Background: This study investigated the associations between transfusion of different types of red blood cell (RBC) preparations and kidney allograft outcomes after kidney transplantation (KT) over a 16-year period in Korea using a nationwide population-based cohort. Methods: We investigated the reported use of RBCs during hospitalization for KT surgery, rejection, and graft failure status using nationwide data from the National Health Information Database (2002–2017). The associations between the type of perioperative RBC product and transplant outcomes were evaluated among four predefined groups: no RBC transfusion, filtered RBCs, washed RBCs, and packed RBCs (pRBCs). Results: A total of 17,754 KT patients was included, among which 8,530 (48.0%) received some type of RBC transfusion. Of the patients who received RBC transfusion, 74.9%, 19.7%, and 5.4% received filtered RBCs, pRBCs, or washed RBCs, respectively. Regardless of the type of RBC products, the proportions of acute rejection and graft failure was significantly greater in patients receiving transfusion (P < 0.001). Cox proportional hazards regression analyses showed that the filtered RBC and pRBC groups were significantly associated with both rejection and graft failure. The washed RBC group also had hazard ratios greater than 1.0 for rejection and graft failure, but the association was not significant. Rejection-free survival of the pRBC group was significantly lower than that of the other groups (P < 0.001, log-rank test), and graft survival for the no RBC transfusion group was significantly greater than in the other groups (P < 0.001, log-rank test). Conclusion Perioperative RBC transfusion was associated with poor graft outcomes.Notably, transfusion of pRBCs significantly increased transplant rejection. Therefore, careful consideration of indications for RBC transfusion and selection of the appropriate type of RBCs is necessary, especially for patients at high risk of rejection or graft failure.

Purpose: Surgical margin status is a surrogate marker for residual tumors after breastconserving surgery (BCS). A comparison of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rates between re-excision combined with radiotherapy (excision with RTx) and RTx alone, following the confirmation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the resection margin after BCS, has not been reported previously. Therefore, in the present study, the clinical characteristics of DCIS involvement in the surgical resection margin between excision with RTx and RTx alone were investigated, and the IBTR rate was compared. Methods: We analyzed 8,473 patients treated with BCS followed by RTx between January 2013 and December 2019. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on surgical resection margin status in permanent pathology, and superficial and deep margins were excluded. Patients who underwent re-excision with DCIS confirmed in the resection margin were identified and the IBTR rate was examined. Results: Among 8,473 patients treated with BCS, 494 (5.8%) had positive surgical resection margins. The median follow-up period was 47 months. Among the 494 patients with a positive resection margin, 368 (74.5%) had residual DCIS at the surgical resection margin in the final pathology. Among those with confirmed DCIS at the resection margin, 24 patients (6.5%) were re-excised, and 344 patients (93.5%) underwent RTx after observation. The IBTR rates were 4.2% and 1.2% in the re-excision and observation groups, respectively. IBTR-free survival analysis revealed no significant difference between the excision with RTx and RTxonly groups (p = 0.262). Conclusion The IBTR rate did not differ between the excision with RTx and RTx-only groups when DCIS was confirmed at the resection margins. This suggests that RTx and close observation without re-excision could be an option, even in cases where minimal involvement of DCIS is confirmed on surgical resection.

Purpose: Despite the increasing use of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), its oncologic safety in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) needs to be comprehensively clarified in breast cancer management. The objective of the present study was to analyze the oncologic safety of IBR following NACT. Methods: In total, 587 patients with breast cancer who underwent a total mastectomy (TM) with IBR after NACT between 2008 and 2017 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The reviewed patients with IBR following skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) were matched 1:3 to patients who underwent TM alone after NACT. Matching variables included age, clinical T and N stages before NACT, response to NACT, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. Results: After propensity score matching, 95 patients who underwent IBR following SSM/ NSM after NACT (IBR group) and 228 patients who underwent TM alone after NACT (TM group) were selected. The median follow-up period was 73 (range, 5–181) months after matching. After matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (88.8% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.516), disease-free survival (67.3% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.099), distant metastasis-free survival (71.9% vs. 81.9%, p = 0.057), or overall survival (84.1% vs. 91.5, p = 0.061) rates. In multivariate analyses, conducting IBR was not associated with increased risks for locoregional recurrence, any recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall death. Conclusion Our findings suggest that IBR following SSM/NSM elicits comparable long-term oncologic outcomes to those of TM alone in the setting of NACT.