Determining safe washout period for immune checkpoint inhibitors prior to liver transplantation: An international retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly used in patients with advanced HCC patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). However, concerns about the risk of posttransplant rejection persist. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We conducted an international retrospective cohort study including 119 HCC patients who received ICIs prior to LT. We analyzed the incidence of allograft rejection, graft loss, and posttransplant recurrence with a particular focus on the washout period between the last ICI dose and LT. In this study, 24 of the 119 (20.2%) patients experienced allograft rejection with a median time to rejection of 9 days (IQR 6-10) post-LT. A linear relationship was observed between shorter washout periods and higher rejection risk. Washout periods <30 days (OR: 21.3, 95% CI: 5.93-103, p< 0.001) and between 30 and 50 days (OR: 9.48, 95% CI 2.47-46.8, p =0.002) were significantly associated with higher rejection rates in the univariate analysis compared to the washout period above 50 days. Graft loss as a result of rejection occurred in 6 patients (25%) with rejection. No factors related to grafts were associated with rejection. A longer washout period was not associated with a lower recurrence-free survival posttransplantation at 36 months (71% vs. 67%, p =0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a washout period longer than 50 days for ICIs before LT appears to be safe with respect to rejection risk. While these results may help guide clinical decision-making, future prospective studies are essential to establish definitive guidelines.
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".