Fonkoua, Lionel Aurelien Kankeu

10503 Background: Gender bias can be reinforced through the use of gender-subordinating language and differences in the forms of address. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. Methods: A retrospective observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO annual meetings was conducted. Data were extracted by mixed-gender coders. Professional address was defined as professional title followed by full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. Results: 2511 videos were reviewed and 812 met inclusion criteria. Regarding speakers’ characteristics, 530 (65%) were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 743 (92%) held a MD or MD-PhD degree, and 484 (60%) were an associate or full professor. Female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address compared to male speakers (61% vs. 81%, p < 0.001). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared to male speakers (53% vs. 80%, p < 0.01). No gender differences in professional address were observed for female introducers (p = 0.13). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared to female introducers (24% vs. 7%, p < 0.01). In a multivariable regression including gender, race, degree, and academic rank, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared to female speakers (OR: 2.67, 95%CI: 1.81-3.94, p < 0.01). Black speakers of both genders were less likely to receive a professional address compared to NHW (OR: 0.10, 95%CI: 0.01-0.53, p < 0.01). Female gender was a predictor for a non-professional form of address (first name only) (OR: 9.50, 95%CI: 4.38-20.62, p < 0.01). Conclusions: When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared to male speakers. Selective use of forms of address may strengthen gender bias; more research is needed to explore the causes of this disparity and its influence.

362 Background: Most pts with mGEA do not respond to ICI or ramucirumab/paclitaxel (RAM/TAX). Emerging data suggest that ICI may potentiate subsequent therapy (Tx). In KN059 we unexpectedly observed durable responses in 2 pts on RAM/TAX after ICI (PMID 29674442). We examined if ICI impacts efficacy of subsequent RAM/TAX in a larger cohort and explored alterations in the tumor microenvironment. Methods: All pts with mGEA at Mayo Clinic (MN, AZ, FL) who received RAM/TAX (2014-19) were included. We compared best objective response rate (ORR: complete [CR] or partial response [PR]) per RECIST1.1 and overall survival (OS) in pts who received RAM/TAX with (Group A) vs without (Group B) immediately preceding PD-1 blockade. Chi square and multivariate logistic and Cox regression were used. We adjusted for total lines of Tx received and the line of Tx in which RAM/TAX was given, to control for potential differences in the biology of heavily treated pts or those receiving RAM/TAX as 2nd vs 3rd line Tx. We also adjusted for age and ECOG PS. Results: In total 87 pts met inclusion criteria. In the 19 pts (Group A) who received RAM/TAX (usually as 3rd line Tx) after progression on ICI, there was a 77% relative risk reduction of death after initiation of RAM/TAX compared to the 68 pts (Group B) who received RAM/TAX (usually as 2nd line) without preceding ICI (median OS 15.0 vs 7.6 mo; HR 0.23; P < .001). The ORR was also significantly higher (58% vs 18%; P < .001) including the CR rate (16% vs 1%; P = .006). Two CRs in Group A are ongoing (10 - 34 mo). Of note, 95% of Group A pts did not respond to ICI, and all had irRECIST progression on ICI. Immunofluorescent analysis from a responder showed 65-fold reduction (post vs pre-Tx) in intratumoral density of immunosuppressive FOXP3+ Tregs, with preserved density of antitumor CD8+ T cells. Conclusions: Higher than expected efficacy was observed on RAM/TAX when immediately preceded by ICI, suggesting ICI may enhance efficacy of subsequent anti-VEGFR/taxane therapy. This serial immunotherapy combination may be a novel option for pts with primary resistance to ICI and will be tested prospectively in a new randomized phase 2 trial (NCT04069273).

PURPOSE In a professional setting, the introduction of female speakers without their professional title may have an impact on the public’s perception of the female speaker. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the ASCO Annual Meeting. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO Annual Meetings. A “professional address” was defined as the professional title followed by the speaker’s full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. RESULTS Of 2,511 videos reviewed, 781 met inclusion criteria. Female speakers were addressed less often by their professional title compared with male speakers (62% v 81%; P < .001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared with females when introducing male speakers (53% v 80%; P < .01). When women performed speaker introductions, no gender differences in professional address were observed (75% v 82%; P = .13). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% v 3%; P < .001). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared with female introducers (24% v 7%; P < .01). In a multivariable regression including gender, degree, academic rank, and geographic location of the speaker’s institution, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared with female speakers (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.71 to 3.47; P < .01). CONCLUSION When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared with their male peers.