Outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The improving survival in patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHCT) has warranted an increased attention to the long-term complications after aHCT especially second malignancies. The risk of developing esophageal cancer is thought to be higher than other malignancies after aHCT. There are limited data on the clinical characteristics, staging, treatment options and outcomes in these patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent aHCT at our centre over 30 years and identified patients who developed secondary esophageal cancer. Patients were analyzed for transplant details, disease characteristics and therapy, relapse free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Ten patients [females 40% (n=4); median age 62 years] were diagnosed with esophageal cancer after a median duration of 5.8 years since aHCT. The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for esophageal ca after aHCT was 1.96. Five patients (55.5%) had advanced clinical stages (stage III-IV) at diagnosis. Esophagectomy (with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy) was performed in 50% (n=5) patients. Remission was achieved in 70% (n=7) of patients while 1 patient had progressive disease after planned treatment. Progressive disease was the cause in 50% (n=3) of deaths. Estimated 2- and 5-year overall survival after diagnosis of esophageal cancer was 60% and 45% respectively (median survival: 44.1 months). Conclusions: Despite the higher risk and increased incidence of esophageal cancer after aHCT, the outcomes these patients may be comparable to that in general population if diagnosed early. This implies the need for continued long term follow-up for patients after aHCT with a transplant physician.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".