Back

Long-Term Efficacy and Allograft Loss after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients with Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Wu, H.; Murphy, M.; Becot, C.; Fragano, A. M.; Lin, E. H. S.; Surapaneni, S.; Shirvani, D.; Cimoch, C.; Merkin, R.; Cohen, S.; Williams, W. W.; Emerick, K.; Kaufman, H. L.; Shalhout, S. Z.

2026-09-20 dermatology
10.64898/2026.09.17.26363341 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can provide effective treatment for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs), but long-term oncologic and allograft outcomes remain poorly characterized. Objective: To evaluate long-term efficacy and allograft outcomes after ICI therapy in SOTRs with advanced CSCC. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of SOTRs with advanced CSCC treated with systemic ICI at Mass General Brigham from 2016-2025. Tumor response, survival, immune-related adverse events, immunosuppression modifications, rejection rate, and graft loss were assessed. Kidney graft failure was analyzed using competing-risk methods with death as a competing event. Results: Among 36 SOTRs, objective response rate was 44.4% (95% CI, 27.9%-61.9%), including 9 complete responses. At 3 years, progression-free, disease-specific, and overall survival were 18.6%, 65.8%, and 32.5%, respectively. Median follow-up was 42.1 months. Five patients experienced graft loss, all kidney recipients; 4 had biopsy-confirmed rejection. The 3-year cumulative incidence of kidney graft failure was 16.7% (95% CI, 2.9%-30.5%). Limitations: Retrospective design, modest sample size, and heterogeneous immunosuppression limited risk-factor analyses. Conclusion: ICI provided long-term CSCC control with a low rate of allograft loss, highlighting the need for longitudinal multidisciplinary management balancing oncologic benefit, graft preservation, and competing mortality risk.

Matching journals

The top 5 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.