Second solid cancers after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to establish the incidence and risk factors for the development of second solid cancers after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). METHODS: The authors reviewed the case files of 926 consecutive patients who underwent allo-HSCT at their institution between 1985 and 2003. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients developed 30 solid malignancies at a median of 6.8 years after allo-HSCT (range, 0.12-17.3 years) for a 10-year cumulative incidence of 3.1% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2-5%; all solid tumors) and 2.3% (95% CI 1-4%; excluding basal cell carcinoma and carcinoma in situ). The risk ratio of developing a second solid malignancy after allografting, compared with the general population of British Columbia adjusted for age and sex, was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.04-3.06; P = .019). In multivariate analysis, recipient age at allo-HSCT >40 years (P = .005) and having a woman donor (P = .0008) were associated with a greater risk of developing a second solid cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that patients undergoing allografting are at increased risk of developing a second solid cancer compared with the general population, particularly those of advanced age at the time of allograft. It is noteworthy that patients who had women as graft donors had an increased risk for developing a second solid cancer. This unexpected finding is a new observation and has not been reported previously. Extended follow-up will be needed to assess more fully the incidence and risk factors for the development of solid cancers, because the latency can be prolonged.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".