Mustafa Khasraw

Overview:

I am a Medical Oncologist and Neurooncologist at Duke's Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center.  I also work as the Deputy Director of the newly established Center for Cancer Immunotherapy, tasked to speed up clinical research and translation for scientists across all departments and across all tumor types at Duke, who have made discoveries that show promise for developing new immunotherapies.

Prior to joining Duke in September, 2019, I worked as a medical oncologist in Sydney, Australia and I was also as a Clinical Lead at the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council Clinical Trial Centre at The University of Sydney. 

I am leading several clinical and translational programs with significant laboratory collaborations. I am interested in innovative trials designed to improve outcome of cancer patients. I am lead principal investigator on phase I, II and III multi-center clinical trials for a number of pharmaceutical and academic groups. 

I serve as an advisor and grant reviewer for a number of non-profits and patient advocacy groups and I am a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians as well as an Elected Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians (Lon, UK). 

Positions:

Instructor in the Department of Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery
School of Medicine

Member of the Duke Cancer Institute

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

M.D. 2001

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (Netherlands)

Publications:

Defining the Supportive Care Needs and Psychological Morbidity of Patients With Functioning Versus Nonfunctioning Neuroendocrine Tumors: Protocol for a Phase 1 Trial of a Nurse-Led Online and Phone-Based Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Online information resources and support have been demonstrated to positively influence the well-being of people diagnosed with cancer. This has been explored in past literature for more common cancers; however, for rare cancers, such as neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), there are little to no support or resources available. Despite relatively good prognoses, the quality of life (QoL) of patients with NETs is significantly lower compared with samples of mixed cancer patients and the general population. Patients with NETs also typically report unclear and difficult pathways of disease management and treatment, given the heterogeneity of the diagnosis. There is a vital need to improve the availability of disease-specific information for this patient group and provide supportive care that is tailored to the unique needs of the NET patient population. OBJECTIVE: This study described the protocol of a study aimed to better understand the outcomes and experiences of patients diagnosed with NETs and to develop and pilot test a nurse-led online and phone-based intervention that will provide tailored supportive care targeted to NET subgroups (functioning vs nonfunctioning). METHODS: This is a multisite cohort with 3 phases, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data collection. Phase 1 is a mixed methods prospective cohort study of NET patients identifying differences in patient experiences and priority of needs between NET subgroups. Phase 2 utilizes results from phase 1 to develop an online and nurse-led phone-based intervention. Phase 3 is to pilot test and evaluate the intervention's acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. RESULTS: Currently, the project is progressing through phase 1 and has completed recruitment. A total of 138 participants have been recruited to the study. To date, patient-reported outcome data from 123 participants at baseline and 87 participants at 6-month follow-up have been collected. Of these, qualitative data from semistructured interviews from 35 participants have also been obtained. Phase 2 and phase 3 of the project are yet to be completed. CONCLUSIONS: Limited research for patients with NETs suggests that QoL and patient experiences are significantly impaired compared with the general population. Furthermore, past research has failed to delineate how the clinical variability between those with functioning and nonfunctioning NETs impacts patient supportive care needs. This study will improve on the availability of disease-specific information as well as informing the design of a nurse-led online and phone-based supportive care intervention tailored for the unique needs of the NET patient population. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/14361.
Authors
Guccione, L; Gough, K; Drosdowsky, A; Fisher, K; Price, T; Pavlakis, N; Khasraw, M; Wyld, D; Ransom, D; Kong, G; Rogers, M; Leyden, S; Leyden, J; Michael, M; Schofield, P
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1423082
PMID
31793892
Source
pubmed
Published In
Jmir Research Protocols
Volume
8
Published Date
Start Page
e14361
DOI
10.2196/14361

Association between area-level socioeconomic status, accessibility and diabetes-related hospitalisations: a cross-sectional analysis of data from Western Victoria, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitalisation rates for many chronic conditions are higher in socioeconomically disadvantaged and less accessible areas. We aimed to map diabetes hospitalisation rates by local government area (LGA) across Western Victoria, Australia, and investigate their association with socioeconomic status (SES) and accessibility/remoteness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study METHODS: Data were acquired from the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset for all hospitalisations (public and private) with a diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus during 2011-2014. Crude and age-standardised hospitalisation rates (per 1000 population per year) were calculated by LGA for men, women and combined data. Associations between accessibility (Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia, ARIA), SES (Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage, IRSAD) and diabetes hospitalisation were investigated using Poisson regression analyses. RESULTS: Higher LGA-level accessibility and SES were associated with higher rates of type 1 and type 2 diabetes hospitalisation, overall and for each sex. For type 1 diabetes, higher accessibility (ARIA category) was associated with higher hospitalisation rates (men incidence rate ratio [IRR]=2.14, 95% CI 1.64 to 2.80; women IRR=2.45, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.19; combined IRR=2.30, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.13; all p<0.05). Higher socioeconomic advantage (IRSAD decile) was also associated with higher hospitalisation rates (men IRR=1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.43; women IRR=1.32, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.51; combined IRR=1.23, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.42; all p<0.05). Similarly, for type 2 diabetes, higher accessibility (ARIA category) was associated with higher hospitalisation rates (men IRR=2.49, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.43; women IRR=2.34, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.25; combined IRR=2.32, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.25; all p<0.05) and higher socioeconomic advantage (IRSAD decile) was also associated with higher hospitalisation rates (men IRR=1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.30; women IRR=1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.28; combined IRR=1.13, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.27; all p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our observations could indicate self-motivated treatment seeking, and better specialist and hospital services availability in the advantaged and accessible areas in the study region. The determinants for such variations in hospitalisation rates, however, are multifaceted and warrant further research.
Authors
Sajjad, MA; Holloway-Kew, KL; Mohebbi, M; Kotowicz, MA; de Abreu, LLF; Livingston, PM; Khasraw, M; Hakkennes, S; Dunning, TL; Brumby, S; Page, RS; Sutherland, AG; Venkatesh, S; Williams, LJ; Brennan-Olsen, SL; Pasco, JA
MLA Citation
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1405538
PMID
31122981
Source
pubmed
Published In
Bmj Open
Volume
9
Published Date
Start Page
e026880
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026880

PHASE 1 STUDY RESULTS OF M7824 (MSB0011359C), A BIFUNCTIONAL FUSION PROTEIN TARGETING TGF- AND PD-L1, AMONG PATIENTS WITH RECURRENT GLIOBLASTOMA (rGBM)

Authors
Khasraw, M; Weller, M; Estelles, DL; Kolibaba, K; Lee, C; Gedye, C; De La Fuente, M; Vicente, D; Reardon, D; Ojalvo, L; Helwig, C; Gourmelon, C; Groves, M
MLA Citation
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1405613
Source
wos
Published In
Neuro Oncology
Volume
20
Published Date
Start Page
4
End Page
4

AGITG nabnec: A randomised phase II study of nab-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin as first line treatment of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinomas.

<jats:p> TPS548 </jats:p><jats:p> Background: Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC WHO grade 3) are rare and aggressive cancers. There are no randomised trials to date to establish standard therapy for advanced gastrointestinal (GI) NECs. Extrapolating from small cell lung cancer data, standard practice is to treat GI-NECs with etoposide and carboplatin. Paclitaxel is also active in NECs however there is no data on the role of nab-paclitaxel. NABNEC aims to establish if the carboplatin and nab-paclitaxel combination is an effective and tolerable treatment for advanced GI-NECs and to enhance our understanding of the biology and imaging characteristics of NECs. Methods: Design: Randomised, non-comparative, stratified, multicentre phase 2 trial. Primary endpoint (n=70): objective response rate (RR) by RECIST 1.1 at 6 months. Secondary endpoints: progression free survival, overall survival, adverse events by NCI-CTCAE V4.03 and quality of life (EORTC QLQC30, QLQ-GINET21 questionnaires). Translational endpoints include 1) blood and tissue biomarkers (prognostic and/or predictive) correlated with clinical endpoints including circulating tumour cells, mutation profile (whole exome sequencing), DNA methylation profile; 2) correlation of 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) to early response and other clinical endpoints. Sample Size: 70 patient’s gives 80% power and 95% confidence to rule out a 30% RR in favour of a clinically relevant RR of 50% at 6 months. Population: Adults with advanced or metastatic non-resectable GI-NEC (includes small cell and large cell NEC). Treatment: Randomisation 2:1 to Arm A IV nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 on Day (D) 1 weekly and IV carboplatin AUC=5 on D1, 3 weekly; and Arm B IV etoposide 100mg/m2 on D1-3, and IV carboplatin AUC=5 on D1, 3 weekly to continue until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Assessments: <jats:sup>68</jats:sup>Ga Octreotate PET at baseline, CT scan at baseline and every 9 weeks, FDG PET at baseline, 9 weeks then every 18 weeks and QOL questionnaires every 9 weeks until disease progression. NABNEC is enrolling patients at 12/20 planned study sites in Australia and New Zealand. ANZCTR #. Clinical trial information: 12616000958482. </jats:p>
Authors
Chantrill, LA; Lipton, LR; Hofman, M; Gebski, V; Gill, A; Markman, B; Yip, S; Karapetis, CS; Pavlakis, N; Wong, SF; Ransom, DT; Sjoquist, KM; Nagrial, A; Michael, M; Rayani, U; Oostendorp, M; Simes, J; Khasraw, M
MLA Citation
Chantrill, Lorraine A., et al. “AGITG nabnec: A randomised phase II study of nab-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin as first line treatment of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinomas..” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 36, no. 4_suppl, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2018, pp. TPS548–TPS548. Crossref, doi:10.1200/jco.2018.36.4_suppl.tps548.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1405620
Source
crossref
Published In
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
Volume
36
Published Date
Start Page
TPS548
End Page
TPS548
DOI
10.1200/jco.2018.36.4_suppl.tps548

Effect of treating glioblastoma with a cytokine inhibitor, ibudilast, in combination with temozolomide on survival in a patient-derived xenograft model.

Authors
McDonald, KL; Ha, W; Sevim, H; Matsuda, K; Khasraw, M
MLA Citation
McDonald, Kerrie Leanne, et al. “Effect of treating glioblastoma with a cytokine inhibitor, ibudilast, in combination with temozolomide on survival in a patient-derived xenograft model..” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 35, no. 15_suppl, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2017, pp. 2062–2062. Crossref, doi:10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.2062.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1405628
Source
crossref
Published In
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
Volume
35
Published Date
Start Page
2062
End Page
2062
DOI
10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.2062