Back

Rethinking the Impact of Pretransplant Malignancy (Pre-TM) on Double Lung Transplantation (DLT) Eligibility: An Analysis of 23,291 DLT Recipients

Woo, W.; Kim, H. S.; Bharat, A.; Chae, Y. K.

2024-03-16 transplantation
10.1101/2024.03.14.24304302 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundGiven the increasing need for lung transplants among older patients with a history of cancer, this study analyzed database registry to assess outcomes for DLT recipients with Pre-TM. MethodsThis study evaluated the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry for adult DLT performed between 2005 and 2023. Patients with a history of previous or multi-organ transplants, and those with donors who had cancer history, were excluded. Propensity-score matching was used to compare patients with or without Pre-TM. Overall and Post-TM-free survival were analyzed. ResultsAmong the 23,291 recipients of DLT, 8.0%(1,870) had Pre-TM. Compared to those without Pre-TM, patients with Pre-TM had worse overall (hazard ratio[HR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval[CI] 1.12-1.29, p<0.001) and Post-TM-free survival (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.24-1.41, p<0.001). However, after adjusting for age, sex, and race through propensity-score matching, the survival difference between the groups became non-significant (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.13, p=0.229). While the Pre-TM group still had worse Post-TM-free survival, this difference diminished after excluding cutaneous Post-TM (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99-1.15, p=0.116). Additionally, the recurrence rate of Pre-TM after transplant wasnt higher than de novo cancers in patients without Pre-TM. ConclusionPatients with Pre-TM had similar overall survival rates after DLT as those without Pre-TM. Importantly, there is no increased risk of the primary Pre-TM type recurring post-transplant compared to patients without Pre-TM. These findings highlight the necessity for a more nuanced evaluation of transplant candidacy to prevent premature exclusion of Pre-TM patients from life-saving surgeries.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.