Mohty, Razan

Abstract Participation of women and early-career faculty in hematology and medical oncology board review lecture series has not been studied previously. We aimed to evaluate gender and early-career faculty disparities in hematology and medical oncology board review lecture series. Speakers at major hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series meetings in the United States were analyzed in this cross-sectional study during a 5-year period from the years 2017 through 2021. Data about the lecture topic, field, speaker’s gender, years of experience, and the frequency at which the lecture was given by the speaker were collected. Of 386 speakers participating, 315 (81.6%) were ABIM (American Board of Internal Medicine)-certified. A total of 1,224 board review lectures were given in the studied period, of which 1,016 (83%) were given by an ABIM-certified speaker. Women constituted 37.7% of all speakers, with less than 50% representation in five out of six courses. Lectures discussing malignant hematology topics had the lowest proportion of women presenters (24.8%), followed by solid tumors (38.9%) and benign hematology lectures (44.1%). Faculty with more than 15 years since initial certification presented more than 50% of lectures. The median time from initial hematology or medical oncology certification to lecture presentation was 12.5 years and 14 years, respectively. A positive trend in the participation of women was found at all board review conferences across the studied period. Our data suggest that women and early-career faculty participation in hematology and oncology board review series is inadequate.

11060 Background: Studies show that women and early career faculty members have less access to career development opportunities and leadership positions. These disparities slow the process of change and may affect leadership roles, promotions, and career advancements in academic medicine. Here, we provide the first analysis of speakers’ gender and early faculty disparities in hematology and medical oncology board review series. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of speakers at all major hematology and/or oncology board review series meetings, which were held in the United States between January 2017 and December 2021. Six major board review series were involved: Baylor/M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, the Brigham and Dana-Farber, George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and the American Society of Hematology. Details of the lectures were acquired via accessing brochures available on the institutions’ official websites. Data on board certification and maintenance of certificate (MOC) were obtained from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) website. We extracted the number of publications from the PubMed website (MEDLINE). Results: Our analysis included 1224 board review lectures presented by 386 speakers. Of which, 315 (81.6%) were American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) certified, and MOC was active in 56.1% of speakers. Females accounted for 37.7% of all speakers, with a representation of less than 50% in 5 out of 6 board review series. The least proportion of female participation was among lectures discussing malignant hematology topics (24.8%), followed by solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology topics (44.1%). Faculty members with more than 15 years of experience since initial certification presented more than half of the lectures. The median time from initial hematology or medical oncology certification to lecture presentation was 12.5 years and 14 years, respectively, which varied significantly among different series (p < 0.001). Speakers’ median number of publications was 84. We also investigated how frequently the same speaker gave lectures. Thirteen male speakers conducted more than or equal to 10 lectures across all board review series, compared to only two female speakers who did the same. An upward trend of improvement in females participation was found at all board review conference meetings across the years. Conclusions: Our data suggest that women and early career faculty members are underrepresented in hematology and oncology board review series. Therefore, efforts should be made to ensure equal participation of them in such important activities needed to advance academic careers.

e19049 Background: Prognosis of COVID-19 is poor in the setting of immunosuppression. Casirivimab/imdevimab (REGEN-COV), bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab are investigational monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) authorized for treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 for patients (pts) 12 years or older and who are at high-risk for progression to severe COVID-19. These neutralizing antibodies, against SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, have been shown to decrease risk of progression to severe disease. Recipients of allogeneic stem cell transplants (allo-SCT) or chimeric antigen T cell therapy (CAR T cell) represent a high risk population. However, treatment outcomes with these MoAbs in these pts are not well described. Methods: This retrospective study included 33 consecutive adult pts who developed mild/moderate COVID-19 and received anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 MoAbs between December 2020 and November 2021. Allo-SCT (N=27) or CAR T cell (N=6) recipients were included, and outcomes were analyzed separately. Pts received REGEN-COV (N=19), bamlanivimab (N=11), or sotrovimab (N=1), missing (N=2). Results: In the allo-SCT cohort (N=27), median age at time of COVID-19 was 55 (23-76) years. Median time from allo-SCT to COVID-19 was 31 (22-64) months. Two pts received CAR T-cell therapy prior to allo-SCT. Diagnoses included leukemia or myeloid diseases (82%), lymphoma (11%), or myeloma (7%). Transplant characteristics are summarized (Table). Thirteen pts were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 prior to breakthrough COVID-19. Events considered included hospitalization due to COVID-19, disease progression, or death from any cause. The 6-month event-free and overall survivals were 81% and 91%, respectively. In the CAR T cell recipients cohort (N=6), 4 pts received axicabtagene ciloleucel for diffuse large B-cell or follicular lymphoma and 2 received brexucabtagene autoleucel for mantle cell lymphoma. The median follow-up was 8 (1-11) months. Two pts received autologous SCT prior to COVID-19. Median time from CAR T cell therapy to COVID-19 was 10 (3-24) months. Three pts were vaccinated prior to COVID-19. Only 1 pt was hospitalized due to severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation leading to death. Conclusions: These results show a potential benefit of MoAbs in high-risk pts, namely allo-SCT or CAR T cell recipients. Future studies should evaluate the role of prophylactic use MoAbs in these populations. A comparative analysis with a matched control cohort (who did not receive MoAbs) will be provided at the meeting. [Table: see text]

Abstract Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and 2 mutations occur in 20% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients with AML carrying IDH1-2 mutations have a similar prognosis compared to patients without these mutations (DiNardo et al, AM J H, 2015). However, the impact of IDH1-2 mutations on patients with AML undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is not well known. In this study, we investigate the prognostic impact of IDH1-2 mutational status on AML patients undergoing alloHCT in complete remission (CR). In this retrospective registry-based analysis, we identified 710 consecutive adult patients (46.2% female; median age: 58.5 years [range, 18-78]) with AML undergoing allo-HCT in CR between 2015 and 2019 at 85 EBMT participating centers. Cord blood, ex-vivo graft manipulated transplants, and patients with favorable cytogenetics were excluded. Median follow-up was 15 months [95% CI 13.4-16.6]. Patients were categorized based on IDH1-2 mutational status, with 300 (42%) mutated and 410 (58%) wild type. Six hundred and fifty-two (92%) and 58 (8%) patients had de novo and secondary AML, respectively, and 141 (20%) patients had poor-risk cytogenetics. IDH1-2 mutation was positively correlated with NPM1 mutation (40% in IDH1-2 mutated vs 27% in wild type, p=0.0001) and more frequently encountered in middle-aged patients (p=0.01). No correlation was noted between IDH1-2 and FLT3 mutation or other patient characteristics. Minimal residual disease (MRD) data was available for 344 patients, 53% of which were MRD-negative at transplant in both groups. Six hundred and twenty-three (88%) and 87 (12%) patients were in first and second CR at time of transplant, respectively. Patients received grafts from a matched sibling (24%), unrelated (62%), or haploidentical (14%) donor, and myeloablative conditioning (MAC) was used in 42%. Ninety-three percent of the patients received peripheral blood as the stem cell source. At day 180, the cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) was significantly lower in IDH1-2 mutated compared to wild-type patients (22% vs 33%, p=0.002). No differences in chronic GVHD rates were noted between the 2 groups (39% vs 40%, p=0.87). The 2-year cumulative relapse incidence (RI) was significantly lower and the GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) was also improved in IDH1-2 mutated compared to wild-type patients (14.4% vs 27%, p=0.001 and 47% vs 39%, p=0.006, respectively). This led to an improved leukemia-free survival (LFS) in IDH1-2 patients (69% vs 59%, p=0.01), however, it did not translate into an overall survival (OS) difference. No significant difference was noted in non-relapse mortality (NRM) between the 2 groups (17% vs 14.2%, p=0.26). These findings were confirmed in multivariate analysis. In fact, IDH1-2 mutation was associated with significant improvement in RI (hazard ratio [HR]=0.4 [95%CI 0.25-0.64], p=0.0001), LFS (HR=0.7 [95%CI 0.51-0.95], p=0.022), aGVHD II-IV (HR=0.63 [95%CI 0.45-0.87], p=0.005) and GRFS (HR=0.69 [95%CI 0.54-0.89], p=0.004). Conversely, the presence of adverse cytogenetics and undergoing allo-SCT in second CR increased the RI (HR=2.29 [95%CI 1.46-3.61], p=0.0003 and HR=2.84 [95%CI 1.64-4.91], p=0.0002, respectively) and were associated with a shorter LFS (HR=1.67 [95%CI 1.18-2.36], p=0.004 and HR=1.61 [95%CI 1.06-2.44], p=0.025) while reduced intensity (RIC) conditioning had a worse impact on OS compared to MAC (HR=1.56 [95%CI 1.07-2.29], p=0.022). Additionally, in the subgroup of patients with available MRD data, MRD positivity at transplant significantly increased RI (HR=2.15 [95%CI 1.09-4.23], p=0.027) with no impact on survival. In conclusion, our data suggest that the presence of IDH1-2 mutations acts as an independent prognostic factor and is associated with improved outcome in patients with AML in CR undergoing allo-HCT. Indeed, patients with IDH1-2 mutations had significantly lower rates of RI and aGVHD, which translated into improved LFS and GRFS. Nevertheless, patients with MRD positivity at time of transplant had significantly increased RI. Further studies investigating allo-HCT outcomes in IDH1-2 mutated patients with AML in the era of IDH inhibitors (both in the pre- and post-transplant setting) would help to further define the impact of these mutations in this setting and thus optimize an individualized treatment approach. Disclosures Labopin: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Esteve: Abbvie: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Kröger: Novartis: Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Pharma: Honoraria. Blaise: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Socie: Alexion: Research Funding. Ganser: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Bazarbachi: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Hikma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.