The opposite problem is a compelling one as well. My transplant surgeon says that "Snow White isn't going to be your organ donor", meaning that patients must understand that every organ will have flaws and exposure to disease, exposure to imperfect lifestyles, etc.<p>None are perfect. But transplant recipients don't need a perfect organ. They just need one that will get them through their natural life. A "good enough" one.<p>This mindset is important for the moment when an organ becomes available. Many patients on the wait list for organs actually turn down donor offers because of some imperfection the doctor told them about. In fact, some people turn down an organ just because another patient previously turned it down - even though the reason might have nothing to do with the viability of the organ itself. The consequences of such a decision can be fatal.<p>Instead, my surgeon pioneered the idea of transplanting Hepatitis C infected livers into patients who needed transplant because of HepC-driven liver failure. His idea was that young people recently infected with HepC who die tragically are often in otherwise excellent health (HepC is a slowly progressing disease) and make good donors.<p>His work allowed him to clear out the backlog of patients awaiting liver transplant at his center, with success rates as good as any other hospital. And today, it's possible to kill HepC with anti-viral agents post-transplant.<p>(Minor edit for clarity.)
I'm on a kidney transplant list myself. I'm already aware there is a higher risk of cancer than the average population. But one had to live with the cards dealt in life so I have to accept that risk.<p>I'm also hoping for the success of the UCSF artificial kidney. They are in early stage testing in humans. <a href="https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney" rel="nofollow">https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney</a> I think if you read up on it, there is a lot of opportunities for budding young bioengineers and material scientists to help improve on this technology. They build a precision pore size filter and coat it with human cells.
As a melanoma survivor, I'm no longer eligible to be an organ donor. In fact, I could even donate blood until the American Red Cross changed their guidelines for eligibility in 2017:<p>Benign cancer or tumor: Acceptable to donate<p>Basal cell carcinoma: Deferred for four weeks after date of surgical removal<p>Squamous cell carcinoma (skin, cervix, or oral cavity): Deferred for four weeks after date of surgical removal<p>Malignant cancer (e.g., breast, prostate, or colon cancer and melanoma): Deferred for one year after treatment is completed<p>Leukemia, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and myeloma: Ineligible to donate permanently<p>Kaposi’s sarcoma: Ineligible to donate permanently
I had lymphoma, which is categorized as a blood cancer. As a result, I'm not allowed to donate blood (ever again) or organs. The thing is, I'm almost certain that this isn't recorded anywhere. Not that I want it being recorded (on principle for privacy rights; I don't actually care), but I'm pretty sure I could donate both blood and (I hope never to be in this situation) organs, and no one would be any the wiser.
It probably doesn’t help that the same drugs that stop you rejecting organs hammer your immune system and weaken it’s surveillance for foreign entities.
If that wasn’t surprising enough for you- there’s a cancer line that has been propagated between dogs for <i>centuries</i>: <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_tumor" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venerea...</a>
Now, imagine a blood donor with occult disease... To my knowledge a case of carcinoma (epithelial cell origin) transmitted via blood donation has not been recorded yet, however, hematologic maligancies are theoretically very possible.
It's interesting to me that the survivor required chemotherapy in addition to removing the immune system suppressants. Perhaps the immune system evading strategies of tumors can be exploited in future transplant operations?
I'm not too surprised by the fact that cancer is transmittable via organ donation.<p>I'm just surprised that the donor wasn't screened for probability of cancer using a DNA test. Or is that not possible ?
Cancer is a risk of long-term use of immunosuppressants in transplant populations as well[0].<p>[0] <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865745/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865745/</a>
I just wish outcomes like this were stronger motivation for the world to work harder on other solutions. But it never seems to go that direction. Instead, it spurs discussion of finding ways to improve transplants.