Searched for: in-biosketch:yes
person:gentrs01
Reply: How liver allocation should weigh Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, posttransplant survival, distance, and access [Letter]
VanDerwerken, Douglas N; Wood, Nick L; Segev, Dorry L; Gentry, Sommer E
PMID: 35689612
ISSN: 1527-3350
CID: 5283312
Questions of accountability and transparency in the US organ donation and transplantation system [Letter]
Levan, Macey L; Klitenic, Samantha; Massie, Allan; Parent, Brendan; Caplan, Arthur; Gentry, Sommer; Segev, Dorry
PMID: 35710989
ISSN: 1546-170x
CID: 5282752
The Effect of Acuity Circles on Deceased Donor Transplant and Offer Rates Across Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores and Exception Statuses
Wey, Andrew; Noreen, Samantha; Gentry, Sommer; Cafarella, Matt; Trotter, James; Salkowski, Nicholas; Segev, Dorry; Israni, Ajay; Kasiske, Bertram; Hirose, Ryutaro; Snyder, Jon
Acuity circles (AC), the new liver allocation system, was implemented on February 4, 2020. Difference-in-differences analyses estimated the effect of AC on adjusted deceased donor transplant and offer rates across Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) categories and types of exception statuses. The offer rates were the number of first offers, top 5 offers, and top 10 offers on the match run per person-year. Each analysis adjusted for candidate characteristics and only used active candidate time on the waiting list. The before-AC period was February 4, 2019, to February 3, 2020, and the after-AC period was February 4, 2020, to February 3, 2021. Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 and PELD/MELD scores 33 to 36 had higher transplant rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 after AC compared with before AC (transplant rate ratios: PELD/MELD scores 29-32, 2.34 3.324.71 ; PELD/MELD scores 33-36, 1.70 2.513.71 ). Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 or higher had higher offer rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28, and candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 had the largest difference (offer rate ratios [ORR]: first offers, 2.77 3.955.63 ; top 5 offers, 3.90 4.394.95 ; top 10 offers, 4.85 5.305.80 ). Candidates with exceptions had lower offer rates than candidates without exceptions for offers in the top 5 (ORR: hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], 0.68 0.770.88 ; non-HCC, 0.73 0.810.89 ) and top 10 (ORR: HCC, 0.59 0.650.71 ; non-HCC, 0.69 0.750.81 ). Recipients with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 and an HCC exception received a larger proportion of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors after AC than before AC, although the differences in the liver donor risk index were comparatively small. Thus, candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 34 and no exceptions had better access to transplant after AC, and donor quality did not notably change beyond the proportion of DCD donors.
PMID: 34482614
ISSN: 1527-6473
CID: 5127612
Life expectancy without a transplant for status 1A liver transplant candidates
Wood, Nicholas L; VanDerwerken, Douglas N; King, Elizabeth A; Segev, Dorry L; Gentry, Sommer E
Status 1A liver transplant candidates are given the highest medical priority for the allocation of deceased donor livers. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy requires physicians to certify that a candidate has a life expectancy without a transplant of less than 7Â days for that candidate to be given status 1A. Additionally, candidates receiving status 1A must have one of six medical conditions listed in policy. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from all prevalent liver transplant candidates from 2010 to 2020, we used a bias-corrected Kaplan-Meier model to calculate the survival of status 1A candidates and to determine their life expectancy without a transplant. We found that status 1A candidates have a life expectancy without a transplant of 24 (95% CI 20-46) days-over three times longer than what policy requires for status 1A designation. We repeated the analysis for subgroups of status 1A candidates based on the medical conditions that grant status 1A. We found that none of these subgroups met the life expectancy requirement. Harmonizing OPTN policy with observed data would sustain the integrity of the allocation process.
PMCID:8720063
PMID: 34487636
ISSN: 1600-6143
CID: 5127622
Opportunities for Improved Efficiency in Kidney Distribution: A Comparison of Center-Specified UNet Donor Criteria to Actual Kidney Acceptance Practices [Meeting Abstract]
Zeiser, Laura; Gentry, Sommer; Segev, Dorry; Massie, Allan
ISI:000739470700207
ISSN: 1600-6135
CID: 5133702
Designing Continuous Distribution for Liver Allocation [Meeting Abstract]
Mankowski, Michal; Wood, Nicholas; Segev, Dorry; Gentry, Sommer
ISI:000739470700008
ISSN: 1600-6135
CID: 5133502
Designing Continuous Distribution for Liver Allocation. [Meeting Abstract]
Mankowski, M.; Wood, N.; Segev, D.; Gentry, S.
ISI:000842606302312
ISSN: 1600-6135
CID: 5486642
Characterizing the early impact of the Kidney Accelerated Placement Project on hard-to-place kidneys [Meeting Abstract]
Motter, Jennifer; Kernodle, Amber; Gentry, Sommer; Levan, Macey; Wood, Nicholas; Segev, Dorry; Garonzik-Wang, Jacqueline; Massie, Allan
ISI:000739470700152
ISSN: 1600-6135
CID: 5133672
Does MELD-GRAIL-Na Correct Racial Disparities In Survival Without A Liver Transplant? [Meeting Abstract]
VanDerwerken, Doug; Wood, Nicholas; Segev, Dorry; Gentry, Sommer
ISI:000739470700067
ISSN: 1600-6135
CID: 5133582
Increased Logistical Complexity In Circle-Based Organ Allocation [Meeting Abstract]
Wood, Nicholas; VanDerwerken, Douglas; Segev, Dorry; Gentry, Sommer
ISI:000739470700198
ISSN: 1600-6135
CID: 5133692