ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025
Basal cell carcinoma risk prediction in survivors of childhood cancer.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multiple Basal Cell Carcinomas in a Long-Term Survivor of Childhood ALL and HSCT-A Call for Dermatologic Vigilance.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurvivors of childhood cancer face excess risk of developing basal cell carcinoma. Age-specific basal cell carcinoma risk prediction models for survivors may support targeted screening recommendations.
methodsWe developed models predicting basal cell carcinoma risk by ages 40 and 50 years featuring detailed cancer treatment predictors, utilizing statistical and machine-learning algorithms and data from 23 166 five-year survivors in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study. Selected models were externally validated in 5314 survivors in the St Jude Lifetime Cohort. Model discrimination and precision were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) and benchmarked against the current Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines (COG LTFU, v6.0) for skin cancer screening.
resultsBy ages 40 and 50 years, basal cell carcinoma cumulative incidence was 5% and 15% in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and 7% and 21% in the St Jude Lifetime Cohort, respectively. The XGBoost algorithm-based models with treatment dose-specific predictors performed best, showing good external discrimination (age 40 years: AUROC = 0.75; age 50 years: AUROC = 0.76) and precision (age 40 years: AUPRC = 0.20; age 50 years: AUPRC = 0.52), outperforming COG LTFU Guideline-directed risk stratification (age 40 years: AUROC = 0.65; age 50 years: AUROC = 0.62; age 40 years: AUPRC = 0.09; age 50 years: AUPRC = 0.26; P < .01). These novel models reclassified 37% of survivors with COG-recommended skin cancer screening as low risk by age 40 years and 29% of survivors without COG-recommended screening as moderate or high risk by age 50 years, suggesting these recommendations overestimate risk in younger survivors and miss relevant predictors (eg, attained age, chemotherapy).
conclusionsIn this study, we present validated basal cell carcinoma risk prediction models for childhood cancer survivors that outperform current practice guidelines. The associated online risk calculator can inform risk- and age-based screening recommendations.
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.