暂无摘要。

Cancer is the second most common cause of mortality and morbidity in Kidney Transplant Recipients (KTRs). Immunosuppression can influence the efficacy of cancer treatment and modification of the immunosuppressive regimen may restore anti-neoplastic immune responses improving oncologic prognosis. However, patients and transplant physicians are usually reluctant to modify immunosuppression, fearing rejection and potential graft loss. Due to the lack of extensive and recognised data supporting how to manage the immunosuppressive therapy in KTRs, in the context of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and loco-regional treatments, a Consensus Conference was organised under the auspices of the European Society of Organ Transplantation and the Italian Society of Organ Transplantation. The conference involved a multidisciplinary group of transplant experts in the field across Europe.
The overall process included a) the formulation of 12 specific questions based on the PICO methodology, b) systematic literature review and summary for experts for each question, c) a two-day conference celebration and the collection of experts\' agreements. The conference was articulated in three sessions: \"Immunosuppressive therapy and immunotherapy\", \"Systemic therapy\", \"Integrated Therapy\", while the final experts\' agreement was collected with a televoting procedure and defined according to the majority criterion.
Twenty-six European experts attended the conference and expressed their vote. A total of 14 statements were finally elaborated and voted. Strong agreement was found for ten statements, moderate agreement for two, moderate disagreement for one and uncertainty for the last one.
The consensus statements provide guidance to transplant physicians caring for kidney transplant recipients with cancer and indicate key aspects that need to be addressed by future clinical research.

The editorial comments on a recently published study in which 242 patients, with \"stable\" chronic kidney disease, recruited during a hospital stay, were randomised either to receiving support from nephrologists (co-management by primary care physicians and nephrologists), or to be managed by primary care physicians with written instructions and nephrology consultations on demand. After a mean follow-up of 4 years, the results in terms of dialysis start, hospitalisation and death were similar for both groups.This study gave the possibility to discuss about the options of follow-up of CKD patients, including on one side the advantage of a greater involvement of primary care physicians, who could oversee care by applying a common set of simplified guidelines, and on the other one the importance of a direct and deep involvement of the specialists that seems necessary in particular if personalised approaches have to be pursuit. The data of the present study are somehow in disagreement with the literature, usually suggesting better outcomes in intensive treatment, in which specialists are directly involved. The literature is heterogeneous, the goals vary and the populations are differently selected. The compliance issue is probably one of the missing pieces of the puzzle, and specific interventions should also be tailored to \"reluctant\" patients. Guidelines should probably be staring points for improvement, and not the standard of care; the study herein discussed may suggest that primary care physicians may be of great help in granting a good standard of care, hopefully as a baseline for further improvement, and personalised care.

The management of atrial fibrillation (AF) has seen marked changes in past years, with the introduction of new oral anticoagulants, new antiarrhythmic drugs, and the emergence of catheter ablation as a common intervention for rhythm control. Furthermore, new technologies enhance our ability to detect AF. Most clinical management decisions in AF patients can be based on validated parameters that encompass type of presentation, clinical factors, electrocardiogram analysis, and cardiac imaging. Despite these advances, patients with AF are still at increased risk for death, stroke, heart failure, and hospitalizations. During the fourth Atrial Fibrillation competence NETwork/European Heart Rhythm Association (AFNET/EHRA) consensus conference, we identified the following opportunities to personalize management of AF in a better manner with a view to improve outcomes by integrating atrial morphology and damage, brain imaging, information on genetic predisposition, systemic or local inflammation, and markers for cardiac strain. Each of these promising avenues requires validation in the context of existing risk factors in patients. More importantly, a new taxonomy of AF may be needed based on the pathophysiological type of AF to allow personalized management of AF to come to full fruition. Continued translational research efforts are needed to personalize management of this prevalent disease in a better manner. All the efforts are expected to improve the management of patients with AF based on personalized therapy.