Outcomes of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors (CAYACS) with solid organ transplants: A population-based study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10056 Background: Organ toxicity requiring solid organ transplant (SOT) is a rare but serious effect of cancer treatment. Given restricted donor organ supply, teams must assess CAYACS requiring SOT in relation to potential recipients with non-malignant indications; decisions are limited by scant long-term outcome data. We compared long-term outcomes for CAYACS requiring SOT with other SOT recipients. Methods: All Ontario, Canada children < 18 years at cancer diagnosed 1986-2021 at pediatric centres, and AYA aged 15-21 diagnosed at adult centres for acute leukemia, lymphoma, sarcoma, or testicular cancer between 1992-2012 were identified using population-based clinical databases. Patients with SOT prior to their primary cancer diagnosis were excluded. SOT was identified through linkage to healthcare databases; patients were matched 1:2 to non-malignant SOT recipients by sex, SOT year and type, and birth year. Post-SOT outcomes including overall survival (OS) and post SOT cancers were compared between CAYACS and SOT controls. Results: Among 16,533 CAYA with cancer, 85 received SOT: 46 liver, 18 kidney, 11 lung, and 10 heart. Among liver recipients, 33 (71.7%) were for primary cancer treatment (e.g. hepatoblastoma) vs. 13 (28.3%) for organ toxicity. Median age at original cancer diagnosis was 4 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1-13] and at SOT was 13 (IQR 3-20). CAYACS with SOT as treatment for long-term toxicity (liver subset plus all renal, lung, heart, N = 52) had a median time from cancer diagnosis to SOT of 9 years (IQR 4-16) and experienced lower 10-year OS from time of SOT [67.7%, 95th confidence interval (95CI) 50.8-79.9] vs. SOT matched controls [86.0% (74.8-92.5); hazard ratio (HR) 3.9; 95CI 1.6-9.7; p = 0.003]. When stratified by SOT type, similar trends were seen but were only statistically significant among lung SOT recipients (Table). The 5-year cumulative incidence of primary cancer relapse from time of SOT among those who received liver SOT for primary cancer therapy was 15.9% (95CI 5.6-30.8). Among CAYACS who require SOT following organ toxicity, 10-year cumulative incidence of second cancers was 8.6%±4.2%; this was similar to the incidence of first cancer among SOT controls (6.4%±2.6%; HR 1.6, 95CI 0.6-4.0; p = 0.34). Conclusions: Though CAYACS requiring SOT have inferior survival compared to other SOT patients, the majority achieve long-term cancer-free survival. These data can inform discussions on the suitability of CAYACS for SOT. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".