17 research outputs found
Transplant Physicians’ Attitudes on Candidacy for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) in Older Patients: The Need for a Standardized Geriatric Assessment (GA) Tool
Background
Despite improvements in conditioning regimens and supportive care having expanded the curative potential of HCT, underutilization of HCT in older adults persists (Bhatt VR et al, BMT 2017). Therefore, we conducted a survey of transplant physicians (TP) to determine their perceptions of the impact of older age (≥60 years) on HCT candidacy and utilization of tools to gauge candidacy.
Methods
We conducted a 23-item, online cross-sectional survey of adult physicians recruited from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research between May and July 2019.
Results
175/770 (22.7%) TP completed the survey; majority of respondents were 41-60 years old, male, and practicing in a teaching hospital. Over 75% were at centers performing ≥50 HCT per year. When considering regimen intensity, most (96%, n=168) had an upper age limit (UAL) for using a myeloablative regimen (MAC), with only 29 physicians (17%) stating they would consider MAC for patients ≥70 years. In contrast, when considering a reduced intensity/non-myeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA), 8%, (n=13), 54% (n=93), and 20% (n=35) stated that age 70, 75, and 80 years respectively would be the UAL to use this approach, with 18% (n=31) reporting no UAL. TP agreed that Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) could exclude older pts for HCT, with 39.1% (n=66), 42.6% (n=72), and 11.4% (n=20) requiring KPS of ≥70, 80, and 90, respectively. The majority (n=92, 52.5%) indicated an HCT-comorbidity index threshold for exclusion, mostly ranging from ≥3 to ≥ 5. Almost all (89.7%) endorsed the need for a better health assessment of pre-HCT vulnerabilities to guide candidacy for pts ≥60 with varied assessments being utilized beyond KPS (Figure 1). However, the majority of centers rarely (33.1%) or never (45.7%) utilize a dedicated geriatrician/geriatric-oncologist to assess alloHCT candidates ≥60 yrs. The largest barriers to performing GA included uncertainty about which tools to use, lack of knowledge and training, and lack of appropriate clinical support staff (Figure 2). Approximately half (n=78, 45%) endorsed GA now routinely influences candidacy.
Conclusions
The vast majority of TP will consider RIC/NMA alloHCT for patients ≥70 years. However, there is heterogeneity in assessing candidacy. Incorporation of GA into a standardized and easily applied health assessment tool for risk stratification is an unmet need. The recently opened BMT CTN 1704 may aid in addressing this gap
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Real World Evidence of Care Delivery in AccessHope Data
Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease and the delivery of comprehensive care to individuals with this cancer is critical to achieve appropriate outcomes. The identification of gaps in care delivery facilitates the design of interventions to optimize care delivery and improve outcomes in this population. Methods: AccessHope™ is a growing organization that connects oncology subspecialists with treating providers through contracts with self-insured employers. Data from 94 pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases (August 2019–December 2022) in the AccessHope dataset were used to describe gaps in care delivery. Results: In all but 6% of cases, the subspecialist provided guideline-concordant recommendations anticipated to improve outcomes. Gaps in care were more pronounced in patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. There was a significant deficiency in germline testing regardless of the stage, with only 59% of cases having completed testing. Only 20% of cases were receiving palliative care or other allied support services. There was no difference in observed care gaps between patients receiving care in the community setting vs. those receiving care in the academic setting. Conclusions: There are significant gaps in the care delivered to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A concurrent subspecialist review has the opportunity to identify and address these gaps in a timely manner
Recommended from our members
Integrating Touchscreen-Based Geriatric Assessment and Frailty Screening for Adults With Multiple Myeloma to Drive Personalized Treatment Decisions
Patients were white (72%; n = 86), mean age was 72 years (range, 65-85 years), and averaged 7.71 minutes (range, 2-17 minutes) for survey completion. Providers averaged 3.2 minutes (range, 1-10 minutes) to review mGA results. Using International Myeloma Working Group frailty score, patients were fit (39%; n = 64), intermediate fit (33%; n = 55), or frail (28%; n = 46). Providers selected more aggressive treatments in 16.3% of patients and decreased treatment intensity in 34% of patients; treatment intensification was more common for fit patients and milder treatments for frail patients (χ2 = 20.02; P < .0001). Transplant eligibility significantly correlated with fit status and transplant ineligibility with frail status (P = .004). Outcomes on 144 patients 3 months post study visit showed 19.4% (n = 28) had grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities, 38.9% (n = 56) had dose modifications, and 18% (n = 26) had early therapy cessation.12 month embargo; first published online 25 November 2019This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]
Utilizing a practical tablet-based modified geriatric assessment in clinic for older adults with multiple myeloma (MM).
A phase I/II study of ixazomib (Ix) pomalidomide (POM) dexamethasone (DEX) in relapsed refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma: Initial results.
Persistence of CD30 expression in Hodgkin lymphoma following brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35) treatment failure
Repurposing Leflunomide for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Final Analysis of a Phase 1 Study
Feasibility of administering a geriatric assessment to older adults with cancer using web-based and touchscreen platforms.
Recommended from our members
Daratumumab in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final analysis of clinically relevant subgroups in GRIFFIN.
The randomized, phase 2 GRIFFIN study (NCT02874742) evaluated daratumumab plus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We present final post hoc analyses (median follow-up, 49.6 months) of clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) per revised definition (del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], and/or gain/amp[1q21]). Patients received 4 induction cycles (D-RVd/RVd), high-dose therapy/transplant, 2 consolidation cycles (D-RVd/RVd), and lenalidomide±daratumumab maintenance (≤ 2 years). Minimal residual disease-negativity (10-5) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd in patients ≥ 65 years (67.9% vs 17.9%), with HRCAs (54.8% vs 32.4%), and with gain/amp(1q21) (61.8% vs 28.6%). D-RVd showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival versus RVd (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) in patients ≥ 65 years (0.29 [0.06-1.48]), with HRCAs (0.38 [0.14-1.01]), and with gain/amp(1q21) (0.42 [0.14-1.27]). In the functional high-risk subgroup (not MRD negative at the end of consolidation), the hazard ratio was 0.82 (0.35-1.89). Among patients ≥ 65 years, grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd (88.9% vs 77.8%), as were TEAEs leading to discontinuation of ≥ 1 treatment component (37.0% vs 25.9%). One D-RVd patient died due to an unrelated TEAE. These results support the addition of daratumumab to RVd in transplant-eligible patients with high-risk NDMM. Video Abstract