Elevated Risk of Cancer After Solid Organ Transplant in Childhood: A Population-based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer risk is elevated among adult transplant recipients, but there is limited data regarding long-term cancer risk and mortality in pediatric recipients. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada. We included pediatric recipients of solid organ transplants at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, from 1991 to 2014, and compared rates of new cancers and cancer-specific mortality to nontransplanted Ontario children born in the same year. We constructed standard and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models accounting for competing risk of death. RESULTS: A total of 951 recipients (kidney, n = 400; liver, n = 283; heart, n = 218; lung, n = 36; multiorgan/small bowel, n = 14) were compared with 5.3 million general population children. Mean (SD) age was 8.2 (6.4) years; 50% were male. Over a mean (SD) follow-up of 10.8 (7.1) years, cumulative incidence of cancer was 20% in recipients and 1.2% in the general population (incidence rate ratio, 32.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26.6-40.8). Risk was highest in the first year posttransplant (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR],176; 95% CI, 117-264), but remained elevated beyond 10 years (aHR, 10.8; 95% CI, 6.3-18.6). Lymphoproliferative disorders were predominant (77%); however, solid cancers (renal, sarcomas, genital, thyroid) were seen. Recipients of lung or multiorgan transplants were at highest risk. Cancer-specific mortality was also higher among recipients (HR, 93.1; 95% CI, 59.6-145.2). CONCLUSIONS: Childhood transplant recipients have a 30 times greater cancer incidence versus the general population. Further investigation is needed to guide screening strategies in this at-risk population.
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) | 0.000 | 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".