Mathieu Bray1, Wen Wang2, Michael A Rees3, Peter X-K Song2, Alan B Leichtman4, Valarie B Ashby5, John D Kalbfleisch2. 1. University of Michigan, Department of Biostatistics, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; University of Michigan, Kidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: braymath@umich.edu. 2. University of Michigan, Department of Biostatistics, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; University of Michigan, Kidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. University of Toledo Medical Center, Department of Urology, Toledo, OH, USA; Alliance for Paired Donation, Inc., Maumee, OH, USA. 4. Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. University of Michigan, Kidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim in kidney paired donation (KPD) is typically to maximize the number of transplants achieved through the exchange of donors in a pool comprising incompatible donor-candidate pairs and non-directed (or altruistic) donors. With many possible options in a KPD pool at any given time, the most appropriate set of exchanges cannot be determined by simple inspection. In practice, computer algorithms are used to determine the optimal set of exchanges to pursue. Here, we present our software application, KPDGUI (Kidney Paired Donation Graphical User Interface), for management and optimization of KPD programs. METHODS: While proprietary software platforms for managing KPD programs exist to provide solutions to the standard KPD problem, our application implements newly investigated optimization criteria that account for uncertainty regarding the viability of selected transplants and arrange for fallback options in cases where potential exchanges cannot proceed, with intuitive resources for visualizing alternative optimization solutions. RESULTS: We illustrate the advantage of accounting for uncertainty and arranging for fallback options in KPD using our application through a case study involving real data from a paired donation program, comparing solutions produced under different optimization criteria and algorithmic priorities. CONCLUSIONS: KPDGUI is a flexible and powerful tool for offering decision support to clinicians and researchers on possible KPD transplant options to pursue under different user-specified optimization schemes.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim in kidney paired donation (KPD) is typically to maximize the number of transplants achieved through the exchange of donors in a pool comprising incompatible donor-candidate pairs and non-directed (or altruistic) donors. With many possible options in a KPD pool at any given time, the most appropriate set of exchanges cannot be determined by simple inspection. In practice, computer algorithms are used to determine the optimal set of exchanges to pursue. Here, we present our software application, KPDGUI (Kidney Paired Donation Graphical User Interface), for management and optimization of KPD programs. METHODS: While proprietary software platforms for managing KPD programs exist to provide solutions to the standard KPD problem, our application implements newly investigated optimization criteria that account for uncertainty regarding the viability of selected transplants and arrange for fallback options in cases where potential exchanges cannot proceed, with intuitive resources for visualizing alternative optimization solutions. RESULTS: We illustrate the advantage of accounting for uncertainty and arranging for fallback options in KPD using our application through a case study involving real data from a paired donation program, comparing solutions produced under different optimization criteria and algorithmic priorities. CONCLUSIONS: KPDGUI is a flexible and powerful tool for offering decision support to clinicians and researchers on possible KPD transplant options to pursue under different user-specified optimization schemes.
Authors: Michael A Rees; Jonathan E Kopke; Ronald P Pelletier; Dorry L Segev; Matthew E Rutter; Alfredo J Fabrega; Jeffrey Rogers; Oleh G Pankewycz; Janet Hiller; Alvin E Roth; Tuomas Sandholm; M Utku Unver; Robert A Montgomery Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Itai Ashlagi; Adam Bingaman; Maximilien Burq; Vahideh Manshadi; David Gamarnik; Cathi Murphey; Alvin E Roth; Marc L Melcher; Michael A Rees Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: D Axelrod; K L Lentine; M A Schnitzler; X Luo; H Xiao; B J Orandi; A Massie; J Garonzik-Wang; M D Stegall; S C Jordan; J Oberholzer; T B Dunn; L E Ratner; S Kapur; R P Pelletier; J P Roberts; M L Melcher; P Singh; D L Sudan; M P Posner; J M El-Amm; R Shapiro; M Cooper; G S Lipkowitz; M A Rees; C L Marsh; B R Sankari; D A Gerber; P W Nelson; J Wellen; A Bozorgzadeh; A Osama Gaber; R A Montgomery; D L Segev Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: A R Tambur; D S Ramon; D B Kaufman; J Friedewald; X Luo; B Ho; A Skaro; J Caicedo; D Ladner; T Baker; J Fryer; L Gallon; J Miller; M M Abecassis; J Leventhal Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2009-06-26 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: M Bray; W Wang; P X-K Song; A B Leichtman; M A Rees; V B Ashby; R Eikstadt; A Goulding; J D Kalbfleisch Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Robert A Montgomery; Bonnie E Lonze; Karen E King; Edward S Kraus; Lauren M Kucirka; Jayme E Locke; Daniel S Warren; Christopher E Simpkins; Nabil N Dagher; Andrew L Singer; Andrea A Zachary; Dorry L Segev Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mohsen Yaghoubi; Sonya Cressman; Louisa Edwards; Steven Shechter; Mary M Doyle-Waters; Paul Keown; Ruth Sapir-Pichhadze; Stirling Bryan Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 3.686