or removal due to other reasons. We calculated hazards for the possible outcomes, then the cumulative incidence function for a given candidate using competing risk methodology. Discrimination and calibration were assessed through C statistics and calibration plots for each cause-specific Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: C statistics ranged from 0.64 to 0.73. Calibration plots showed good calibration. The competing risk model shows probability of all possible outcomes for up to 12 years given a candidate's characteristics, contrasted with the median waiting time for that candidate's donation service area. CONCLUSIONS: A competing risk model conveys more relevant information than the median waiting time for a given transplant center. This model will be updated to create a calculator reflecting the most recent outcomes and changes in allocation policy. It illustrates the conversations that should be initiated with transplant candidates.
Authors: Melissa W Wachterman; Edward R Marcantonio; Roger B Davis; Robert A Cohen; Sushrut S Waikar; Russell S Phillips; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Robert S Gaston; Gabriel M Danovitch; Patricia L Adams; James J Wynn; Robert M Merion; Mark H Deierhoi; Robert A Metzger; J Michael Cecka; William E Harmon; Alan B Leichtman; Aaron Spital; Emily Blumberg; Charles A Herzog; Robert A Wolfe; Dolly B Tyan; John Roberts; Richard Rohrer; Friedrich K Port; Francis L Delmonico Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Ajay K Israni; Nicholas Salkowski; Sally Gustafson; Jon J Snyder; John J Friedewald; Richard N Formica; Xinyue Wang; Eugene Shteyn; Wida Cherikh; Darren Stewart; Ciara J Samana; Adrine Chung; Allyson Hart; Bertram L Kasiske Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Vikram Kilambi; Kevin Bui; Gordon B Hazen; John J Friedewald; Daniela P Ladner; Bruce Kaplan; Sanjay Mehrotra Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Sanjay Kulkarni; Isaac Hall; Richard Formica; Carrie Thiessen; Darren Stewart; Geliang Gan; Erich Greene; Yanhong Deng Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 3.240