ArticleCancer2022
Cancer risk associated with cytomegalovirus infection among solid organ transplant recipients in the United States.
Article in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Machine Learning-Based Evaluation of Combined EBV and CMV Serostatus as Predictors of Post-Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
- Does human cytomegalovirus provide a novel therapeutic target for patients with glioblastoma?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- The immunomodulatory role of human cytomegalovirus in cancer in the era of checkpoint immunotherapy.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- CMV serostatus is associated with improved survival and delayed toxicity onset following anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- A Potential Oncoprotective Role of Cytomegalovirus Against Breast Cancer: Worldwide Correlation and Survey of Evidence.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Are There More Human Cancer Viruses Left to Be Found?Annual review of virology · 2024Review
- Friend or Foe? Exploring the Role of Cytomegalovirus (HCMV) Infection in Head and Neck Tumors.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Human Cytomegalovirus Oncoprotection across Diverse Populations, Tumor Histologies, and Age Groups: The Relevance for Prospective Vaccinal Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCytomegalovirus (CMV) is among the most common viral infections after solid organ transplantation (SOT). Associations of CMV with cancer risk among SOT recipients have been incompletely evaluated.
methodsThe authors used linked data from the US SOT registry and 32 cancer registries. Poisson regression was used to compare cancer incidence across CMV risk groups based on donor (D) and recipient (R) immunoglobulin G (IgG) serostatus: high risk (R-negative/D-positive), moderate risk (R-positive), and low risk (R-negative/D-negative).
resultsIn total, 247,318 SOT recipients were evaluated during 2000-2017 (R-negative/D-positive, 20.3%; R-positive, 62.9%; R-negative/D-negative, 16.8%). CMV-seropositive recipients were older, more racially/ethnically diverse, and had lower socioeconomic status than CMV-seronegative recipients. Compared with R-negative/D-negative recipients, recipients in the R-negative/D-positive and R-positive groups had a lower incidence of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; R-negative/D-positive: adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.91; R-positive: aIRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.00). CMV serostatus modified the association between Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) status and DLBCL (p = .0006): DLBCL incidence was increased for EBV R-negative/D-positive recipients (aIRR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.50-7.95) among CMV R-negative/D-negative recipients but not among the other CMV risk groups. Compared with recipients who were CMV R-negative/D-negative, those who were R-negative/D-positive had a lower incidence of small intestine cancer (aIRR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.63), and R-positive recipients had a higher incidence of lung cancer (aIRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.46). CMV status was not associated with risk for other cancers.
conclusionsCMV status was not associated with risk for most cancers among SOT recipients. The inverse association with DLBCL may reflect the protective effects of CMV prophylaxis or treatment with off-target efficacy against EBV infection (the major cause of lymphoma in SOT recipients).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.