MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130803751 · doi:10.1093/jnci/dji278

Second Cancers Among 40 576 Testicular Cancer Patients: Focus on Long-term Survivors

2005· article· en· W2130803751 on OpenAlexaff
Lois B. Travis, Sophie D. Fosså, Sara J. Schonfeld, Mary L. McMaster, Charles F. Lynch, Hans H. Storm, Per Hall, Eric J. Holowaty, Aage Andersen, ­Eero Pukkala, Michael Andersson, Magnus Kaijser, Mary Gospodarowicz, Timo Joensuu, R.J. Cohen, John D. Boice, Graça M. Dores, Ethel S. Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCancer Care Ontario
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskCancerRelative survivalInternal medicinePoisson regressionConfidence intervalPopulationCohortTesticular cancerAbsolute risk reductionLung cancerBladder cancerGastroenterologyCancer registry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although second primary cancers are a leading cause of death among men with testicular cancer, few studies have quantified risks among long-term survivors. METHODS: Within 14 population-based tumor registries in Europe and North America (1943-2001), we identified 40,576 1-year survivors of testicular cancer and ascertained data on any new incident solid tumors among these patients. We used Poisson regression analysis to model relative risks (RRs) and excess absolute risks (EARs) of second solid cancers. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 2,285 second solid cancers were reported in the cohort. The relative risk and EAR decreased with increasing age at testicular cancer diagnosis (P < .001); the EAR increased with attained age (P < .001) but the excess RR decreased. Among 10-year survivors diagnosed with testicular cancer at age 35 years, the risk of developing a second solid tumor was increased (RR = 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.8 to 2.1). Risk remained statistically significantly elevated for 35 years (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.0; P < .001). We observed statistically significantly elevated risks, for the first time, for cancers of the pleura (malignant mesothelioma; RR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.7 to 5.9) and esophagus (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.6). Cancers of the lung (RR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.7), colon (RR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.7 to 2.5), bladder (RR = 2.7, 95% CI = 2.2 to 3.1), pancreas (RR = 3.6, 95% CI = 2.8 to 4.6), and stomach (RR = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.2 to 4.8) accounted for almost 60% of the total excess. Overall patterns were similar for seminoma and nonseminoma patients, with lower risks observed for nonseminoma patients treated after 1975. Statistically significantly increased risks of solid cancers were observed among patients treated with radiotherapy alone (RR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.2), chemotherapy alone (RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3 to 2.5), and both (RR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.9 to 4.2). For patients diagnosed with seminomas or nonseminomatous tumors at age 35 years, cumulative risks of solid cancer 40 years later (i.e., to age 75 years) were 36% and 31%, respectively, compared with 23% for the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Testicular cancer survivors are at statistically significantly increased risk of solid tumors for at least 35 years after treatment. Young patients may experience high levels of risk as they reach older ages. The statistically significantly increased risk of malignant mesothelioma in testicular cancer survivors has, to our knowledge, not been observed previously in a cohort of patients treated with radiotherapy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations830
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207