Browsing by Author "Mishra, Asmita"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Breaking the Age Barrier: Physicians' Perceptions of Candidacy for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Older Adults
    (Elsevier, 2021) Mishra, Asmita; Preussler, Jaime M.; Bhatt, Vijaya Raj; Bredeson, Christopher; Chhabra, Saurabh; D'Souza, Anita; Dahi, Parastoo B.; Danaher Hacker, Eileen; Gowda, Lohith; Hashmi, Shahrukh K.; Howard, Dianna S.; Jakubowski, Ann; Jayani, Reena; Koll, Thuy; Olin, Rebecca L.; Popat, Uday R.; Rodriguez, Cesar; Rosko, Ashley; Sabloff, Mitchell; Sorror, Mohamed L.; Sung, Anthony D.; Ustun, Celalettin; Wood, William A.; Burns, Linda; Artz, Andrew; School of Nursing
    Background: Despite continued increases in use of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) among older adults, no standardized geriatric assessment (GA) has been established to risk-stratify for transplant-related morbidity. We conducted a survey of transplant physicians to determine perceptions of the impact of older age (≥60 years) on alloHCT candidacy, and utilization of tools to gauge candidacy. Methods: We conducted a 23-item, online cross-sectional survey of HCT physicians caring for adults in the United States between May and July 2019. Results: Of the 770 invited HCT physicians, 175 (22.7%) completed the survey. The majority of respondents were 41–60 years old, male, and practiced in a higher volume teaching hospital. When considering regimen intensity, 29 physicians (17%) stated they would consider a myeloablative regimen for patients ≥70 years, and 141 (82%) would consider reduced intensity/non-myeloablative conditioning for patients ≥70 years. Almost all (90%) endorsed the need for a specialized assessment of pre-HCT vulnerabilities to guide candidacy decisions for older adults. Most physicians reported their centers rarely (33%) or never (46%) utilize a dedicated geriatrician/geriatric-oncologist to assess alloHCT candidates ≥60 years. Common barriers to performing a GA included uncertainty about which tools to use, lack of knowledge and training, and lack of appropriate clinical support staff. Conclusions: Many alloHCT physicians will consider alloHCT in patients up to age 75 years and not uncommonly, in patients older than that. However, application of tools and domains varies widely to assess candidacy in older adults. Incorporation of a standardized pre-transplant health assessment tool for risk stratification is a significant unmet need.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reduced intensity conditioning for acute myeloid leukemia using melphalan- vs busulfan-based regimens: a CIBMTR report
    (SAGE, 2020-07-14) Zhou, Zheng; Nath, Rajneesh; Cerny, Jan; Wang, Hai-Lin; Zhang, Mei-Jie; Abdel-Azim, Hisham; Agrawal, Vaibhav; Ahmed, Gulrayz; Al-Homsi, A. Samer; Aljurf, Mahmoud; Alkhateeb, Hassan B.; Assal, Amer; Bacher, Ulrike; Bajel, Ashish; Bashir, Qaiser; Battiwalla, Minocher; Bhatt, Vijaya Raj; Byrne, Michael; Cahn, Jean-Yves; Cairo, Mitchell; Choe, Hannah; Copelan, Edward; Cutler, Corey; Damlaj, Moussab B.; DeFilipp, Zachariah; De Lima, Marcos; Diaz, Miguel Angel; Farhadfar, Nosha; Foran, James; Freytes, César O.; Gerds, Aaron T.; Gergis, Usama; Grunwald, Michael R.; Gul, Zartash; Hamadani, Mehdi; Hashmi, Shahrukh; Hertzberg, Mark; Hildebrandt, Gerhard C.; Hossain, Nasheed; Inamoto, Yoshihiro; Isola, Luis; Jain, Tania; Kamble, Rammurti T.; Khan, Muhammad Waqas; Kharfan-Dabaja, Mohamed A.; Kebriaei, Partow; Kekre, Natasha; Khera, Nandita; Lazarus, Hillard M.; Liesveld, Jane L.; Litzow, Mark; Liu, Hongtao; Marks, David I.; Martino, Rodrigo; Mathews, Vikram; Mishra, Asmita; Murthy, Hemant S.; Nagler, Arnon; Nakamura, Ryotaro; Nathan, Sunita; Nishihori, Taiga; Olin, Rebecca; Olsson, Richard F.; Palmisiano, Neil; Patel, Sagar S.; Patnaik, Mrinal M.; Pawarode, Attaphol; Perales, Miguel-Angel; Politikos, Ioannis; Popat, Uday; Rizzieri, David; Sandmaier, Brenda M.; Savani, Bipin N.; Seo, Sachiko; Shah, Nirav N.; Uy, Geoffrey L.; Valcárcel, David; Verdonck, Leo F.; Waller, Edmund K.; Wang, Youjin; Weisdorf, Daniel; Wirk, Baldeep; Wong, Eric; Yared, Jean A.; Saber, Wael; Medicine, School of Medicine
    There is a lack of large comparative study on the outcomes of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transplantation using fludarabine/busulfan (FB) and fludarabine/melphalan (FM) regimens. Adult AML patients from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research who received first RIC allo-transplant between 2001 and 2015 were studied. Patients were excluded if they received cord blood or identical twin transplant, total body irradiation in conditioning, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with in vitro T-cell depletion. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and GVHD. Multivariate survival model was used with adjustment for patient, leukemia, and transplant-related factors. A total of 622 patients received FM and 791 received FB RIC. Compared with FB, the FM group had fewer transplant in complete remission (CR), fewer matched sibling donors, and less usage of anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. More patients in the FM group received marrow grafts and had transplantation before 2005. OS was significantly lower within the first 3 months posttransplant in the FM group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, P < .001), but was marginally superior beyond 3 months (HR = 0.87, P = .05). LFS was better with FM compared with FB (HR = 0.89, P = .05). NRM was significantly increased in the FM group during the first 3 months of posttransplant (HR = 3.85, P < .001). Long-term relapse was lower with FM (HR = 0.65, P < .001). Analysis restricted to patients with CR showed comparable results. In conclusion, compared with FB, the FM RIC showed a marginally superior long-term OS and LFS and a lower relapse rate. A lower OS early posttransplant within 3 months was largely the result of a higher early NRM.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Transplant Physicians’ Attitudes on Candidacy for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) in Older Patients: The Need for a Standardized Geriatric Assessment (GA) Tool
    (Elsevier, 2020-03) Mishra, Asmita; Preussler, Jaime M.; Al-Mansour, Zeina; Bachanova, Veronika; Bhatt, Vijaya Raj; Bredeson, Christopher; Chhabra, Saurabh; D’Souza, Anita; Dahi, Parastoo B.; DeFilipp, Zack; Gowda, Lohith; Danaher Hacker, Eileen; Hashmi, Shahrukh K.; Howard, Dianna S.; Jakubowski, Ann A.; Jayani, Reena; Johnston, Laura; Koll, Thuy; Lin, Richard J.; McCurdy, Shannon R.; Michaelis, Laura C.; Muffly, Lori; Nathwani, Nitya; Olin, Rebecca L.; Popat, Uday R.; Rodriguez, Cesar; Rosko, Ashley; Runaas, Lyndsey; Sabloff, Mitchell; Shore, Tsiporah B.; Shune, Leyla; Sorror, Mohamed L.; Sung, Anthony D.; Ustun, Celalettin; Wood, William; Burns, Linda J.; Artz, Andrew S.; School of Nursing
    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.