Scott F. Huntington

Dr. Scott F. Huntington


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 September 2020 in Blood
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AMAnthony Mato
Anthony Mato
LRLindsey Roeker
Lindsey Roeker
NLNicole Lamanna
Nicole Lamanna
JAJohn Allan
John Allan
LLLori Leslie
Lori Leslie
TEToby Eyre
Toby Eyre
Given advanced age, comorbidities, and immune dysfunction, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients may be at particularly high risk of infection and poor outcomes related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Robust analysis of outcomes for CLL patients, particularly examining effects of baseline characteristics and CLL-directed therapy, is critical to optimally manage CLL patients through this evolving pandemic. CLL patients diagnosed with symptomatic COVID-19 across 43 international centers (n = 198) were included. Hospital admission occurred in 90%. Median age at COVID-19 diagnosis was 70.5 years. Median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was 8 (range, 4-32). Thirty-nine percent were treatment naive (“watch and wait”), while 61% had received ≥1 CLL-directed therapy (median, 2; range, 1-8). Ninety patients (45%) were receiving active CLL therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis, most commonly Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi’s; n = 68/90 [76%]). At a median follow-up of 16 days, the overall case fatality rate was 33%, though 25% remain admitted. Watch-and-wait and treated cohorts had similar rates of admission (89% vs 90%), intensive care unit admission (35% vs 36%), intubation (33% vs 25%), and mortality (37% vs 32%). CLL-directed treatment with BTKi’s at COVID-19 diagnosis did not impact survival (case fatality rate, 34% vs 35%), though the BTKi was held during the COVID-19 course for most patients. These data suggest that the subgroup of CLL patients admitted with COVID-19, regardless of disease phase or treatment status, are at high risk of death. Future epidemiologic studies are needed to assess severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection risk, these data should be validated independently, and randomized studies of BTKi’s in COVID-19 are needed to provide definitive evidence of benefit.

1 October 2015 in The Lancet Haematology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SHScott F. Huntington
Scott F. Huntington
BWBrendan M Weiss
Brendan M Weiss
DVDan T Vogl
Dan T Vogl
ACAdam Cohen
Adam Cohen
AGAlfred L Garfall
Alfred L Garfall
ESEdward A Stadtmauer
Edward A Stadtmauer

20 January 2022 in Blood
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
VOVictor Manuel Orellana-Noia
Victor Manuel Orellana-Noia
DRDaniel R. Reed
Daniel R. Reed
AMAshley Alesia McCook
Ashley Alesia McCook
JSJeremy Michael Sen
Jeremy Michael Sen
CBChristian M. Barlow
Christian M. Barlow
CPCraig A. Portell
Craig A. Portell
Prophylaxis is commonly used to prevent central nervous sy stem (CNS) relapse in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with no clear standard of care. We retrospectively evaluated 1162 adult patients across 21 US academic centers with DLBCL or similar histologies who received single-route CNS prophylaxis as part of frontline therapy between 2013 and 2019. Prophylaxis was administered intrathecally(IT) in 894 (77%) and using systemic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in 236 (20%); 32 patients (3%) switched route due to toxicity and were assessed separately. By CNS-International Prognostic Index (IPI), 18% were considered low-risk, 51% moderate, and 30% high. Double-hit lymphoma (DHL) was confirmed in 243 of 866 evaluable patients (21%). Sixty-four patients (5.7%) had CNS relapse after median 7.1 months from diagnosis, including 15 of 64 (23%) within the first 6 months. There was no significant difference in CNS relapse between IT and HD-MTX recipients (5.4% vs 6.8%, P = .4), including after propensity score matching to account for differences between respective recipient groups. Weighting by CNS-IPI, expected vs observed CNS relapse rates were nearly identical (5.8% vs 5.7%). Testicular involvement was associated with high risk of CNS relapse (11.3%) despite most having lower CNS-IPI scores. DHL did not significantly predict for CNS relapse after single-route prophylaxis, including with adjustment for treatment regimen and other factors. This large study of CNS prophylaxis recipients with DLBCL found no significant difference in CNS relapse rates between routes of administration. Relapse rates among high-risk subgroups remain elevated, and reconsideration of prophylaxis strategies in DLBCL is of critical need.

20 May 2020 in Blood Advances
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Amer M. ZeidanAmer M. Zeidan
Amer M. Zeidan
RWRong Wang
Rong Wang
XWXiaoyi Wang
Xiaoyi Wang
RSRory Shallis
Rory Shallis
NPNikolai A. Podoltsev
Nikolai A. Podoltsev
XMXiaomei Ma
Xiaomei Ma
The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine and decitabine have been the de facto standard of care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are unfit for intensive therapy. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we identified 2263 older adults (age ≥66 years) diagnosed with AML during 2005-2015 who received a first-line HMA; 1154 (51%) received azacitidine, and 1109 (49%) received decitabine. Median survival from diagnosis was 7.1 and 8.2 months (P < .01) for azacitidine- and decitabine-treated patients, respectively. Mortality risk was higher with azacitidine vs decitabine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.21; P = .02). The findings were similar when evaluating only patients completing ≥4 cycles (42% of patients treated with either azacitidine or decitabine). These findings lost significance when evaluating those completing a standard 7-day schedule of azacitidine (34%) vs 5-day schedule for decitabine (66%) (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.08; P = .43). Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion independence (TI) was achieved in one-third of patients with no difference between the 2 HMAs. In conclusion, the majority of older AML patients did not receive the minimum of 4 cycles of HMA often needed to elicit clinical benefit. We observed no clinically meaningful differences between azacitidine- and decitabine-treated patients in their achievement of RBC TI or survival.

23 November 2020 in The Oncologist
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MDMengyang Di
Mengyang Di
SHScott F. Huntington
Scott F. Huntington
AOAdam J. Olszewski
Adam J. Olszewski
Most patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are diagnosed at age 60 years or older. Challenges to effective therapy among older individuals include unfavorable biologic features of DLBCL, geriatric vulnerabilities, suboptimal treatment selection, and toxicities of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Wider application of geriatric assessments may help identify fit older patients who benefit from standard immunochemotherapy without unnecessary dose reductions. Conversely, attenuated regimens may provide a better balance of risk and benefit for selected unfit or frail patients. Supportive care with the use of corticosteroid-based prephase, prophylactic growth factors, and early institution of supportive and palliative care can help maximize treatment tolerance. Several novel or emerging therapies have demonstrated favorable toxicity profiles, thus facilitating effective treatment for elderly patients. In the relapsed or refractory setting, patients who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation can benefit from newly approved options including polatuzumab vedotin-based combinations or tafasitamab plus lenalidomide, which may have higher efficacy and/or lower toxicity than historical chemotherapy regimens. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy has been successfully applied to older patients outside of clinical trials. In the first-line setting, emerging immunotherapy options (bispecific antibodies) and targeted therapies (anti-CD20 antibodies combined with lenalidomide and/or B-cell receptor inhibitors) may provide chemotherapy-free approaches for DLBCL. Enrolling older patients in clinical trials will be paramount to fully examine potential efficacy and toxicity of these strategies. In this review, we discuss recent advances in fitness stratification and therapy that have expanded curative options for older patients, as well as future opportunities to improve outcomes in this population. Implications for Practice: Management of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in older patients poses challenges due to aggressive disease biology and geriatric vulnerability. Although R-CHOP remains standard first-line treatment, geriatric assessment may help evaluate patients' fitness for immunochemotherapy. Corticosteroid prephase, prophylactic growth factors, and early palliative care can improve tolerance of treatment. Novel salvage options (polatuzumab vedotin-based combinations, tafasitamab plus lenalidomide) or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy should be considered in the relapsed or refractory setting for patients ineligible for stem cell transplantation. Emerging immunotherapies (bispecific antibodies) and targeted therapies provide potential first-line chemotherapy-free approaches, which need to be rigorously assessed in clinical trials that involve geriatric patients.

4 November 2021 in Blood
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LRLindsey Roeker
Lindsey Roeker
TEToby Eyre
Toby Eyre
MTMeghan C. Thompson
Meghan C. Thompson
NLNicole Lamanna
Nicole Lamanna
ACAlexander R. Coltoff
Alexander R. Coltoff
AMAnthony Mato
Anthony Mato
Lindsey Elizabeth Roeker, Toby Andrew Eyre, Meghan C. Thompson, Nicole Lamanna, Alexander Coltoff, Matthew S. Davids, Peter Baker, Lori A. Leslie, Kerry A. Roge