Long-Term Risk of Subsequent Malignant Neoplasms After Treatment of Childhood Cancer in the DCOG LATER Study Cohort: Role of Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) are at increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs). We evaluated the long-term risk of SMNs in a well-characterized cohort of 5-year CCSs, with a particular focus on individual chemotherapeutic agents and solid cancer risk. Methods The Dutch Childhood Cancer Oncology Group–Long-Term Effects After Childhood Cancer cohort includes 6,165 5-year CCSs diagnosed between 1963 and 2001 in the Netherlands. SMNs were identified by linkages with the Netherlands Cancer Registry, the Dutch Pathology Registry, and medical chart review. We calculated standardized incidence ratios, excess absolute risks, and cumulative incidences. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to evaluate treatment-associated risks for breast cancer, sarcoma, and all solid cancers. Results After a median follow-up of 20.7 years (range, 5.0 to 49.8 years) since first diagnosis, 291 SMNs were ascertained in 261 CCSs (standardized incidence ratio, 5.2; 95% CI, 4.6 to 5.8; excess absolute risk, 20.3/10,000 person-years). Cumulative SMN incidence at 25 years after first diagnosis was 3.9% (95% CI, 3.4% to 4.6%) and did not change noticeably among CCSs treated in the 1990s compared with those treated earlier. We found dose-dependent doxorubicin-related increased risks of all solid cancers ( P trend < .001) and breast cancer ( P trend < .001). The doxorubicin-breast cancer dose response was stronger in survivors of Li-Fraumeni syndrome–associated childhood cancers (leukemia, CNS, and non-Ewing sarcoma) versus survivors of other cancers ( P difference = .008). In addition, cyclophosphamide was found to increase sarcoma risk in a dose-dependent manner ( P trend = .01). Conclusion The results strongly suggest that doxorubicin exposure in CCSs increases the risk of subsequent solid cancers and breast cancer, whereas cyclophosphamide exposure increases the risk of subsequent sarcomas. These results may inform future childhood cancer treatment protocols and SMN surveillance guidelines for CCSs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".