Search

Introduction Women and underrepresented groups in medicine hold few academic leadership positions in the field of hematology/oncology. In this study, we assessed gender and race/ethnicity representation in editorial board positions in hematology/oncology journals. Materials and Methods Editorial leadership board members from 60 major journals in hematology and oncology were reviewed; 54 journals were included in the final analysis. Gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data for Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and Second-in-Command (SiC) (including deputy, senior, or associate editors). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared were estimated. In the second phase of the study, editors were emailed a 4-item survey to self-identify their demographics. Results Out of 793 editorial board members, 72.6% were men and 27.4% were women. Editorial leadership were non-Hispanic white (71.1%) with Asian editorial board members representing the second largest majority at 22.5%. Women comprised only 15.9% of the EiC positions (90% White and 10% Asian). Women were about half as likely to be in the EiC position compared with men [pOR 0.47 (95% CI, 0.23-0.95, P = .03)]. Women represented 28.3% of SiC editorial positions. Surgical oncology had the lowest female representation at 2.3%. Conclusion Women and minorities are significantly underrepresented in leadership roles on Editorial Boards in hematology/oncology journals. Importantly, the representation of minority women physicians in EiC positions is at an inexorable zero.

Background The proportion of women in the field of hematology and oncology (H&O) has increased over recent decades, but the representation of women in leadership positions remains poor. In an effort to close the gender gap in academia, it is important to report on such inequities in hopes to close these gaps and improve career development. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective, observational study of published award recipients from 1994 to 2019 from the seven major H&O societies in the world. Gender was determined based on publicly available data. The χ2 and Cochran-Armitage tests were used for data analysis. Results Of the 1,642 awardees over the past 26 years, 915 met inclusion criteria. Award recipients were overwhelmingly men (77.9%) and non-Hispanic White (84.7%). Women awardees received 30.3% of the humanistic and education-related awards, whereas only receiving 16.0% of basic science awards (p Conclusion From 1994 to 2019, women were less likely to receive recognition awards from the seven major H&O societies studied compared with men. We also observed a considerably low proportion of minority awardees across all oncology subspecialties. Further studies examining how selection criteria favor either gender would be warranted in order to achieve equal representation in academic awards. Implications for Practice In this study, women and minority groups were found to be underrepresented amongst award recipients. Significant disparities were seen in disciplines that have been historically male predominant, such as basic sciences. As awards on an international level enhance academic resumes and assist with career advancement, it is important that awards are being given in an equitable manner. First steps to promote diversity and inclusion in academic medicine is reporting of gender and racial disparities in various areas of academia.

Purpose Family/caregiver visitation provides critical support for patients confronting cancer and is associated with positive outcomes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic brought historic disruptions including widespread visitation restrictions. Here, we characterize in-depth the visitor policies of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) and analyze geographic/temporal patterns across CCCs. Methods The public-facing CCC websites, including archived webpages, were reviewed to abstract initial visitation policies and revisions, including end-of-life (EoL) exceptions and timing of visitation restrictions relative to regional lockdowns. Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests were employed to analyze associations between geographic region, timing, and severity of restrictions. Results Most CCCs (n=43, 86%) enacted visitation restrictions between March 15 and April 15, 2020. About half barred all visitors for COVID-negative inpatients (n=24, 48%) or outpatients (n=26, 52%). Most (n=36, 72%) prohibited visitors for patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Most (n=40, 80%) published EoL exceptions but the specifics were highly variable. The median time from initial restrictions to government-mandated lockdowns was 1 day, with a wide range (25 days before to 26 days after). There was no association between timing of initial restrictions and geographic location (p=0.14) or severity of inpatient policies (p=1.0), even among centers in the same city. Outpatient policies published reactively (after lockdown) were more restrictive than those published proactively (p=0.04). Conclusion CCCs enacted strict but strikingly variable COVID-19 visitation restrictions, with important implications for patients/families seeking cancer care. A unified, evidence-based approach to visitation policies is needed to balance proven infection control measures with the needs of patients and families.

Considerable evidence has demonstrated that gender influences interactions during in-person meetings, most commonly, negatively impacting women and persons of color. Pervasive gender stereotypes about roles that were (and are) occupied by men and women lead to implicit assumptions about competency in said roles. For example, women may receive more negative verbal interruptions or nonverbal cues that undermine their authority as a leader, a stereotypically male-typed role. The coronavirus pandemic has led to the rapid rise in videoconferencing in professional interactions; however, little is known about videoconferencing etiquette and how gender bias permeates to this new setting. Although there are many benefits to the use of this technology, it has the potential to reinforce gender bias rooted in cultural and societal norms, gender stereotypes, and traditional gender roles. The well-documented implicit biases that have been shown to favor men over women during in-person meetings may translate to further gender gaps in leadership during virtual meetings. It is also possible that videoconferencing could be used to reduce gender bias, but until we have research to shine a light on this topic, this article provides 10 tips for promoting gender equity during virtual meetings.

Context Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused unprecedented disruptions to cancer care, including through strict hospital visitation policies. Since a substantial proportion of the U.S. population report a non-English language as their primary language, it is critical that information is disseminated in multiple languages. Objectives To examine the availability of language translations of visitation restrictions on adult National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) Web sites. Methods Cross-sectional analysis of visitation policies abstracted from public-facing Web sites of CCCs in June 2020. Using U.S. Census data, CCC's city and state proportions of self-identifying Hispanic/Latinx population were categorized into three cohorts: low (20%). Results As of June 2020, all 50 CCCs published a COVID-19 visitation policy on their Web site. Of these, 33 (66%) posted policies only in English, whereas 17 (34%) included one or more non-English translations. A minority of CCCs published Spanish language resources, which did not differ based on state or city demographics: for example, only 42% (8 of 19), 10% (1 of 10), and 38% (8 of 21) of CCCs published Spanish language resources in cities with low, moderate, and high Hispanic/Latinx populations, respectively. Conclusion Most CCC's did not publish non-English language translations of their visitor policies. Even in cities and states with larger Hispanic/Latinx populations, most CCCs did not publish resources in Spanish. This study highlights a key opportunity to mitigate communication barriers and deliver culturally competent, patient-centered care.

Discussions involving racial health disparities must include pathways for engaging in shared decision-making with racial/ethnic minorities. Research demonstrates glaring racial and ethnic disparities when it comes to hematologic malignancies from the time of diagnosis to treatment and even at the end of life. Unfortunately, decision-making in these circumstances may be streamlined, given the urgency of the disease, prognostic uncertainty, and varying treatment options. Being diagnosed with cancer is undoubtedly a traumatic experience and a patient’s race and/or ethnicity add an important dimension to their experience. The tenets of trauma-informed care (TIC) are anchored in recognizing that trauma can manifest in several ways and acknowledging the impact of past trauma on a patient’s present and future behaviors. We argue that using a TIC approach may help hematologists create a space for decision-making while minimizing the risk of re-traumatization and perpetuating racial disparities. Using the foundation of TIC, an interprofessional team can begin addressing manifestations of trauma and hopefully mitigate racial and ethnic disparities.

11058 Background: Underrepresentation of women and minorities persists in many aspects of the scholarly publication process as demonstrated by our initial findings presented at ASCO21. Having a gender-balanced and diverse editorial team promotes collaborative work and decreases the publication bias against women. In our initial study, gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data. We aimed to add to our study by asking editors to self-report their gender and race to assess the diversity of editors at leading hematology and oncology journals by self-reporting. Methods: We identified 60 journals in oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology with the highest impact factors. Editors-In-Chief (EiC) and Second-In-Command (SiC) editors (such as deputy, senior and associated editors) were included in the analysis. A demographic survey assessing gender, race/ethnicity, age, and job characteristics was sent to 793 participants via email. Data were analyzed with R software. Results: A total of 66 out of 793 editorial board members responded to the survey. Gender breakdown of respondents was 36 (54.5%) men and 30 (45.8%) women. Most respondents were between the ages of 40 and 60 (69.7%). Thirty-eight (57.6%) of the editors had ≤5 years of editorial experience. Of the 66 respondents, 44 (66.7%) self-identified as non-Hispanic white, followed by 14 (21.2%) as Asian and 3 (4.5%) as Hispanic. Only 1/66 (1.5%) editors self-identified as Black or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 1/66 (1.5%) did not identify themselves with a racial group. Conclusions: Underrepresented groups in medicine (URM) and women occupied a minority of leadership roles on editorial boards in high-impact hematology and oncology journals. Notably, this study provides new insights into editorial board diversity by using self-reporting as a primary methodology. Limitations of the cross-sectional study is that URM and women are more likely to respond to surveys on diversity, equity, and inclusion potentially skewing the results. Diversity in editorial boards not only can enhance scientific discovery by encouraging submissions from researchers with diverse backgrounds but also promotes career advancement for women and URM.[Table: see text]

11061 Background: Reporting on disparities is strongly influenced by the methodology used to collect race/ethnicity and gender data. Incorporating gender and race into research has its challenges, as these variables are difficult to define. As underrepresentation of minorities and women continues to persist in many facets of academia, it is important to assess the accuracy of differing methodologies. While asking individuals to self-identify their race and gender remains the gold standard of reporting, low response rates and response bias have been shown to affect results. In our initial study on representation in editorial boards, gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data which can lead to misclassification of editors. We aimed to add to our study by asking editors to self-report their gender and race in hopes to validate our methodology given the importance of considering gender and race in academia. Methods: Of the 60 highest impact journals in oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology identified, race/ethnicity and gender determinations were made using two methods. All senior editors were sent a survey via email asking participants to self-report their gender, race/ethnicity, age, and job characteristics. Gender and race were also assigned to the editors by a diverse coding team based on publicly available data and the NIH's OMB Directive 15 as a framework. The self-reported data was then compared to data that was assigned by our team. Results: 66 of the 793 (8.3%) editorial board members included in the study responded to the survey. Of the 66 respondents, gender was assigned correctly 100% (66/66) of the time and race was assigned correctly 95.5% (63/66) of the time. Of the 66 respondents to the self-survey of the 793 editorial board members surveyed. A significantly lower proportion of men responded to the survey compared to the gender breakdown of the 793 editorial board members (54.5% vs 72.6%; p = 0.000279). The three incorrectly identified respondents self-identified as Native Hawaiian, White, and Middle Eastern. Conclusions: Multiple recent reports have demonstrated high rates of sexual harassment, gender bias, and exclusion in the field of oncology. Collecting data on racial/ethnic groups and gender is imperative to understand the academic landscape of oncology and work towards a more equitable environment. Notably, this data from our study supports the methodology of a diverse coding team assigning gender and race based on publicly available data and the NIH's OMB Directive 15 as a framework as an alternative to self-report. Our study also demonstrates the low response rates and significant discrepancies in the demographic of respondents seen in survey-based identification.

Background The traditional model of promotion and tenure in the health professions relies heavily on formal scholarship through teaching, research, and service. Institutions consider how much weight to give activities in each of these areas and determine a threshold for advancement. With the emergence of social media, scholars can engage wider audiences in creative ways and have a broader impact. Conventional metrics like the h-index do not account for social media impact. Social media engagement is poorly represented in most curricula vitae (CV) and therefore is undervalued in promotion and tenure reviews. Objective The objective was to develop crowdsourced guidelines for documenting social media scholarship. These guidelines aimed to provide a structure for documenting a scholar’s general impact on social media, as well as methods of documenting individual social media contributions exemplifying innovation, education, mentorship, advocacy, and dissemination. Methods To create unifying guidelines, we created a crowdsourced process that capitalized on the strengths of social media and generated a case example of successful use of the medium for academic collaboration. The primary author created a draft of the guidelines and then sought input from users on Twitter via a publicly accessible Google Document. There was no limitation on who could provide input and the work was done in a democratic, collaborative fashion. Contributors edited the draft over a period of 1 week (September 12-18, 2020). The primary and secondary authors then revised the draft to make it more concise. The guidelines and manuscript were then distributed to the contributors for edits and adopted by the group. All contributors were given the opportunity to serve as coauthors on the publication and were told upfront that authorship would depend on whether they were able to document the ways in which they met the 4 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Results We developed 2 sets of guidelines: Guidelines for Listing All Social Media Scholarship Under Public Scholarship (in Research/Scholarship Section of CV) and Guidelines for Listing Social Media Scholarship Under Research, Teaching, and Service Sections of CV. Institutions can choose which set fits their existing CV format. Conclusions With more uniformity, scholars can better represent the full scope and impact of their work. These guidelines are not intended to dictate how individual institutions should weigh social media contributions within promotion and tenure cases. Instead, by providing an initial set of guidelines, we hope to provide scholars and their institutions with a common format and language to document social media scholarship.

UNSTRUCTURED As the conversation continues in addressing racial healthcare disparities nationwide not much has been written from a rural perspective. One important way to improve racial healthcare disparities in rural America is investing in training, hiring, and better supporting underrepresented minority clinicians that treat racial and ethnic minority patients in rural settings. The viewpoint will identify the problem we currently have in graduate medical education and offer suggestions for improvement.

BACKGROUND The traditional model of promotion and tenure in the health professions relies heavily on formal scholarship through teaching, research, and service. Institutions consider how much weight to give activities in each of these areas and determine a threshold for advancement. With the emergence of social media, scholars can engage wider audiences in creative ways and have a broader impact. Conventional metrics like the h-index do not account for social media impact. Social media engagement is poorly represented in most curricula vitae (CV) and therefore is undervalued in promotion and tenure reviews. OBJECTIVE The objective was to develop crowdsourced guidelines for documenting social media scholarship. These guidelines aimed to provide a structure for documenting a scholar’s general impact on social media, as well as methods of documenting individual social media contributions exemplifying innovation, education, mentorship, advocacy, and dissemination. METHODS To create unifying guidelines, we created a crowdsourced process that capitalized on the strengths of social media and generated a case example of successful use of the medium for academic collaboration. The primary author created a draft of the guidelines and then sought input from users on Twitter via a publicly accessible Google Document. There was no limitation on who could provide input and the work was done in a democratic, collaborative fashion. Contributors edited the draft over a period of 1 week (September 12-18, 2020). The primary and secondary authors then revised the draft to make it more concise. The guidelines and manuscript were then distributed to the contributors for edits and adopted by the group. All contributors were given the opportunity to serve as coauthors on the publication and were told upfront that authorship would depend on whether they were able to document the ways in which they met the 4 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. RESULTS We developed 2 sets of guidelines: Guidelines for Listing All Social Media Scholarship Under Public Scholarship (in Research/Scholarship Section of CV) and Guidelines for Listing Social Media Scholarship Under Research, Teaching, and Service Sections of CV. Institutions can choose which set fits their existing CV format. CONCLUSIONS With more uniformity, scholars can better represent the full scope and impact of their work. These guidelines are not intended to dictate how individual institutions should weigh social media contributions within promotion and tenure cases. Instead, by providing an initial set of guidelines, we hope to provide scholars and their institutions with a common format and language to document social media scholarship.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and thrombosis affect a small minority of patients exposed to heparin. However, given the high proportion of patients who receive heparin during hospitalization, clinicians should be mindful to keep it on their differential. This case involves a 56-year-old woman who developed HIT during a prolonged hospitalization. She was started on a direct thrombin inhibitor, argatroban, until her platelets recovered, was bridged to warfarin, and later developed warfarin-induced skin necrosis (WISN). Patients with prolonged hospitalizations may have an inherent vitamin K deficiency, leading to erratic changes in international normalized ratio (INR). Currently, there are no guidelines to address very high supratherapeutic INR levels in this setting. Prompt diagnosis and close monitoring during treatment are essential to minimize the risk of morbidity and mortality.

11009 Background: Gender & racial/ethnic leadership disparities have been independently identified in academic hematology/oncology (HO) and radiation oncology (RO). Here, we evaluate gender and racial/ethnic intersectionality from the trainee to the leadership level. Methods: All ACGME accredited HO and RO training program websites were queried to identify constituent trainees, academic faculty, program directors (PD) and department chairs (DC), with a leadership position defined as PD or DC. Individual gender & race/ethnicity was determined using externally validated software tools (Gender-API, NamSor, & Onolytics), publicly available descriptors, and image review. We grouped individuals into 6 categories: White Male (WM), White Female (WF), Asian Male (AM), Asian Female (AF), Underrepresented Groups in Medicine (as defined by AAMC) Male (URMM) and Female (URMF). The chi-squared goodness-of-fit test was applied to examine if deviations exist between the observed vs. expected proportions of gender/race dyads in trainees, PD, and DC compared to academic faculty. Results: We identified 7,722 individuals from 2019-2020: 1,759 trainees (HO=1525; RO=234), 5,726 faculty (HO=4834; RO=892), 242 PD (HO=149; RO=93) and 237 DC (HO=144; RO=93). Leadership positions were most often comprised by WM (52.6%), and least often comprised by URMF (2.9%). Combined HO/RO analysis revealed significant differences in the observed representation of trainees & DC vs expected levels based on total faculty, respectively: WM (33.7% & 60.3% vs. 42.3%), WF (19.2% & 13.9% vs. 22.3%), AM (20.75% & 16.9% vs. 16.4%), AF (17.9% & 2.5% vs. 12.7%), URMM (4.09% & 5.5% vs. 3.5%) and URMF (4.3% & 0.8% vs. 2.8%), p

e21137 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are the standard of care in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). ICIs are commonly used in combination with chemotherapy but may be used as monotherapy in selected cases. Registration trials have shown a response rate of 40–50% in such patients and a durable response in some patients. However, there are no reliable predictive markers that determines the response and its durability. Recruitment of the inflammatory cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME) can determine the response to ICIs and an increased inflammatory state can be a poor prognostic factor. Peripheral inflammatory markers such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) can reflect the inflammatory changes within the TME. We aim to study the effect of high NLR and PLR on the radiographic response and its durability in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis on 178 NSCLC patients treated with ICIs such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab/nivolumab or atezolizumab either alone or in combination with chemotherapy. Radiographic response, and the duration of radiographic response (date of best response to radiographic progression), NLR, and PLR were calculated at baseline and 8 weeks since the start of ICI. High NLR and PLR was defined as greater than the median NLR and PLR values. Cox regression univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Logistic regression and Chi-square tests were applied. Results: Overall 81% patients had adenocarcinoma and 19% patients had squamous, adenosquamous or large cell carcinoma. Majority of the patients were female (56.2% vs. 43.8%). The objective response rate (ORR) was 45.1% and the disease control rate (DCR) was 75.8%. The ORR was 51% in patients receiving ICI as first line therapy compared to 35% in patients who received ICI as a second line therapy. There was statistically significant difference in median duration of response in patients with high vs. low NLR (9.8 months vs. 18 months, P = 0.01, 95% CI 10.9– 26.2) and high vs. low PLR (9.0 months vs. 17 months, P = 0.03 95% CI 10.9–24.33) at baseline. The baseline odds ratio (OR) of response in the high NLR and high PLR group was 0.73 (P = 0.5, 95% CI 0.36–1.64) and 0.63 (P = 0.2, 95% CI 0.32–1.23), respectively. However, the odds to respond to ICI decreased significantly in patients with high NLR and PLR at 8 weeks [NLR (OR = 0.16, P = 0.0001, 95% CI 0.06–0.43)] and [PLR (OR = 0.27, P = 0.005, 95% CI 0.1–0.6). Conclusions: NLR and PLR may be reliable surrogate markers determining the durability of response to ICI in NSCLC patients. Standard imaging studies and serial monitoring may be beneficial to monitor the response to ICIs. However, prospective studies are needed to develop predictive and prognostic models utilizing these indices.

e21209 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are now the standard of care in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). ICIs may be used as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. Increased recruitment of inflammatory cells in the tumor micro-environment is associated with a poor response to ICIs. Although obesity is a risk factor for many types of cancers, including lung cancer, it is associated with a low systemic inflammation state. This creates an effect known as the “obesity paradox,” resulting in better treatment-related outcomes in overweight and obese patients receiving ICIs. However, in obese patients, the neutralizing interleukin (IL) - 1β level is high, which can decrease the responsiveness to ICI. We aim to study the effect of increased weight on treatment-related outcomes in NSCLC patients receiving ICI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis on 178 NSCLC patients treated with ICIs, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab/nivolumab or atezolizumab, alone or in combination with chemotherapy. Overweight was defined as having a BMI of 25 – 29.9 while obesity was defined as having a BMI of ≥ 30. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), best radiographic response, and the time to achieve radiographic response were evaluated. Cox regression univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Logistic regression and Chi-square tests were applied. Results: Of the 178 patients with NSCLC, 81% had adenocarcinoma, and 19% had squamous, adenosquamous, or large cell carcinoma. The majority of patients were female (56.2% vs. 43.8%). Overall, 48.6% patients were overweight or obese. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45.1% and the disease control rate (DCR) was 75.8%. The ORR was 37% in overweight/obese patients compared to 52% in patients with a normal weight (p = 0.06). The DCR was 76% vs. 73.9%, (p = 0.7). The median time to achieve the best radiographic response was 3.7 months in overweight/obese patients compared to 2.5 months in those of normal weight (p = 0.2). A considerably higher proportion of the patients progressed in overweight/obese category (80.7% vs. 69.3%, P = 0.08). However, there was no significant difference in median PFS between the two categories (7.4 vs. 8.1 months, P = 0.2). The overall survival was not significant different between both categories (15.9 vs. 16.8 months, P = 0.5). Conclusions: Our study suggests that obesity and overweight status can result in a low response rate to ICIs in NSCLC patients and can delay the time to achieve the best radiographic response per RECIST criteria. However, we did not observe any significant impact on the overall or progression-free survival. A large, population-based study will help to elucidate the impact of weight on the responsiveness to ICI.

11007 Background: The proportion of women & underrepresented groups in medicine (URM) in the field of hematology and oncology remains low, particularly in academic leadership positions. Editorial board appointments allow physicians to have a substantial impact on the nature of the published scholarly work and serve as a platform for academic opportunities. We aimed to assess gender and race/ethnicity representation in editorial board positions in hematology and oncology journals. Methods: Editorial leadership board members from 60 journals from oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology were reviewed, 54 journals were included in the analysis. Gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data for editor-in-chief (EiC) and second-in-command (SiC) (including deputy, senior, or associate editors). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared were estimated. Results: A total of 793 editorial board members are included in the analysis. 72.6 % were men and 27.4 % were women. 71.3% of editorial leadership were non-Hispanic white with Asian editorial board members representing the second largest majority at 23.3%. The editorial position was significantly different among men and women (p = 0.038) with women filling only 15.9% (10/63) of the EiC positions. Of these 10 women, the racial breakdown was 90% white and 10% Asian. In the prevalence odds ratio (pOR), women were about half as likely to be in the EiC position compared with men [pOR: 0.47, 95%CI (0.23, 0.95, p = 0.03)]. Women represented 28.4% (207/730) of SiC editorial positions. White editors had the highest representation at 71.0% in the SiC editorial positions, followed by Asian editors at 16.0%. Notable differences were seen in gender proportions between journal specialties (p = 0.001); with surgical oncology and hematology having the lowest female representation at 11.9% and 22.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Women and UIM are markedly underrepresented in leadership roles on Editorial Boards in hematology and oncology journals. Importantly, the representation of minority women physicians in EiC positions is at an inexorable zero which is a sign of unconscious attitudes that may exclude women and minorities from certain positions. It is imperative that we work to move towards a more diverse and inclusive editorial board to ensure critical perspectives are heard and scientific discovery is fostered.[Table: see text]

e21202 Background: Increased systemic inflammatory state and increased inflammation within tumor micro-environment (TME) have been associated with a worse prognosis and lower responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Systemic inflammatory immune index (SII) reflects the changes in the systemic inflammatory matrix. Studies have shown the association of SII with cancer survival and treatment outcomes. We aim to study the effect of SII on treatment outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients being treated with ICI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis on 178 NSCLC patients treated with ICIs (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab/nivolumab or atezolizumab) alone or in combination with chemotherapy. SII is the product of platelets multiplied by neutrophils divided by lymphocytes. Baseline and 8-week SIIs were obtained. Radiographic response, duration of radiographic response (date of best response to radiographic progression), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. A high SII was defined as a value greater than the median SII. Cox regression univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Logistic regression, t-test, and Chi-square tests were applied. Results: Overall, 81% patients had adenocarcinoma and 19% patients had squamous, adenosquamous or large cell carcinoma. The majority of the patients were female (56.2% vs. 43.8%). Median SII at baseline was 1335. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45.1%. The disease control rate was 75.8%. The ORR was 51% in patients receiving ICI first-line compared to 35% in those who received ICI as a second-line therapy. At baseline, there was no difference in the mean SII between responders and non-responders (2146.2 vs. 1917.5, P = 0.5); however at 8 weeks, the mean SII was significantly lower in responders compared to non-responders (1198.8 vs. 2880.2, P = 0.02). A total of 15 (10.9%) patients were found to have pseudoprogression or mixed response on follow-up imaging. Among these, 11(73.3%) patients had low SII at 8 weeks (P = 0.04). The median OS was significantly higher in patients with low SII at baseline (29.6 months vs. 10.1 months, P = 0.001 95% CI 10.6 – 22.1). Similarly, there was a significant difference in median PFS in patients with low SII (14.6 months vs. 6.7 months, P = 0.002, 95% CI 5.6 – 11.6). There was no correlation between high or low SII on the incidence of immune-related adverse events. Conclusions: SII may have significant impact on OS and PFS and could be serially monitored to assess the response to ICI. A low SII may help to differentiate pseudoprogression vs. true progression. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings. Further, it will be interesting to see if SII could be incorporated into predictive models to determine the duration of cytotoxic therapy in selected patients.

11012 Background: The proportion of women in the field of hematology and oncology (H&O) has increased over recent decades, but representation by women in leadership positions remains a challenge. Our aim was to examine representation of winners of recognition awards by gender and race from the major international hematology and oncology societies. Methods: Published award recipients from the seven major H&O societies were reviewed, with 26 years of data included (1994-2019). Awardee demographics and academic rank were collected and included in the analysis. Gender was determined based on awardee full name and verified by public data. Chi-square and Cochran-Armitage tests were used to analyze the data. Results: Over the past 26 years, 942 awards were presented at the 7 major H&O societies. We excluded 27 gender specific awards from the analysis. Of the 915 awardees included in analysis, award recipients were overwhelmingly men (77.9%) and non-Hispanic white (84.7%). Gender breakdown by society is described in table. ESMO and ASTRO represented the lowest distribution of women at 9.1% and 11.1%, respectively. Women awardees received 30.3% of the awards categorized as humanistic and education-related, while only receiving 16.0% of awards in the basic sciences category (p

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) refers to a group of disorders that occur as a secondary complicaton of cancer treatments, in which dying cells release large quantities of intracellular components in the blood circulation [6]. Typically, solutes like potassium, phosphate, calcium, and nucleic acids are found in dangerously high levels following chemotherapy or radiation therapy in patients with TLS. This syndrome is typically documented in cancers like leukemia and lymphomas but has been documented in solid tumors as well [1]. When this occurs in solid neuroendocrine tumors, there is measurable release of hormones into the circulation. Glucagonomas are rare glucagon secreting malignant tumors, more than half of which have metastasized by the time of diagnosis, with the liver being the primary site [2]. Chemotherapy and microsphere-radiation are palliative, whereas symptomatic relief is achieved with surgical debulking and long-acting somatostatin analogues [3]. Surgical resection can be curative in primary neoplasms. The following criteria support a diagnosis of glucagonoma syndrome, an elevated serum glucagon level, radiographically or histologically demonstrable neuroendocrine tumor, and characteristic clinical features [4]. Our original case report reviewed the paradoxical presentation of a patient with stage IV glucagonoma who had presented with a benign physical exam and non-specific complaints [5]. Following initiation of therapy, the patient developed multiple local and systemic complaints that were believed to be side effects of treatment but are now thought to secondary to massive hormone release. Case Presentation