Siddiqui, Mustaqeem

Abstract This retrospective analysis examined 15 years of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for light chain (AL) amyloidosis at the Mayo Clinic (2010-2024). We aimed to assess ASCT utilization trends, factors influencing practice changes, and current indications amid newer therapies. Four hundred and forty-one ASCTs were divided into cohort 1 (2010-2019) and cohort 2 (2020-2024), revealing a significant ASCT reduction in cohort 2 (385 vs 56, average 71% annual decrease). Cohort 2 patients were older, more likely to have relapsed/refractory disease, and had higher baseline bone marrow plasma cell burden compared to cohort 1. Pre-ASCT induction was more frequent in cohort 2 (89.3% vs 56.4%), with daratumumab (Dara)–cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (CyBorD) replacing CyBorD as the predominant induction regimen. Lymphoma-based regimens were also more common in cohort 2 (15.1% vs 5.3%, P = .02). Day-100 satisfactory hematological response improved in cohort 2 (91.1% vs 72.7%, P = .001), although hematological complete response rates did not significantly differ (50.9% vs 38.8%, P = .09). In summary, there is a decrease in the utilization of ASCT in AL amyloidosis. This procedure is primarily reserved for patients with suboptimal responses, relapsed/refractory disease, lymphoplasmacytic clones (predominantly immunoglobulin M amyloidosis), or high bone marrow plasma cell burden (myeloma phenotype). This study underscores a significant shift in ASCT practice, driven by novel therapies, emphasizing more personalized management in AL amyloidosis.

e19531 Background: Effective treatment and elimination of clonal plasma cells (PC) in multiple myeloma (MM) are typically associated with recovery of polyclonal (normal) plasma cells (PPC). Studies suggest that robust PPC recovery is associated with better outcomes. However, it is unclear if this remains valid in the context of monoclonal antibodies, such as Daratumumab, that selectively target plasma cells, and in turn, may adversely impact PPC recovery. Methods: We identified patients with MM who underwent MRD testing using Euroflow method at 6-12 months after treatment initiation. Eight patients had disease progression prior to MRD testing and were excluded from further analysis. PPC was quantitated by the proportion of total events acquired during flow examination. Patients were considered MRD-negative if they had <1 clonal PCs in 10 5 cells, as detected in the marrow. We first examined the impact of initial therapy (Daratumumab vs. non-Daratumumab based regimens) and MRD status on PPC recovery. Subsequently, we analyzed impact of PPC recovery on patient outcomes in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 572 patients who had MRD testing by flow at a median of 9 months (range 6-12) after treatment initiation. The median age was 63 years, 58% were male. Daratumumab was part of initial therapy in 17% of patients; the most common induction therapies were PI-IMiD triplets (73%), and dara-PI-IMiD quads (15%). In our cohort, 74% of patients were MRD-negative. In our practice, only samples with no monotypic PCs identified on initial low-sensitivity flow proceed to MRD testing, hence, the proportion of MRD-negative patients appears higher in our study than previously reported. Median PPC was 0.02% and was similar between MRD-negative and -positive patients. We found the median PPC was significantly low in patients who received Daratumumab compared to the non-Daratumumab treated cohort (0.011% vs. 0.023%; p<0.01). There was a trend towards lower PFS and OS among the lowest PPC quartile group compared to the upper 3 quartiles, although this was not significant (p=0.07 for PFS and OS, Wilcoxon). This trend was more evident among patients who did not receive Daratumumab. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates negative impact of anti-CD38 therapy with Daratumumab on recovery of PPCs after initial treatment, consistent with the persistent hypogammaglobulinemia seen in clinical practice among these patients. However, unlike the observation with the non-Daratumumab treated cohort, the low proportion of PPCs does not significantly impact patient outcomes among patients who received Daratumumab.

e19545 Background: Cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) at diagnosis are important prognostic factors in multiple myeloma (MM), but there is limited information on how these abnormalities evolve at first relapse and their significance. Methods: This retrospective study included patients aged ≥18 years, with a confirmed diagnosis of MM who experienced at least one disease relapse and had fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis within six months of both diagnosis and relapse. Data on CA and clinical outcomes were collected. High-risk (HR) secondary CA were defined as the presence of deletion of chromosome 17p (del17p) or gain or amplification of chromosome 1q. The primary objective was to evaluate changes in HR secondary CA at first relapse, while the secondary objective was to assess the impact of the cytogenetic changes on overall survival (OS) from diagnosis. Based on the presence or absence of HR secondary CA, patients who were tested for HR secondary CA at both time points were classified into four groups: 1) persistent absence of HR secondary CA, 2) emergence of HR secondary CA at relapse, 3) persistent presence of HR secondary CA, and 4) loss of HR secondary CA at relapse. Results: A total of 233 patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2023 were included. HR secondary CA were tested in 98.7% (n= 230) of patients at diagnosis, with 24.8% (n=57) testing positive. At first relapse, testing for HR secondary CA was performed in 97.4% (n=227) of patients, of whom 23.8% (n=54) tested positive. Del17p was evaluated in 98.3% (n=229) of patients at baseline and 95.7% (n=223) at relapse, with positivity increasing from 10.9% (n=25) to 15.3% (n=34). Gain or amplification of chromosome 1q was evaluated in 49.4% (n=115) at baseline and 25.5% (n=60) at relapse, with positivity rate rising from 28.7% (n=33) to 38.3% (n=23). There were no differences in overall response rate or very-good-partial-response-or-better rates to the initial therapy at diagnosis between the groups. (Table) Emergence/persistence of HR CA were associated with lower OS from diagnosis. Conclusions: Emergence of HR secondary CA at first relapse in MM has prognostic significance. These findings highlight the importance of serial cytogenetic testing for risk stratification. Response rate to initial line of therapy and overall survival from diagnosis among patients tested for HR secondary CA both at diagnosis and first relapse (n=224). Outcome Persistent absence of HR secondary CA(n=142) Emergence of HR secondary CA at relapse (n=25) Persistent presence of HR secondary CA (n=27) Loss of HR secondary CA at relapse(n=30) p-value Overall response rate a 75% (106) 76% (19) 63% (17) 67% (20) 0.5 b Very-good-partial response or better response rate 43% (61) 36% (9) 44% (12) 40% (12) >0.9 b Median (95% CI) OS from diagnosis in years 11.3 (9.7-13.4) 7.5 (5.1-12.1) 6.1 (4.2-9.4) 10.1 (6.5-14.1) <0.0001 c a Partial response or better; b Chi-square test; c Log-rank test.

INTRODUCTION Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is a rare and aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM) with poor survival outcomes. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) evaluation is essential for the initial risk stratification in MM, and the presence of multiple high-risk (HR) cytogenetic abnormalities by FISH portends a worse prognosis in MM. We have previously observed that the presence of HR cytogenetic abnormalities by FISH at diagnosis is known to confer a poor overall survival (OS) in patients with pPCL. However, less is known about the cumulative effect of multiple HR cytogenetics abnormalities compared to a single HR cytogenetic abnormality on the OS outcomes of patients with pPCL. AIM To evaluate the prognostic implications of additive HR cytogenetics abnormalities by FISH in patients with pPCL treated with novel agents. METHODS We evaluated patients with newly diagnosed pPCL at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center from 2014 - 2023 that received induction with novel agent combinations. pPCL was defined as patients meeting the diagnostic criteria for MM with 5% or more circulating plasma cells (cPCs) present on morphologic evaluation of their peripheral blood smear. HR cytogenetics abnormalities by FISH was defined by the presence of any one of the following: 1q gain/amplification, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and del(17p). Time to next treatment (TTNT) and OS analysis were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences were assessed using the log-rank test. Statistical analyses were performed using the SAS biostatistical software JMP 17.0.1 (SAS Institute Inc). RESULTS We included 89 patients with newly diagnosed pPCL who received novel agents as first-line therapy between 2014 to 2023. The median follow-up was 45 months (95% CI: 35 - 65). At diagnosis, the median bone marrow plasma cell content was 80% (Range: 10 - 100), and the median cPC% on the peripheral smear was 21% (range: 5 - 85). There were 51 patients (59%) who had 20% or more cPCs on their peripheral smear. There was a preponderance of pPCL patients who had t(11; 14) as their primary cytogenetic abnormality (43%). The median lines of therapy received were 2 (Range: 1 - 9). There were 12 (13%) patients who received intensive induction therapy containing continuous infusional chemotherapy regimens at the onset of their diagnosis. Of the remaining patients, 35 (45%) were treated with a quadruplet (anti-CD38 antibody, proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator), 24 (31%) with a triplet (proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator) and 18 (23%) with a doublet (proteasome inhibitor only). The median OS for all pPCL patients in this cohort was 47 months (95% CI: 37 - 100). However, when stratified by cytogenetic risk, the median OS was 101 months (95% CI: 57 - NR) for those patients without any HR cytogenetic abnormalities (N = 24, 27%) vs. 37 months (95% CI: 22 - 63) for those with one or more HR cytogenetic abnormalities (N = 65, 73%) (P = 0.006). Of the patients with any HR cytogenetic abnormalities, 33 (36%) had one HR cytogenetic abnormalities and 32 (34%) had two or more HR cytogenetic abnormalities. The median OS for patients with one compared to two or more HR cytogenetic abnormalities were 47 (95% CI: 38 - 111), and 22 (95% CI: 17 - 37) months, respectively (P = 0.031). The median TTNT was 22 months (95% CI: 16 - 58) for those patients without any HR cytogenetic abnormalities vs. 16 months (95% CI: 9 - 21) for those with one or more HR cytogenetic abnormalities (P = 0.09). The median TTNT from the time of diagnosis for pPCL patients with one compared to two or more HR cytogenetic abnormalities were 18 (95% CI: 6 - 41) and 16 (95% CI: 10 - 19) months, respectively (p = 0.247). CONCLUSION Patients with pPCL with more than one HR cytogenetic abnormality had an inferior OS compared to those with only one HR cytogenetic abnormality, implicating the additive adverse effects of multiple HR cytogenetics abnormalities. In contrast, patients with pPCL without any HR cytogenetic abnormalities had a relatively long median OS (over 100 months).

Background: Venetoclax (Ven), a BCL2 inhibitor, has shown promising responses in multiple myeloma (MM) patients with t(11;14) and/or BCL2 expression. However, consistent benefit in clinical trials remain elusive. This report evaluates the efficacy and safety of Ven combination therapies, including in the non-t(11;14) subgroup, and examines the impact of secondary cytogenetic abnormalities (SGA) on outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included multiple myeloma (MM) patients without concurrent AL amyloidosis treated with Ven-based combinations at Mayo Clinic sites from January 2015 to December 2023. FISH data was collected at diagnosis and before venetoclax initiation to assess SGAs. Refractoriness was defined by progression on or within 60 days of stopping treatment. Patients refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor (PI), immunomodulatory drug (ImiD), and anti-CD38 antibody were considered triple-class refractory (TCR). Ven combinations were grouped as: Daratumumab/CD38 antibody (Dara)-Ven based if received Dara ± other drugs, PI-Ven-based without Dara, Ven-dexamethasone (Ven-d), and other combinations (Ven-Misc). BCL2 expression in patients without t(11;14) was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from treatment initiation to disease progression or last follow-up. Results: We included 232 patients in this study. The median age at diagnosis of MM was 62 years (range 32-87), and the median age at initiation was 68 years (range 35-89). The median time from diagnosis of MM to initiation of Ven was 55 months (95% CI 28, 89 months), and the median follow-up from initiation of Ven-based treatment was 17.2 months (95% CI: 14, 22). Patients had received a median of 3 lines (IQR 4-6); 65% (n=152) of patients were TCR, 71% (n=163) had received autologous stem cell transplant and 7% (n=16) patients had received prior immune effector therapy prior to initiation of Ven-based therapy. The majority (83%, n=190) of the patients harbored a t(11;14); in the patients without t(11;14), a BCL2 expression by IHC was tested in 18 patients and positive in 17 patients. The most common Ven-based combinations included: Dara-Ven-d (19%, n=44), PI-Ven-d (30.2%, n=70), Ven-d (48.3%, n=112), Ven-misc (2.6%, n=6). The overall response rate for the entire cohort was 57% [64% for t(11;14) and 26% for non t(11;14), p&lt;0.0001]. The median PFS for the entire cohort was 9.5 months (95% CI 8.5,13), and the duration of response was 18 months (95% CI 15.2-23.3). The median PFS was 11.8 months (95% CI 9.5-16.7) for patients harboring a t(11;14) compared to 2.9 months (95% CI 1.8, 8.4) for patients without a t(11;14), p&lt;0.0001. Among the non-t(11;14) cohort with BCL2 expression, the median PFS was 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.2-4.2). Among the 190 patients with t(11;14), 18% (34/190) harbored deletion 17p and 32% (60/193) harbored a 1q gain/amplification (referred hereforth as 1q21+) at initiation of Ven-based therapy. In the cohort of patients with t(11;14), the presence of either del17p or 1q21+ (n=85/190) was associated with a significantly inferior PFS [median PFS 8.2 months (95% CI: 5.5,13)] vs. 15.1 months (95% CI: 11.6, 22), p=0.03. At the last follow-up,42 patients had ongoing treatment with ven-based combination. Most common reasons for discontinuation were progression (77% N=140), adverse effect (12%, n=22), patient/provider preference(9%, n=17); 2% (n=4) patients died without progression (3 infection, 1 unclear). The most commonly utilized maximum dose of venetoclax was 400 mg (42%); 15% (n=35) of patients required a dose reduction, and 23% (n=54) received a ramp-up. Tumor lysis syndrome was not noted in any patient. Infectious complications were noted in 23% (n=52). The estimated median OS from initiation of ven-based Rx was 34 months (95%CI 25-47). The estimated median OS for patients without a t(11;14) was 6.2 months (95% CI: 3.3-11.3) compared to 46 months (31.4-54.1), p&lt;0.0001. In the t(11;14) subgroup, the 18-month OS rate was 79% for patients without 1q21+/del17p vs. 50% for patients with a 1q21+/del17p (p=0.002). Conclusion: Venetoclax-based regimens represent an important treatment option for patients harboring a t(11;14). The PFS in patients with BCL2 expression without t(11;14) was poor suggesting lack of efficacy of venetoclax-based regimens for that subgroup. Presence of concurrent del17p and/or 1q21+ with t(11;14) portends an inferior PFS.

Introduction: Ven is a BCL2 inhibitor that has shown clinical efficacy in RRMM patients (pts) particularly those that harbor t(11;14). Ven has been evaluated in clinical trials as a single agent, in combination with dexamethasone (dex), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (MAb) yet its place in the therapeutic landscape remains in question. In this retrospective analysis, we aim to evaluate the real-world efficacy of Ven-based regimens in RRMM pts treated outside of a clinical trial across the 3-site MCCC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of pts with RRMM treated with Ven-based regimens between January 2015 and October 2023 at the MCCC. Refractoriness was defined by progression on or within 60 days of stopping treatment. Categorical variables were compared with Chi-square tests and continuous variables were compared with t-tests. Outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and curves were compared between the groups using log-rank tests. Results: 83 pts were included in the analysis. The median age was 71 (39-93), 63% were male, 93% were white, 27% had ISS III, 18% had high risk cytogenetics (HRCyto), 76% had t(11;14), the median prior lines of therapy (LOT) was 4 (1-15), 68% received ≥ 4 prior LOT, 87% received prior autologous transplant, 58% were triple-class refractory (TCR), 64%/23% were penta-drug exposed/refractory (PDE/R), 8% received prior BCMA-directed therapies (BDT), 58% received Ven+dex, 25% received Ven+PI +/-dex, 6 % received Ven+anti-CD38 MAb+/-dex and 11% received Ven+other. The median follow-up time from start of a Ven-based regimen was 29 months (mo). The median Ven dose was 800mg (20-1600) with 25% of pts receiving Ven ramp-up dosing. The overall response rate (ORR) to a Ven-based regimen was 58% and was 64% for pts with t(11;14) and 40% for pts without t(11;14); p=0.06. Ven-treated pts with HRCyto had inferior PFS (3mo) and OS (8mo) compared to patients who did not have HRCyto who had a PFS of 9mo (p=0.020) and OS of 80mo (p&lt;0.001). The ORR for TCR and PDR pts were 52% and 42%, respectively. No significant ORR differences were noted across the different Ven-based regimens (p=0.32). The median PFS for pts with t(11;14) was 10mo compared to 2mo for pts w/o t(11;14); p=&lt;0.001. The median OS for pts with t(11;14) was 80mo compared to 10mo for pts without t(11;14); p=0.001. Ven-treated pts who received 1-3 prior LOT has superior ORR, median PFS, and median OS; 89%, 25mo, and 99mo, respectively, compared to pts who received ≥4 prior LOT who achieved an ORR of 43% (p&lt;0.001), median PFS of 5mo (p&lt;0.001) and median OS of 25mo (p&lt;0.001). Ven-treated pts that were TCR had inferior PFS (5mo) and OS (26mo) compared to pts who were not TCR who achieved a PFS of 12mo (p&lt;0.001) and a median OS of 80mo (p=0.02).Ven-treated pts that were PDR had inferior PFS (4mo) and OS (22mo) compared to pts who were not PDR who achieved a PFS of 9mo (p&lt;0.001) and a median OS of 80mo (p=0.02).Ven-treated pts who received prior BDT (n=7) achieved an ORR of 29% and had a median PFS and OS of 2mo and 6mo, respectively on a Ven-based therapy. 59 pts received additional therapy in the post Ven-progression setting. The ORR to post-Ven progression therapies was 53% (n=31/59), the median PFS was 9mo and median OS was 35mo. The most common post-Ven progression regimens used were PI-based (n=16; ORR=56%), anti-CD38 MAb-based (n=14; ORR=50%), BDT (n=12; ORR=83%), selinexor-based (n=3; ORR=0%) with BDT resulting in highest ORR (p=0.048) and PFS (p=0.005). Conclusions: Ven-based regimens are effective in heavily pre-treated pts with RRMM however they are more effective when used within 1-3 prior LOT, in pts with t(11;14), and in pts without HRCyto, TCR or PDR MM. BDT appear to be the most efficacious therapies in the post-Ven progression setting.

Background: The term classical hematology (CH), referring to a subspecialty focusing on non-cancer blood disorders, was officially adopted by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in 2022. There is a perceived shortage of classical hematologists, although data are limited (Winter JN, Hematologist 2022). Prior studies have shown that &lt;6% of hematology-oncology fellows pursue a practice subspecializing in CH after training (Todd RF, Blood 2004; Marshall Al, Blood Adv 2018). Moreover, mentorship is consistently cited as the most important factor guiding fellows' career decisions (Sharma D, Blood Adv 2019; Masselink LE, Blood Adv 2019). To help bridge the CH workforce gap, ASH has supported additional hematology-focused fellowship programs (HFFP) within select hematology-oncology fellowship programs. CH constitutes a large proportion of consults in US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers (West CV, JCO Oncol Pract 2024). The goals of our study were: 1) to determine the proportion of adult hematologist-oncologists within NCI cancer centers who practice CH; and 2) to describe the physician characteristics of cancer centers with HFFP and compare these centers to those without HFFP. Methods: We included all NCI-designated cancer centers with a clinical program as of April 1, 2024. The only exception was St Jude Children's Hospital due to its pediatric focus. We obtained the practice profile of each internal medicine-trained adult hematologist-oncologist (henceforth, physician) as well as the availability of HFFP from the respective cancer center websites. We also searched the corresponding department of medicine and division of hematology at each affiliated academic institution to ensure inclusion of all physicians practicing CH. Each physician was classified into one of the following categories: classical hematologist (attending to only non-cancer conditions), general hematologist-oncologist (cancer and non-cancer conditions), and oncologist (cancer only). The number of hematology-oncology fellowship programs in the US was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results: We included 64 NCI-designated cancer centers, 55 of which were considered as comprehensive cancer centers. There was a total of 4,616 physicians (3,891 oncologists [84.3%], 487 hematologists-oncologists [10.6%], and 238 classical hematologists [5.1%]). The median numbers of physicians, oncologists, general hematologist-oncologists, and classical hematologists per center were 55 (range, 16-275), 45 (range, 12-270), 5 (range, 0-48), and 3 (range, 0-13), respectively. The median proportions of classical hematologists and physicians practicing CH (general hematologist-oncologists plus classical hematologists) were 5.1% (range, 0-20.0) and 14.9% (range, 0-55.6%), respectively. There were 12 HFFP within NCI-designated cancer centers (18.8%). Most (11/12) centers with HFFP had &gt;50 physicians (median 95 [range, 38-185]) and &gt;5% classical hematologists (median 6% [range, 3.8-13.5%]); 11 centers with similar characteristics did not have HFFP. Centers with HFFP have significantly higher numbers of physicians (median 95.0 [range, 38-185] vs 49.5 [range, 16-275]; P=0.001) and classical hematologists (median 6.0 [range, 3-13] vs 2.0 [range, 0-11]; P&lt;0.001) but similar proportions of classical hematologists (median 6.0% [range, 3.8-13.5] vs 4.5% [range, 0-20.0]; P=0.078) and physicians practicing CH (median 12.3% [range, 6.5-47.7] vs 15.7% [range, 0-55.6]; P=0.402) compared to those without HFFP. Conclusions: Among adult hematologist-oncologists at NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 20 are classical hematologists, although 1 in 7 have CH as part of their practice. Within NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 5 have an HFFP. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity for NCI-designated cancer centers to encourage and recruit physicians subspecializing in CH and a rationale to create additional HFFPs. These measures may help further alleviate CH workforce shortages and expand CH mentorship to meet the needs of an increasingly complex subspecialty within hematology.

Background The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) launched the Diversity in Oncology initiative in 2017 to address the need for increased minority representation in the hematology-oncology workforce. A recent series of reports, titled “State of the Oncology Workforce in America,” published in JCO Oncology Practice in 2021 and 2022, focused on this issue. Notably, these reports did not include any data regarding the representation of Asian minorities in the field. Therefore, our objective was to assess the proportion of Asian professionals within the hematology-oncology workforce, encompassing both practitioners and trainees. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search for publicly available data regarding Asian representation among US hematology-oncology practitioners and trainees in both adult and pediatric fields. Our primary data sources included the 2020 US Census, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and various professional societies. We defined practitioners to include hematologist-oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical oncologists, hematopathologists, hematology-oncology nurse practitioners, hematology-oncology physician assistants, and nurses specializing in hematology-oncology. Trainees encompassed fellows and residents. Additionally, we gathered comparable data on the US population, medical students, adult internal medicine residents, gynecology residents, pediatric residents, pathology residents, surgery residents, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. To provide a comprehensive overview of the hematology-oncology workforce, we utilized data from 2020 to 2022, and whenever possible, we collected longitudinal data on trainees over the years. Results As of 2020, Asians represented 6.2% of the US population. Among hematology-oncology physician practitioners, the percentage of Asian individuals ranges from 14.7% to 32.1%, including 32.1% of adult hematologist-oncologists, 20.4% of pediatric hematologist-oncologists, 25.9% of radiation oncologists, 14.7% of gynecologic oncologists, and 7.0% of hematology-oncology physician assistants. In the realm of physician trainees, Asian representation is between 17.9% and 35.3%, with 35.3% of adult hematology-oncology fellows, 20.0% of pediatric hematology-oncology fellows, 26.4% of radiation oncology residents, and 17.9% of gynecologic oncology fellows. Additionally, the proportion of Asian residents from which hematology-oncology fellows are drawn ranges from 14.9% to 35.9%. Specifically, 35.9% of internal medicine residents, 22.0% of pediatric residents, 14.9% of gynecology residents, 26.6% of pathology residents, and 19.2% of surgical residents are Asian. Furthermore, 26.7% of medical students identify as Asian. Notably, the proportions of Asian hematology-oncology trainees and medical students have remained relatively stable from 2005 to 2022. Data on hematopathologists, surgical oncologists, and non-physician practitioners are limited, although Asian representation among hematology-oncology physician assistants is 7.0% and among nurses is 7.2%. Conclusions Asians comprise a large segment of the hematology-oncology workforce in the US. While only 1 in 20 people in the US are Asians, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 hematology-oncology physician practitioners and trainees, are Asians. Data are limited for non-physician practitioners. Asian minority representation should be highlighted and considered as an example of success in diversity in hematology-oncology workforce. This framework should be embraced moving forward to continue advancing minority representation throughout the field of hematology-oncology.

Introduction While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has transformed the management of hematologic malignancies, it requires frequent monitoring for acute toxicities, almost universally achieved through mandatory hospitalizations, therefore utilizing a significant amount of healthcare resources. At Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, our standard practice is administering CAR-T cell therapy in the outpatient setting through a multi-disciplinary hospital-based outpatient (HBO) unit and remote patient monitoring (RPM) program. Our CAR-T RPM program consists of in-home, electronic health record-integrated technology to monitor vital signs and neurologic symptoms for 30 days post CAR-T infusion. Here we report the healthcare utilization outcomes of CAR-T patients managed in the outpatient setting enrolled in the RPM program. Methods Patients undergoing FDA-approved CAR-T cell treatment in the outpatient setting and participating in the CAR-T RPM program at Mayo Clinic Rochester were included in this IRB-approved study. Patient characteristics, healthcare utilization metrics, inpatient interventions, and patient satisfaction data regarding the RPM program were reviewed. Length of stay (LOS) includes any hospitalizations for which the admission date falls within the RPM monitoring period (CAR-T cell infusion to day +30), even if the hospitalization continued past day +30. Results A total of 123 patients participated in the CAR-T RPM program and underwent treatment in the outpatient setting. Median age at CAR-T infusion was 63 years (range 22 - 83), and most patients were male (n=78, 63%). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma was the most common diagnosis (n=74, 60%), followed by multiple myeloma (n=47, 38%), ALL (n=1, 1%) and other (n=1, 1%). During the PRM monitoring period, 19 (16%) patients were managed entirely in the outpatient setting. The remaining 104 (84%) patients required at least one hospitalization, with most patients (n=70, 57%) hospitalized only once [26 (21%) patients were hospitalized twice, and 7 (6%) patients were hospitalized 3 times, and 1 (1%) patient hospitalized 4 times during the monitoring period]. When considering the first hospitalization post CAR-T infusion, the median LOS was 6 days (range 2 - 47). When considering all hospitalizations post CAR-T, the median LOS was 8 days (range 2 - 47). Only 7 (6%) patients required an ICU stay, with a mean ICU stay of 0.2 days (standard deviation 0.9). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was noted in 92 (75%) of patients at a median of 3 days (range 0 - 18) post CAR-T infusion. All patients with CRS received tocilizumab, at a median of 4 days post CAR-T infusion. Steroids for CRS were administered in 63 (68%) of these patients. Neurotoxicity was reported in 45 (37%) patients at a median of 7 days (range 1 - 19) post CAR-T infusion. During the RPM monitoring period, patients were seen in our HBO unit with a median of 18 outpatient visits (range 4 - 30). Patient survey data, obtained at the end of the RPM monitoring period, were available from 37 patients. The majority of patients felt that the RPM program helped them feel comfortable managing their health at home, were able to reach a team member, and receive an appropriate response promptly. The majority of patients felt comfortable using the RPM equipment and interacting with providers virtually. Overall, 83% of patients were satisfied with the RPM program and 6% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. When asked about the reason for disappointment, technical difficulties/issues with the devices were the themes mentioned by the few patients (11%) who were unsatisfied with the RPM program. Conclusion: Despite the complexities and frequent monitoring associated with CAR-T cell therapy, outpatient CAR-T cell treatment is a feasible model of care. As the standard practice at our institution, the CAR-T RPM program was part of the management of nearly all patients undergoing an FDA-approved CAR-T product in the outpatient setting. RPM in the acute setting post CAR-T infusion is a well-received practice initiative by the majority of patients, including a high level of comfort utilizing the RPM equipment and virtual interaction with the RPM providers.