There are no conflicts of interest to report.The use of living donors for kidney transplantation in the United States is common, and long-term studies have demonstrated the safety of donation by young, healthy individuals. However, transplant programs have little data to guide them in deciding which donors are unacceptable, and which characteristics are associated with kidney disease or poor psychosocial outcomes after donation. To document current practices in evaluating potential donors, we surveyed all US kidney transplant programs. Compared to a survey 12 years ago, medical criteria for donation are more inclusive in several areas. All responding programs now accept living unrelated donors. Most programs no longer have an upper age limit to be eligible. Programs are now more likely to accept donors with treated hypertension, or a history of kidney stones, provided that certain additional criteria are met. In contrast, medical criteria for donation are more restrictive in other areas, such as younger donor age and low creatinine clearance. Overall, significant variability remains among transplant programs in the criteria used to evaluate donors. These findings highlight the need for more data on long-term outcomes in various types of donors with potential morbidities related to donation.

We conducted a survey of 132 US kidney transplant programs to examine how they evaluate and select potential living kidney donors, focusing on donorrecipient relationships, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes. There is heterogeneity in donorrecipient relationships that are considered acceptable, although most programs (70%) will not consider publicly solicited donors. Most programs (75%) require a psychosocial evaluation for all potential living donors. Most programs agree that knowledge of financial reward (90%), active substance abuse (86%), and active mental health problems (76%) are absolute contraindications to donation. However, there is greater variability in how other psychosocial issues are considered in the selection process. Consent processes are highly variable across programs: donor and recipient consent for the donor evaluation is presumed in 57% and 76% of programs, respectively. The use of 13 different informed consent elements varied from 65% (alternative donation procedures) to 86% (description of evaluation, surgery and recuperative period) of programs. Forty-three percent use a 'cooling off' period. Findings demonstrate high variability in current practice regarding acceptable donor-recipient relationships, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes. Whether greater consensus should be reached on these donor evaluation practices, especially in the context of more expansive use of living donor kidney transplantation, is discussed.

Background: Unresectable intrahepatic and hilar cholangiocarcinomas carry a dismal prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy and conventional external beam radiation and brachytherapy have been used with limited success. We explored the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for these patients.Methods: Patients with unresectable intrahepatic or hilar cholangiocarcinoma or those with positive margins were included in this study. Systemic therapy was used at the discretion of the medical oncologist. The CyberknifeTM stereotactic body radiotherapy system used to treat these patients. Patients were treated with three daily fractions. Clinical and radiological follow-up were performed every three months.Results: 34 patients (16 male and 18 female) with 42 lesions were included in this study. There were 32 unresectable tumors and two patients with resected tumors with positive margins. The median SBRT dose was 30Gy in three fractions. The median follow-up was 38 months (range 8-71 months). The actuarial local control rate was 79%. The median overall survival was 17 months and the median progression free survival was ten months. There were four Grade III toxicities (12%), including duodenal ulceration, cholangitis and liver abscess.Conclusions: SBRT is an effective and reasonably safe local therapy option for unresectable intrahepatic or hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

In regions with a limited deceased donor pool, living donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT) has become an important treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis. Studies have shown higher recurrence rates of HCC after LDALT in comparison with deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The aim of our study was to examine the outcome results and recurrence rates for patients with HCC who underwent LDALT at our center. During an 8-year period, 139 patients underwent LDALT, of whom 28 (20.1%) had HCC in their explanted livers. The median follow-up was 40.8 months.The mean explant tumor size was 3.3 Ϯ 1.2, and the mean number of tumors was 1.5 Ϯ 0.8. Twenty-one patients (75%) had tumors within the Milan criteria, 5 patients had tumors outside the Milan criteria but within the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, and 2 patients were beyond the UCSF criteria. The overall 1-and 5-year patient and graft survival rates were 96% and 81%, respectively. Survival following LDALT was significantly better than survival following DDLT for HCC during the same time period (P ϭ 0.02). Eight patients (28.6%) developed tumor recurrence. Poor differentiation of tumor cells was the most significant determinant of recurrence. Despite high recurrence rates of HCC following LDALT, overall 5-year survival appears to be excellent.

Time between profound instability and cold perfusion is a better predictor of outcome than time from extubation to asystole. If validated, this information could be used to predict DGF after DCD renal transplant and improve outcomes after DCD liver transplant.