Jeffrey Crawford

Overview:

1. Lung cancer/new treatment approaches.
2. Clinical trials of hematopoietic growth factors, biological agents and targeted drug development.
3. Cancer in the elderly and supportive care

Accomplishments

1. Lead Investigator of the U. S. multicenter, randomized trial of Filgrastim (G-CSF, Neupogen) to reduce the morbidity of chemotherapy-related neutropenia, leading to FDA approval 2/91.
2. Lead Investigator of the U. S. multicenter, randomized trial of Vinorelbine (Navelbine) in treatment of patients with advanced non small cell carcinoma of lung (NSCLC), leading to FDA approval 12/94.
3. Principal Investigator in initial phase I clinical trials of stem cell factor (SCF), megakaryocyte growth and development factor (MGDF), pegylated granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor and other novel hematopoietic growth factors.

Positions:

George Barth Geller Distinguished Professor

Medicine, Medical Oncology
School of Medicine

Professor of Medicine

Medicine, Medical Oncology
School of Medicine

Member of the Duke Cancer Institute

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

M.D. 1974

Ohio State University

Grants:

BR.31

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

HELSINN - ANAM-17-21

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

A phase II, Open-label, single-arm study to assess the safety and efficacy of AZD9291 in patients with locally advanced/

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Phase II anetumab ravtansine as 2nd line treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

EMD Serono, Inc. Education Event

Administered By
Medicine, Medical Oncology
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Publications:

Therapeutic outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer with BRAF mutations: a single institution, retrospective cohort study.

Background: Data describing therapeutic outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) with BRAF mutations remains limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 31 patients with metastatic NSCLC treated at Duke University Hospital who had been identified by next-generation sequencing methods to bear a BRAF mutation in their tumor in order to evaluate clinical response to immunotherapy and chemotherapy. Results: Sixty-five percent of patients identified in this cohort were current or former smokers. Fourteen (45.2%) of patients had a BRAF V600E mutation and 17 (54.8%) had a non-V600E mutation. Median progression-free survival (PFS) in the 23 patients who received first-line chemotherapy was 6.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.3 to 13.0]. Overall survival (OS) in patients who received first-line chemotherapy showed a median survival of 18 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 28.6). OS comparing patients who had never received immunotherapy at any point was 18.4 months (95% CI, 4.1 to NE) compared to 19.0 months (95% CI, 9.9 to 28.6) in those who had received immunotherapy. We did not find a statistically significant difference in OS in patients with BRAF V600E, BRAF amplification, or non-V600E mutations. There was also no difference in OS in patients treated with targeted BRAF inhibitors compared to those who were not treated with targeted BRAF inhibitors. Conclusions: We describe therapeutic outcomes for patients with metastatic NSCLC with BRAF mutations treated with either cytotoxic chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Although the sample size is small, the survival curves do not suggest improved clinical activity in this population when treated with immunotherapy.
Authors
Tan, I; Stinchcombe, TE; Ready, NE; Crawford, J; Datto, MB; Nagy, RJ; Lanman, RB; Gu, L; Clarke, JM
MLA Citation
Tan, Irena, et al. “Therapeutic outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer with BRAF mutations: a single institution, retrospective cohort study..” Transl Lung Cancer Res, vol. 8, no. 3, June 2019, pp. 258–67. Pubmed, doi:10.21037/tlcr.2019.04.03.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1397860
PMID
31367539
Source
pubmed
Published In
Translational Lung Cancer Research
Volume
8
Published Date
Start Page
258
End Page
267
DOI
10.21037/tlcr.2019.04.03

Analysis of Factors Associated With In-hospital Mortality in Lung Cancer Chemotherapy Patients With Neutropenia.

Lung cancer, compared with other solid tumors, is associated with high mortality rates from febrile neutropenia. The risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality were identified and compared for patients with lung cancer and patients with other solid tumors. Hospitalization data from the University Health Consortium database inclusive of 2004 to 2012 were analyzed. The study population included all adult patients with solid tumors who developed neutropenia. Cancer type, the presence of neutropenia, and further subgroups were determined using International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification codes. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality in lung cancer patients versus those with other solid tumors. Further analysis concentrated on comparisons of the 2 groups. The analysis included data from 11,111 lung cancer patients and 49,975 patients with other solid tumors. Overall, 4290 patients (7.0%) died. Lung cancer was associated with highest mortality (11.2% compared with other solid tumors, 6.1%; P < .0001). The lung cancer patients were older and more likely to have multiple comorbidities, and the risk of mortality was directly related to the number of comorbidities. Four additional risk factors for mortality were identified: pneumonia, sepsis, any infection, and intensive care unit stay. Pneumonia occurred more commonly in the lung cancer patients (26.4% vs. 10.3%) and was associated with comorbid pulmonary disease, which also occurred more often in the lung cancer patients (52.1% vs. 24.0%). We found that lung cancer patients presenting with febrile neutropenia were older, had more comorbidities, had a greater incidence of comorbid pulmonary disease, and were more likely to have pneumonia. Awareness of these risk factors for mortality should guide clinicians for more personalized approaches to chemotherapy, supportive care decisions, pneumonia and comorbidities.
Authors
Cupp, J; Culakova, E; Poniewierski, MS; Dale, DC; Lyman, GH; Crawford, J
MLA Citation
Cupp, Julia, et al. “Analysis of Factors Associated With In-hospital Mortality in Lung Cancer Chemotherapy Patients With Neutropenia..” Clin Lung Cancer, vol. 19, no. 2, 2018, pp. e163–69. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.cllc.2017.10.013.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1127521
PMID
29233611
Source
pubmed
Published In
Clin Lung Cancer
Volume
19
Published Date
Start Page
e163
End Page
e169
DOI
10.1016/j.cllc.2017.10.013

Biology and Management of Tumor Cachexia

Authors
MLA Citation
Crawford, Jeffrey. “Biology and Management of Tumor Cachexia.” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 12, no. 1, ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 2017, pp. S35–36.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1288428
Source
wos
Published In
Journal of Thoracic Oncology
Volume
12
Published Date
Start Page
S35
End Page
S36

Recommendations for the Use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs). METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update Committee and conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews from October 2005 through September 2014. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by the Update Committee. RESULTS: Changes to previous recommendations include the addition of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, moderation of the recommendation regarding routine use of CSFs in older patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and addition of recommendations against routine dose-dense chemotherapy in lymphoma and in favor of high-dose-intensity chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. The Update Committee did not address recommendations regarding use of CSFs in acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in adults. RECOMMENDATIONS: Prophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and no other equally effective and safe regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on the basis of age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense regimens that require CSFs should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total-body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death as a result of injury to other organs, include the prompt administration of CSFs.
Authors
Smith, TJ; Bohlke, K; Lyman, GH; Carson, KR; Crawford, J; Cross, SJ; Goldberg, JM; Khatcheressian, JL; Leighl, NB; Perkins, CL; Somlo, G; Wade, JL; Wozniak, AJ; Armitage, JO; American Society of Clinical Oncology,
MLA Citation
Smith, Thomas J., et al. “Recommendations for the Use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update..” J Clin Oncol, vol. 33, no. 28, Oct. 2015, pp. 3199–212. Pubmed, doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.3488.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1079264
PMID
26169616
Source
pubmed
Published In
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Volume
33
Published Date
Start Page
3199
End Page
3212
DOI
10.1200/JCO.2015.62.3488

Survival outcomes of patients (pts) who received filgrastim (fil) or pegfilgrastim (peg) in clinical trials.

Authors
Lyman, GH; Reiner, M; Morrow, PKH; Crawford, J
MLA Citation
Lyman, Gary H., et al. “Survival outcomes of patients (pts) who received filgrastim (fil) or pegfilgrastim (peg) in clinical trials..” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 32, no. 15_suppl, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2014, pp. e17612–e17612. Crossref, doi:10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.e17612.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1085384
Source
crossref
Published In
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
Volume
32
Published Date
Start Page
e17612
End Page
e17612
DOI
10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.e17612