4.5 Article

A Comprehensive Landscape of De Novo Malignancy After Double Lung Transplantation

Journal

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 36, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.11552

Keywords

post-transplant malignancy; de novo malignancy; double lung transplant; incidence; survival outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the incidence and types of post-transplant malignancy (PTM) after double lung transplantation (DLT) and its impact on survival. The results showed that recipients with PTM had a significantly longer overall survival, although the survival rate was worse at the 10-year landmark time. The study highlights the importance of screening and treatment for PTM.
Although the association between post-transplant malignancy (PTM) and immunosuppressive therapy after organ transplantation has been studied, an integrated review of PTM after lung transplantation is lacking. We investigated the incidence and types of de novo PTM and its impact on survival following double lung transplantation (DLT). The incidence and type of PTM as well as the annual and cumulative risks of each malignancy after DLT were analyzed. The overall survival (OS) of recipients with or without PTM was compared by the Kaplan-Meier survival method and landmark analysis. There were 5,629 cases (23.52%) with 27 types of PTMs and incidences and OS varied according to the types of PTMs. The recipients with PTM showed a significantly longer OS than those without PTM (p < 0.001). However, while the recipients with PTM showed significantly better OS at 3, and 5 years (p < 0.001, p = 0.007), it was worse at the 10-year landmark time (p = 0.013). And the single PTM group showed a worse OS rate than the multiple PTM group (p < 0.001). This comprehensive report on PTM following DLT can help understand the risks and timing of PTM to improve the implementation of screening and treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available