Reduced Cancer Survival Among Adults With HIV and AIDS-Defining Illnesses Despite No Difference in Cancer Stage at Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is not known whether immune dysfunction is associated with increased risk of death after cancer diagnosis in persons with HIV (PWH). AIDS-defining illness (ADI) can signal significant immunosuppression. Our objective was to determine differences in cancer stage and mortality rates in PWH with and without history of ADI. METHODS: PWH with anal, oropharynx, cervical, lung cancers, or Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses from January 2000 to December 2009 in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design were included. RESULTS: Among 81,865 PWH, 814 had diagnoses included in the study; 341 (39%) had a history of ADI at time of cancer diagnosis. For each cancer type, stage at diagnosis did not differ by ADI (P > 0.05). Mortality and survival estimates for cervical cancer were limited by n = 5 diagnoses. Adjusted mortality rate ratios showed a 30%-70% increase in mortality among those with ADI for all cancer diagnoses, although only lung cancer was statistically significant. Survival after lung cancer diagnosis was poorer in PWH with ADI vs. without (P = 0.0001); the probability of survival was also poorer in those with ADI at, or before other cancers although not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: PWH with a history of ADI at lung cancer diagnosis had higher mortality and poorer survival after diagnosis compared to those without. Although not statistically significant, the findings of increased mortality and decreased survival among those with ADI (vs. without) were consistent for all other cancers, suggesting the need for further investigations into the role of HIV-related immune suppression and cancer outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".