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

Wongi Woo, Hye Sung Kim, Ankit Bharat, Young Kwang Chae
{"title":"Rethinking the Impact of Pretransplant Malignancy (Pre-TM) on Double Lung Transplantation (DLT) Eligibility: An Analysis of 23,291 DLT Recipients","authors":"Wongi Woo, Hye Sung Kim, Ankit Bharat, Young Kwang Chae","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.14.24304302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Given 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.\nMethods: This 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.\nResults: Among 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 wasn't higher than de novo cancers in patients without Pre-TM.\nConclusion: Patients 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.","PeriodicalId":501561,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Transplantation","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.14.24304302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Given 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. Methods: This 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. Results: Among 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 wasn't higher than de novo cancers in patients without Pre-TM. Conclusion: Patients 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新思考移植前恶性肿瘤(Pre-TM)对双肺移植(DLT)资格的影响:对 23,291 名 DLT 受者的分析
背景:鉴于有癌症病史的老年患者对肺移植的需求不断增加,本研究对数据库登记进行了分析,以评估肺移植术前DLT受者的预后:鉴于有癌症病史的老年患者对肺移植的需求日益增加,本研究分析了数据库登记情况,以评估肺癌前病变 DLT 受者的预后:本研究评估了器官共享联合网络(UNOS)登记的 2005 年至 2023 年间进行的成人 DLT。有既往器官移植史或多器官移植史的患者以及捐赠者有癌症史的患者被排除在外。采用倾向分数匹配法对有无预TM的患者进行比较。对总生存率和无TM后生存率进行了分析:在23291名DLT受者中,8.0%(1870人)有Pre-TM。与没有前骨髓增生症的患者相比,前骨髓增生症患者的总生存期(危险比[HR] 1.20,95% 置信区间[CI] 1.12-1.29,p<0.001)和无骨髓增生症后生存期(HR 1.32,95% 置信区间[CI] 1.24-1.41,p<0.001)更差。然而,通过倾向分数匹配调整年龄、性别和种族后,组间生存率差异变得不显著(HR 1.05,95% CI 0.97-1.13,p=0.229)。虽然TM前组的无TM后生存率仍然较低,但在排除皮肤型TM后,这一差异有所缩小(HR 1.06,95% CI 0.99-1.15,P=0.116)。此外,前骨髓瘤患者移植后的复发率并不比无前骨髓瘤患者的新发癌症高:结论:Pre-TM患者在DLT后的总生存率与无Pre-TM患者相似。重要的是,与没有前TM的患者相比,原发性前TM类型在移植后复发的风险并没有增加。这些发现突出表明,有必要对移植候选者进行更细致的评估,以防止过早地将Pre-TM患者排除在救命手术之外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Access to Allogeneic Cell Transplantation Based on Donor Search Prognosis: An Interventional Trial Donor HLA class 1 evolutionary divergence and late allograft rejection after liver transplantation in children: an emulated target trial. Improving Deceased Donor Kidney Utilization: Predicting Risk of Nonuse with Interpretable Models Improvements in Patient-Reported Functioning after Lung Transplant is Associated with Improved Quality of Life and Survival Influence of Information Access on Organ Donation: A Questionnaire-Based Cross-Sectional Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1