Long-term Survival of Heart Transplant Recipients with Lung Cancer: The Role of Chest Computed Tomography Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the screening modality and outcome of lung cancer occurring in heart transplant recipients (HTR) during a 21-year period. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review to investigate the incidence, risk factors, screening modality, treatment, and outcomes in HTR with lung cancer. We compared them with a case-matched HTR control group. RESULTS: Out of 829 recipients of heart transplants, 19 cases of bronchogenic carcinoma were found either by routine chest X-ray (n = 10), chest computed tomographic (CT) scanning (n = 4), or by assessment of clinical symptoms (n = 5). The mean time from transplantation to bronchogenic carcinoma diagnosis was 68.8 +/- 42.4 months. A history of smoking was the only risk factor in HTR with bronchogenic carcinoma compared to their case-matched HTR control group ( P < 0.05). Of 18 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 13 underwent surgery and 5 with advanced cancer underwent chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. NSCLC was diagnosed by chest X-ray (n = 10), and 6 of these patients died after an average of 43.7 +/- 62.2 months following cancer detection. NSCLC was also diagnosed on the basis of clinical symptoms (n = 4), and 2 of these patients died after a mean follow-up of 9 +/- 4.2 months after cancer diagnosis. All 4 patients in whom cancer was detected by CT scan were alive at an average of 53.5 +/- 36.7 months following cancer detection. The survival rates did not differ between the study and control groups ( P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal outcomes of treatment for primary lung cancer after heart transplantation seem to be related to early detection. A high proportion of deaths from NSCLC may be prevented by chest CT scan screening.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".