MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410595792 · doi:10.1016/j.trim.2025.102242

Successful use of cemiplimab in a high immunologic risk kidney transplant recipient with metastatic squamous cell carcinoma

2025· article· en· W4410595792 on OpenAlexaff
Elena-Bianca Barbir, Abdullah Jalal, Joseph P. Grande, Svetomir N. Markovic, Aleksandra Kukla, Itunu Owoyemi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplant Immunology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb Foundation
KeywordsMedicineBasal cellKidney transplantKidneyPathologyOncologyKidney transplantationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread use of immunotherapy in the management of cancers has led to improved overall survival and progression free survival. Due to increased risk of allograft rejection, organ transplant recipients are often excluded in clinical trials or offered immunotherapy only as salvage therapy. We report a case of successful use of Cemiplimab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, in a high immunologic risk kidney transplant recipient who was diagnosed with metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) twenty-five months post-transplant. He started Cemiplimab five months post diagnosis of SCC, as third line therapy, after demonstrating progression of metastatic skull-based disease on prior lines of therapy. His maintenance immunosuppression was changed from triple immunosuppression with tacrolimus, mycophenolate and prednisone to sirolimus with a high trough target of 10-15 ng/mL and steroid therapy. He tolerated the high sirolimus trough and continued on Cemiplimab for six months with clinically stable allograft function and a good quality of life. Notably, he demonstrated response of his previously chemotherapy refractory metastatic disease. He passed away from radiation necrosis of the brain at sixty-eight months post-transplant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplant ImmunologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207