May, Jori E.

Abstract Systems-based hematology (SBH) is an emerging discipline focused on optimizing care delivery for patients with hematologic disorders within complex health care systems. Despite its growing importance, the field lacks a formal definition, standardized curriculum, and clear career pathway, hindering widespread adoption and training of future SBH experts. We sought to define core principles, competencies, challenges, and future directions of SBH to identify foundational components for a potential educational curriculum. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 8 SBH experts. Expert participants were identified through their committee involvement with the American Society of Hematology. Five overarching themes emerged: (1) The accidental expert: SBH careers have developed organically and reactively in response to pressing institutional needs, not through formal training; (2) Defining the unseen: experts define the field pragmatically by its function and roles; (3) The SBH toolkit: success requires a hybrid skillset combining clinical hematology expertise with health systems science (HSS) principles; (4) The architect's dilemma: the field's growth is hindered by interdependent challenges of building a curriculum, awareness, and securing resources; and (5) Charting the future: the discipline is poised for growth, driven by increasing health care complexity and specialization. SBH represents the nexus of HSS principles and hematology care. Formalizing SBH requires a multipronged approach, including developing a standardized curriculum that equips learners with a hybrid skillset, creating clear value for health systems and patients, and fostering a community of practice through professional societies. These findings provide a foundational framework for developing educational resources and institutional support necessary to continue advancing SBH.

Abstract Introduction: The landscape of classical hematology has undergone substantial evolution over the last decade, marked by new diagnostic tools, nuanced therapeutic strategies, and an expanding understanding of underlying pathophysiology. This increasing complexity often presents unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. These challenges are further compounded by workforce shortages in classical hematology marked by educational gaps, geographic limitations, and difficulty accessing prompt specialty care. Unlike the well-established “Tumor Boards” in oncology, a comparable dedicated, widely accessible forum for classical hematology has largely been absent. This gap contributes to potential practice heterogeneity and isolation, especially across dissimilar care settings and geographic regions, impacting the consistent application of evidence-based practices and access to specialized expertise. To address this critical need, the “Blood Board” initiative was created to serve as an informal, virtual resource for discussing classical hematology topics and cases, fostering diverse perspectives, and collaborative problem-solving. Methods: The Blood Board was formally launched in April 2025, operating as a bi-monthly, hour-long virtual meeting conducted via non-recorded videoconferencing. The forum was designed with broad inclusivity in mind, welcoming all healthcare professionals involved in the care of adult patients with classical hematologic disorders, including trainees such as hematology/oncology fellows, academic and community-based hematologists, and any other interested providers. To date, dissemination of this initiative has been by word of mouth and e-mails containing a calendar invitation have been sent to anyone interested in participating (https://forms.gle/doyHNSx1SVFBJZmy8). To facilitate participation from various practice models and geographical locations, the virtual format was prioritized, eliminating barriers of travel and time commitment often associated with traditional in-person conferences. Participation is voluntary, encouraging an open and informal environment for de-identified case presentations, didactic discussions, and expert opinion sharing. Self-reported data on participant demographics (e.g., role, practice setting) and geographical representation have been collected to assess the initiative's reach and impact. Results: To date, sessions have consistently garnered engagement with a median of five participants in attendance at each session. There have been over 20 unique participants representing a broad spectrum of roles including both trainees and practicing hematologists/hematologist-oncologists and drawing from private practice, community-based hospitals, and academic medical centers. Over half of all participants were either in fellowship or within five years of completion of training. The virtual format has successfully overcome geographical limitations, attracting attendees from numerous states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin highlighting its broad appeal and potential for knowledge dissemination across a wide professional network. Conclusions: The Blood Board has demonstrated utility and met a previously unaddressed need. Sustained intellectual interest in Blood Board, coupled with a wide geographical and professional reach underscores a critical role for accessible, free, and multidisciplinary collaborative platforms in the evolving field of classical hematology. Similar to Tumor Boards, Blood Board promotes knowledge exchange and evidence-based care, garners expert support for challenging cases, and harmonizes clinical approaches, which we hope may ultimately improve patient care outcomes across diverse settings. Furthermore, this platform facilitates a national classical hematology community to support workforce development. Future goals include expanding dissemination efforts, measuring specific educational benefits, analyzing impacts on patient care, and increasing participant diversity, including recruitment of advanced practice providers and pharmacists.

Introduction: Systems-based hematology (SBH) is an emerging field focused on improving hematology care delivery through quality improvement (QI) and health systems science (HSS). However, a universal definition and standardized training curriculum are lacking. This study aimed to explore experts' perspectives on defining SBH, identify core knowledge and skills, and discuss challenges and opportunities in developing a curriculum. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight hematologists who have expertise in SBH through practical experience, scientific publications, and serve on related committees for the American Society of Hematology. These interviews were automatically transcribed through Microsoft Teams. Thematic analysis, using both inductive and deductive coding, was employed to identify themes and subthemes from the verbatim interview transcripts. This was accomplished with a large language model (LLM; Google Gemini Advanced, June 2024). Results: In combination, these semi-structured interviews lasted approximately 400 minutes and generated 231 pages of transcript text with 63117 words for analysis. Five main themes and associated subthemes were identified. (1) Defining SBH: experts highlighted the lack of a universal definition for SBH, emphasizing the reason it is often defined by its functions, such as improving healthcare delivery, ensuring appropriate use of resources, and addressing disparities in care. They often compared SBH to other fields like antimicrobial stewardship or implementation science to illustrate its expansive role and scope. (2) The Role and Scope of SBH: experts described SBH as encompassing a broad range of activities, including improving healthcare delivery, implementing QI initiatives, conducting pragmatic research, and advocating for policy changes at various levels. They emphasized the importance of data-driven approaches and collaboration with other healthcare professionals. (3) Training and Education in SBH: the lack of formal training programs and curricula for SBH was a recurring theme. Experts suggested that a comprehensive curriculum should include QI methodologies, implementation science, clinical informatics, health economics, leadership skills, and hematology-specific examples and case studies. They proposed various delivery methods, including asynchronous online modules, virtual workshops, and in-person sessions, targeting hematology fellows, junior faculty, and other healthcare professionals involved in hematology care. They unanimously agreed that a SBH curriculum could borrow heavily from an established HSS curriculum but should incorporate hematology-specific examples. (4) Challenges and Barriers to Implementing SBH: experts identified several challenges, including the lack of awareness and recognition of SBH among healthcare professionals and administrators, resource constraints, and the need for institutional buy-in. They also highlighted the technical difficulty of measuring and demonstrating the value of SBH interventions, particularly in terms of cost savings and improved patient outcomes. (5) The Future of SBH: despite the challenges, experts expressed optimism about the future of SBH, predicting its growing importance and expanding scope, including malignant hematology, community practice, and pediatrics. They envisioned SBH playing a crucial role in addressing rising healthcare costs, quality concerns, and disparities in care. They also anticipated the integration of new technologies like artificial intelligence, “virtual” care delivery, and molecular genetics into SBH practice. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the current state of SBH and the need for a standardized curriculum. The findings can inform the development of educational resources and training programs to equip future practitioners with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively practice SBH and improve hematology care delivery. This study also sheds light on the utility of qualitative research within SBH and the emerging analytical tools that will require further exploration and standardization (e.g., LLM prompt engineering).

Mastocytosis is a heterogeneous group of disorders comprising cutaneous mastocytosis, systemic mastocytosis, and mast cell sarcoma. It is associated with a variety of symptoms related to the release of mast cell mediators and mast cell tissue infiltration. Referral to specialized centers with expertise in the management of mastocytosis and multidisciplinary collaboration with subspecialists (eg, allergists for the management of anaphylaxis and drug hypersensitivities, anesthesiologists for invasive procedures or surgery, high-risk obstetrician for pregnancy) is recommended. The NCCN Guidelines for Systemic Mastocytosis provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and comprehensive care of patients with systemic mastocytosis. The multidisciplinary panel of experts convenes at least once a year to review requested changes to the guidelines from both internal and external entities as well as to discuss data on existing and new therapies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the guidelines.

See the Reply by Semla and Steinman in this issue.

PURPOSE: Graduate medical and research training has drastically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with widespread implementation of virtual learning, redeployment from core rotations to the care of patients with COVID-19, and significant emotional and physical stressors. The specific experience of hematology-oncology (HO) fellows during the COVID-19 pandemic is not known. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study using a survey of Likert-style and open-ended questions to assess the training experience and well-being of HO fellows, including both clinical and postdoctoral trainee members of the American Society of Hematology and ASCO. RESULTS: A total of 2,306 surveys were distributed by e-mail; 548 (23.8%) fellows completed the survey. Nearly 40% of fellows felt that they had not received adequate mental health support during the pandemic, and 22% reported new symptoms of burnout. Pre-existing burnout before the pandemic, COVID-19–related clinical work, and working in a primary research or nonclinical setting were associated with increased burnout on multivariable logistic regression. Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed significant concerns about employment after training completion, perceived variable quality of virtual education and board preparation, loss of clinical opportunities to prepare for independent clinical practice, inadequate grant funding opportunities in part because of shifting research priorities, variable productivity, and mental health or stress during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: HO fellows have been profoundly affected by the pandemic, and our data illustrate multiple avenues for fellowship programs and national organizations to support both clinical and postdoctoral trainees.

Introduction: While the COVID-19 pandemic has affected many aspects of clinical care, research, and medical training, its impact on hematology-oncology trainees and professional development has not been described. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) sought to assess the impact of COVID-19 on fellows enrolled in hematology-oncology programs. Methods: In spring 2020, ASH and ASCO developed and administered a survey by e-mail to active hematology-oncology fellow members. Response formats used both a semi-Likert scale and open-ended text. Questions focused on fellow experiences and how changes in their programs have impacted their personal and professional lives across several domains. Multiple-choice responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and NVivo software was used for qualitative analysis of open-ended questions. Results: Respondent demographics are described in Table 1. Of 2,306 trainees, 620 (27%) responded to the survey. Most respondents continued patient care responsibilities during the pandemic (80%). Almost half of all trainees (47%) reported that they felt less productive than usual. Stress and/or anxiety about the current situation was the most cited factor affecting productivity in the overall cohort (Figure 1). One-third (33%) of respondents had volunteered or were assigned to clinical/non-clinical COVID-19-related efforts. Of the 90 visa holders in our cohort, 30% (N=27) reported experiencing issues with their visa/immigration status. Eight percent of respondents stated their career plans had changed due to COVID-19. Of those who said their plans had changed, 30 respondents were considering careers in academia pre-pandemic and 11 were considering private practice. However, only 14 respondents were considering academia post-pandemic while 19 were interested in private practice. Overall, most respondents had concerns about at least one of the following: salary reductions, availability of networking events, family well-being, mental health and obtaining a job (Figure 2). The prevalence of burnout increased from 22% (N=105) before the pandemic to 33% (N=161) during (p<.001). Of the respondents who did not report burnout before COVID-19, 22% noted new-onset burnout during the pandemic. New-onset burnout prevalence varied based on the type of work respondents performed: no COVID-related work (17%), COVID-related non-clinical work (26%), and COVID-related clinical work (34%) (p<0.01). The open-ended responses yielded several consistent themes. Clinical and educational constraints were enumerated: lost learning opportunities due to low patient volumes, unavailability of colleagues to discuss cases, and overall low perceived quality of virtual learning. Trainees also reported reduced motivation to complete work within a stipulated time frame due to lack of robust discussions in the virtual environment and technological challenges in navigating educational resources. Trainee research was also severely impacted as laboratories closed, experimental animal colonies were lost, and many research activities ceased. Respondents also expressed concern that cuts in research training initiatives and budgets would jeopardize faculty positions for graduating fellows and that funding for travel and conferences was suspended. Fellows' recommendations for ASH and ASCO included improved online education, virtual research training and networking opportunities, practical guidance on caring for immune-compromised patients during the pandemic, increased funding resources for trainees, mental health resources, and advocating on behalf of trainee visa holders. Conclusions: Hematology-oncology trainees reported their training experiences have been deeply impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A majority of trainees are concerned about the negative impact on career opportunities, research funding, financial well-being, and mental health. Burnout increased during COVID-19, especially in trainees who were assigned to specific COVID-related efforts. Training programs and professional societies can support trainees by increasing trainee research funding, online networking and learning opportunities, mental health resources and, support for international trainees. Disclosures Velazquez Manana: Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Midatech: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership. Wun:Glycomimetics, Inc.: Consultancy.