Role of Lung Transplantation in the Treatment of Bronchogenic Carcinomas for Patients With End-Stage Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the role of lung transplantation in the treatment of patients presenting with bronchogenic carcinoma and end-stage lung disease. METHODS: An international survey was conducted to determine the outcome of patients with bronchogenic carcinoma in the explanted lung at the time of transplantation. A group of 69 patients was collected from 33 centers. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients underwent 29 lung transplantations for advanced multifocal bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) as the primary indication for transplantation, and 13 developed a recurrence, with an overall 5-year actuarial survival of 39%. Incidental bronchogenic carcinomas classified as stage I (n = 22), II (n = 12), and III (n = 2), or as incidental multifocal BAC (n = 7), were found in the explanted lung of the remaining 43 patients. The 5-year actuarial survival was 51% in patients with stage I carcinomas, and was significantly better than for patients with stage II and III carcinomas (survival of 14%) or with incidental multifocal BAC (survival of 23%). Time from transplantation to recurrence and from recurrence to death was significantly longer in patients with multifocal BAC than in patients with other types of bronchogenic carcinoma. In addition, the site of recurrence was limited to the transplanted lung in 88% of the patients with multifocal BAC, whereas it was always widespread in patients with other types of bronchogenic carcinoma. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that long-term survival can be achieved after lung transplantation in patients with stage I bronchogenic carcinoma or with advanced multifocal BAC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".