Recipients Developing Cancer from Donated Organs – What are your thoughts?
Hi, everyone! This is Rhea and I recently read this article on CNN called “Four people get cancer from donated organ in ‘extraordinary rare’ case.” This is the full article if you are interested: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/health/organ-donor-cancer-transmission-europe-intl/index.html
This CNN article is about how four European patients developed breast cancer after they received organ transplants from the same donor. This is very strange as the “donor had no known medical conditions, and the malignancy was unknown when her kidneys, lungs, liver and heart were harvested” (CNN article).
The study mentioned in the article revealed that the donor had “micrometastasis,” which is essentially when small numbers of cancer cells have spread from the original tumor to other areas of the body through the lymphovascular system, but are not large enough to be detected through screening. This explains how although the standard screening process, full physical tests, and ultrasounds were conducted on the donor’s body prior to the organ transplants, the malignancy and cancer cells were undetected in the donated organs.
Although there have been cases of cancer transmission through organ transplants before, this case is believed to be the first involving the transmission of breast cancer through organ transplants.
However, it is important to note that the “risk of transmitting tumors is between 0.01% and 0.05% for each organ transplant” (CNN article) and that donors with active malignancies are not allowed to partake in organ donations.
The article also explains how this rare occurrence of breast cancer transmission can potentially be avoided through experimental programs for early cancer diagnosis in the future.
Although some doctors suggest that a CT scan could have detected the donor’s malignancy before the organ donations, others discourage this practice for all potential donors because this would not only increase “irrelevant findings,” but would also cause a decrease in the already scare pool of potential organ/tissue donors.
However, I believe that we should look more into these potential methods for early detection of malignancies and other conditions, such as possessing HIV, which would render the donor unsuitable for organ donations. Although there have not been many recent cases of the transmission of HIV through organ transplantation since 2012, there is still a risk, no matter how small, of HIV transmission despite routine screening.
Despite all of these potential risks that arise as a byproduct of organ transplantations, most doctors believe that the chances of these adverse effects are relatively small and argue that the “advantages of organ transplantation far outweigh these small risks” (CNN article). In fact, I agree with this viewpoint because although risks will always be present, organ transplants can drastically improve the health of patients and can substantially prolong their lifespans.
I want to hear from all of you about this topic as well.
What are your thoughts about the benefits of organ transplantation outweighing the risks of the process?
Should we start using CT scans on potential donors for early cancer detection, in turn decreasing the possibility of transmitting life-threatening malignancies? Or should we keep the current screening procedure so that we don’t decrease the already limited pool of potential organ donors?
Should we look towards new technologies other than CT scans for detecting conditions, such as malignancies and the possession of HIV, to keep recipients of organ/tissue transplants healthy even after their procedures?
Comments (2)
Wow, this is a really interesting article. I agree with you that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks of the process, because organ donation is a process that has been life-saving for millions across the world. Although there are risks that come with the organ donation, the chances of having a successful transplant is high. However, I do believe that doctors should do a CT scan before using them as an organ donor because the patient who is going to receive the organ has no chance of living then. I don’t see any benefit if the organ is already diseased because you are giving them an organ so they can live longer, but with the cancerous organ, you only limit their life.
It is also beneficial to the organ donor. As you stated in the article, the cancer was in its early stages and would have been looked over without any detection. However, when they go to donate their organ, they would get back the results and could then take immediate action to prevent the condition for worsening.
Rhea, if they do a CT scan for the donor, the donor would not have to pay, right?
If this is true, then it would be completely beneficial to find any problem at stop it at its roots. Also, more people may be encouraged to donate their organs if they see that they are getting such a large benefit out of it.
Yeah, I was reading another article similar to this, where the doctors are not sure whether to scan the patients for fear that the patients may take it in the wrong way. This field of medicine really interests me because since both sides offer logical reasoning, the topic is controversial and is up for discussion. I am really glad that you are writing about this to educate others about these topic and allowing us to express our opinions through a blog post.
Personally, I think scanning is unnecessary because there is no need to subject a healthy body to scans that could cause the patient to worry more. Even if insignificant things are determined during the scan, the patient is bound to look it up and reassure themselves of what they have. However, I could see how it is beneficial to the public, which makes this such a great topic because there are so many factors contributing to this that people have to take into account when choosing which side they agree with.