Search

Background: We compared the performance of the Liver Transplant Risk Score (LTRS) with the survival outcomes following liver transplantation (SOFT), pretransplant SOFT (P-SOFT), Balance of Risk Score (BAR), donor-age and model for end-stage liver disease (D-MELD), and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Risk Prediction Score (ORPS) for the prediction of 90-d mortality, 1-y mortality, and 5-y survival after first-time liver transplantation (LT)., Methods: A retrospective analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was conducted using data collected between 2002 and 2021., Results: A total of 82 696 adult LT recipients with a median age of 56 y were included. The area under the curve for 90-d mortality were 0.61, 0.66, 0.65, 0.61, 0.58, and 0.56 for the LTRS, SOFT, P-SOFT, BAR, D-MELD, and ORPS, respectively (all pairwise comparisons: P < 0.05). The area under the curve for 1-y mortality were 0.60, 0.63, 0.62, 0.59, 0.60, 0.57, and 0.59 for the LTRS, SOFT, P-SOFT, BAR, D-MELD, and ORPS, respectively (all pairwise comparisons: P < 0.05). The c-statistics for 5-y survival were not statistically significant among the models. For 90-d mortality, 1-y mortality, and 5-y survival, the correlation coefficients between the LTRS and P-SOFT (the 2 models requiring only preoperative parameters) were 0.90. 0.91, and 0.81, respectively ( P  < 0.01)., Conclusions: None of the predictive models demonstrated sufficient precision to reliably identify LT recipients who died within 90 d and 1 y after LT. However, all models exhibited strong capabilities in perioperative risk stratification. Notably, the P-SOFT and LTRS models, the 2 models that can be calculated using only preoperative data, proved to be valuable tools for identifying candidates at a significant risk of poor outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) has transformed the treatment landscape for adults with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies, but few studies have examined outcomes in older adults. We aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and treatment toxicity in older adults receiving CAR-T for hematologic malignancies and to describe outcomes and toxicities in older adults age 75+ years compared to those age 65 to 74 years. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 141 adult patients age 65+ years (46.1% age 75+ years) who received commercial CAR-T at Massachusetts General Hospital between December 2017 and June 2023. We abstracted clinical outcomes from a review of the electronic health record, including (1) toxicity (ie, cytokine release syndrome [CRS] and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome [ICANS]); (2) health care utilization; (3) overall survival (OS); and (4) event-free survival (EFS). We analyzed the association of age (65 to 74 years versus 75+ years) with toxicity and health care utilization using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the Fisher exact test for categorical variables. We examined the association of age with OS and EFS using multivariable Cox regression, controlling for covariates. The median patient age was 77 years (range, 75 to 91 years) in the 75+ year group and 69 years (ranges, 65 to 74 years) in the 65 to 74 year group. There were no statistically significant differences between the 75+ year group and the 65 to 74 year group in the rates of CRS (75.4% versus 84.2%; P = .21), grade 3+ CRS (1.5% versus 6.6%; P = .24), ICANS (38.5% versus 48.7%; P = .24), grade 3+ ICANS (16.9% versus 21.1%; P = .49), or infections (23.1% versus 29.0%; P = .45). There were no significant between-group differences in hospital readmissions within 30 days of CAR-T (10.8% versus 21.1%; P = .11), intensive care unit admissions within 30 days of CAR-T (7.7% versus 9.2%; P = 1.000), or median hospital length of stay (13 days versus 14 days; P = .29) among age groups. In a multivariable Cox regression analysis controlling for CAR-T product, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, lactate dehydrogenase level, bridging therapy use, and history of deep venous thromboembolism, age 75+ years was not associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR], .95; P = .86) or EFS (HR, 1.28; P = .30). We identified favorable OS and toxicity outcomes across age categories in older adults receiving CAR-T for B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma or multiple myeloma, underscoring that age alone is not a contraindication for CAR-T., (Copyright © 2024 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with cancer often endure substantial symptoms and treatment toxicities leading to high healthcare utilization, including hospitalizations and emergency department visits, throughout the continuum of their illness. Innovative oncology care models are needed to improve patient outcomes and reduce their healthcare utilization. Using a novel hospital at home care platform, we developed a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to address the needs of patients with cancer., Methods: We are conducting three trials to delineate the role of Supportive Oncology Care at Home for patients with cancer. The Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention includes: (1) a hospital at home care model for symptom assessment and management; (2) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. Our first study is a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of Supportive Oncology Care at Home versus standard oncology care for improving healthcare utilization, cancer treatment interruptions, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer receiving definitive treatment of their cancer. Participants include adult patients with gastrointestinal and head and neck cancer, as well as lymphoma, receiving definitive treatment (e.g., treatment with curative intent). The second study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Eligible participants include adult patients with incurable cancer who are admitted with an unplanned hospitalization. The third study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to enhance the end-of-life care for patients with advanced hematologic malignancies. Eligible participants include adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancy receiving palliative therapy or supportive care alone., Discussion: These studies are approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and are being conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials. This work has the potential to transform the paradigm of care for patients with cancer by providing them with the necessary support at home to improve their health outcomes and care delivery., Trial Registrations: NCT04544046, NCT04637035, NCT04690205., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Older patients with advanced CKD are at high risk for serious complications and death, yet few discuss advance care planning (ACP) with their kidney clinicians. Examining barriers and facilitators to ACP among such patients might help identify patient-centered opportunities for improvement., Methods: In semistructured interviews in March through August 2019 with purposively sampled patients (aged ≥70 years, CKD stages 4-5, nondialysis), care partners, and clinicians at clinics in across the United States, participants described discussions, factors contributing to ACP completion or avoidance, and perceived value of ACP. We used thematic analysis to analyze data., Results: We conducted 68 semistructured interviews with 23 patients, 19 care partners, and 26 clinicians. Only seven of 26 (27%) clinicians routinely discussed ACP. About half of the patients had documented ACP, mostly outside the health care system. We found divergent ACP definitions and perspectives; kidney clinicians largely defined ACP as completion of formal documentation, whereas patients viewed it more holistically, wanting discussions about goals, prognosis, and disease trajectory. Clinicians avoided ACP with patients from minority groups, perceiving cultural or religious barriers. Four themes and subthemes informing variation in decisions to discuss ACP and approaches emerged: ( 1 ) role ambiguity and responsibility for ACP, ( 2 ) questioning the value of ACP, ( 3 ) confronting institutional barriers (time, training, reimbursement, and the electronic medical record, EMR), and ( 4 ) consequences of avoiding ACP (disparities in ACP access and overconfidence that patients' wishes are known)., Conclusions: Patients, care partners, and clinicians hold discordant views about the responsibility for discussing ACP and the scope for it. This presents critical barriers to the process, leaving ACP insufficiently discussed with older adults with advanced CKD., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)