Vikram Kilambi1,2,3,4, Kevin Bui1,2, Gordon B Hazen1,2,3, John J Friedewald3, Daniela P Ladner3, Bruce Kaplan5, Sanjay Mehrotra1,2,3. 1. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. 2. Center for Engineering and Health, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC), Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 4. RAND Corporation, Boston, MA. 5. Mayo Clinic Medical School, Phoenix, AZ.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Underutilization of marginal-quality kidneys for transplantation produced ideas of expediting kidney placement for populations with decreased opportunities of receiving transplants. Such policies can be less efficacious for specific individuals and should be scrutinized until the decision-making for accepting marginal-quality organs, which has relied on experiential judgment, is better understood at the individual level. There exist rigorous tools promoting personalized decisions with useful and objective information. METHODS: This article introduces a decision-tree methodology that analyzes a patient's dilemma: to accept a kidney offer now or reject it. The methodology calculates the survival benefit of accepting a kidney given a certain quality now and the survival benefit of rejecting it. Survival benefit calculation accounts for patients' and donors' characteristics and transplant centers' and organ procurement organizations' performances and incorporates patients' perceived transplant and dialysis utilities. Valuations of rejecting an offer are contingent on future opportunities and subject to uncertainty in the timing of successive kidney offers and their quality and donor characteristics. RESULTS: The decision tree was applied to a realistic patient profile as a demonstration. The tool was tested on 1000 deceased-donor kidney offers in 2016. Evaluating up to 1 year of future offers, the tool attains 61% accuracy, with transplant utility of 1.0 and dialysis utility of 0.5. The accuracy reveals potential bias in kidney offer acceptance/rejection at transplant centers. CONCLUSIONS: The decision-tree tool presented could aid personalized transplant decision-making in the future by providing patients with calculated, individualized survival benefits between accepting and rejecting a kidney offer.
BACKGROUND: Underutilization of marginal-quality kidneys for transplantation produced ideas of expediting kidney placement for populations with decreased opportunities of receiving transplants. Such policies can be less efficacious for specific individuals and should be scrutinized until the decision-making for accepting marginal-quality organs, which has relied on experiential judgment, is better understood at the individual level. There exist rigorous tools promoting personalized decisions with useful and objective information. METHODS: This article introduces a decision-tree methodology that analyzes a patient's dilemma: to accept a kidney offer now or reject it. The methodology calculates the survival benefit of accepting a kidney given a certain quality now and the survival benefit of rejecting it. Survival benefit calculation accounts for patients' and donors' characteristics and transplant centers' and organ procurement organizations' performances and incorporates patients' perceived transplant and dialysis utilities. Valuations of rejecting an offer are contingent on future opportunities and subject to uncertainty in the timing of successive kidney offers and their quality and donor characteristics. RESULTS: The decision tree was applied to a realistic patient profile as a demonstration. The tool was tested on 1000 deceased-donor kidney offers in 2016. Evaluating up to 1 year of future offers, the tool attains 61% accuracy, with transplant utility of 1.0 and dialysis utility of 0.5. The accuracy reveals potential bias in kidney offer acceptance/rejection at transplant centers. CONCLUSIONS: The decision-tree tool presented could aid personalized transplant decision-making in the future by providing patients with calculated, individualized survival benefits between accepting and rejecting a kidney offer.
Authors: H Meier-Kriesche; F K Port; A O Ojo; A B Leichtman; S M Rudich; J A Arndorfer; J D Punch; B Kaplan Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2001 Feb-Mar Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Panduranga S Rao; Douglas E Schaubel; Mary K Guidinger; Kenneth A Andreoni; Robert A Wolfe; Robert M Merion; Friedrich K Port; Randall S Sung Journal: Transplantation Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Sunjae Bae; Allan B Massie; Alvin G Thomas; Gahyun Bahn; Xun Luo; Kyle R Jackson; Shane E Ottmann; Daniel C Brennan; Niraj M Desai; Josef Coresh; Dorry L Segev; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-07-14 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jesse D Schold; Jeffrey S Harman; Neale R Chumbler; R Paul Duncan; Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Karolina Schantz; Elisa J Gordon; Unsun Lee; Maria Rocha; John Friedewald; Daniela P Ladner; Yolanda Becker; Richard Formica; Peter P Reese; Dixon Kaufman; Masoud Barah; Marissa Walker; Om Mehrotra; Dania Viveros; Sanjay Mehrotra Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-12-16
Authors: François-Xavier Paquette; Amir Ghassemi; Olga Bukhtiyarova; Moustapha Cisse; Natanael Gagnon; Alexia Della Vecchia; Hobivola A Rabearivelo; Youssef Loudiyi Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2022-06-14
Authors: Cory R Schaffhausen; Marilyn J Bruin; Sauman Chu; Warren T McKinney; Jack R Lake; Srinath Chinnakotla; Ajay K Israni Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-04-27