“Research Article”
Received July 30, 2016; Accepted December 12, 2016; Published January 09, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.18081/2333-5106/017-1-15
Emily Jackson; Ju Song; Nayoung Lee; David Viner; Rommel Morgan; Siomar Statland; Anderson Bravo
Abstract
The field of heart transplantation has made substantial gains in the last decade, with survival increasing at ten years from 20 percent in 1989 to 62 percent. Advances in immunosuppressive regimens, new surgical techniques to reduce rejection induced by allograft vasculopathy, and aggressive preoperative management of critically ill transplant candidates all triggered impressive improvements. The chronic risk of cyclosporine has become increasingly relevant as long-term success has been realized. There are several reasons for the appearance of a
higher incidence of cancer after heart transplantation. Patients are not randomized to screening protocols most of the time after heart transplantation for malignancy. They receive no standard follow-up guidance after the first visit with their surgeon unless they perish within the first 30 days of their transplant. In cancer risk from cyclosporine after kidney transplantation, extensive evidence suggests that the increased risk of cyclosporine is not due to its nonspecific tumor-promoting properties; rather, Day 7 cyclosporine may engage an anti-oncogenic tumor receptor. The device of negative tumor suppressive regulation is poorly known, but studies have confirmed the existence of a cyclosporine-coated body that comprises cyclin and calmodulin-regulated kinase, prolactin, glucocorticoids, and thymic genes for tumors. By deepening our knowledge of cyclosporine and its specific effect on cell movement and survival, growing the deposit that blocks the inhibitors of tumor growth that are unrelated to suppression, and nourishing cell survival and tumorigenicity with chimeric immunity, an overview could be generated. Results of cell migration and survival suggest that protein rescues are Zn-finger-renewal undefined proteins, including Golgi-independent and neuroectodermal plasmids, which effects the protein expression full-threat agonists.
Keywords: Cyclosporine; Cancer; Heart transplantation; Long-term outcomes
1. Hunt SA. Taking heart-cardiac transplantation past, present, and future. N Engl J Med 2006;355(3):231–235. [PubMed]
2. Doesch AO, Müller S, Konstandin M, et al. Malignancies after heart transplantation: incidence, risk factors, and effects of calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal. Transplant Proc 2010;42(9):3694–3699. [PubMed]
3. Geissler EK. Fighting malignancy in organ transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2009;41(6 suppl):S9–S12. [PubMed]
4. Stallone G, Schena A, Infante B, et al. Sirolimus for Kaposi’s sarcoma in renal-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 2005;352(13):1317–1323. [PubMed]
5. Penn I. Cancers in cyclosporine-treated vs azathioprine-treated patients. Transplant Proc 1996;28:876-878. [PubMed]
6. Hojo M, Morimoto T, Malluccio M, et al. Cyclosporine induces cancer progression by a cell-autonomous mechanism. Nature 1999;397:530-534. [PubMed]
7. Morath C, Mueller M, Goldschmidt H, Schwenger V, Opelz G, Zeier M. Malignancy in renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15:1582-1588. [PubMed]
8. Helmschrott M, Beckendorf J, Akyol C, et al. Superior rejection profile during the first 24 months after heart transplantation under tacrolimus as baseline immunosuppressive regimen. Drug Des Devel Ther 2014;8:1307–1314. [Abstract/Full-Text]
9. Stehlik J, Edwards LB, Kucheryavaya AY, et al. The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Twenty-eighth Adult Heart Transplant Report – 2011. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011;30(10):1078–1094. [PubMed]
10. Starzl TE, Fung J, Jordan M, et al. Kidney transplantation under FK 506. JAMA 1990;264(1):63–67. [PubMed]
11. Armitage JM, Kormos RL, Griffith BP, et al. A clinical trial of FK 506 as primary and rescue immunosuppression in cardiac transplantation. Transplant Proc 1991;23(1 Pt 2):1149–1152. [PubMed]
12. Ho ET, Wong G, Craig JC, Chapman JR. Once-daily extended-release versus twice-daily standard-release tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review. Transplantation 2013;95(9):1120–1128. [PubMed]
13. Hemmens VJ, Moore DE. Photochemical sensitization by azathioprine and its metabolites. Azathioprine and nitroimidazole metabolites. Photochem Photobiol 1986;43(3):257–262. [PubMed]
14. Hodson EM, Jones CA, Webster AC, et al. Antiviral medications to prevent cytomegalovirus disease and early death in recipients of solid-organ transplants: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Lancet 2005;365(9477):2105–2115.
15. Opelz G, Döhler B. Lymphomas after solid organ transplantation: a collaborative transplant study report. Am J Transplant 2004;4(2):222–230. [PubMed]
16. Penn I. Occurrence of cancers in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients . Clin Transpl 1998;10:147–158.
17. Swinnen LJ. Organ transplant-related lymphoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2001;2 :301–308. [PubMed]
18. Ye F, Ying-Bin X, Yu-Guo W, Hetzer R. Tacrolimus versus cyclosporine microemulsion for heart transplant recipients: a meta-analysis. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009;28(1):58–66. [PubMed]
19. Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, et al. ELITE-Symphony Study Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007;357(25):2562–2575.
20. Meiser BM, Groetzner J, Kaczmarek I, et al. Tacrolimus or cyclosporine: which is the better partner for mycophenolate mofetil in heart transplant recipients? Transplantation 2004;78(4):591–598. [PubMed]
21. Stewart S, Winters GL, Fishbein MC, et al. Revision of the 1990 working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of heart rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant 2005;24(11):1710–1720. [PubMed]
