Singhi, Eric K.

e13677 Background: The development of AI led to the emergence of tools such as AIS, which have been increasingly adopted in medicine. However, formal evaluation of barriers and clinical care gaps in HemOnc is limited, particularly regarding treatment plan complexities and toxicity documentation. Methods: Structured investigator-developed surveys about AIS availability, adoption, benefits, and challenges were developed on Qualtrics and approved by the IRB. HemOnc faculty physicians (FP), advanced practice providers (APP), and trainees (HOT) were surveyed between 11/14/25-1/16/26. Surveys were distributed in the USA via email, social media (on X), and ASCO myConnection. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results: 132 participants responded to the survey: 55 FP (42%), 14 APP (11%), and 63 HOT (48%). 80% of them reported having AIS at their institutions, and 54% of those reported using these tools in their clinical practice. Among FP and APP, 72% practiced in academic settings, 14% in community, and 13% in hybrid centers. Among those not using AIS, identified barriers were issues with note formatting (56%), lack of training (25%), and concerns that the note content is incorrect or inadequate (25%). 60% are willing to use AIS if note formatting matched their preference, and 42% would try it if contents better reflected the patient encounter. Table 1 details the proportion of encounters using AIS, the portion of documentation it was used for, and the perceived challenges with these tools. Among AIS users, the average satisfaction score was 5.3 on a 7 point scale, corresponding to participants being somewhat satisfied. Participants agreed slightly that AIS had reduced their feeling of work-related burnout, with an average score of 3.6 on a 5 point scale. Overall, participants felt neutral about how well-suited AIS are for HemOnc, with an average score of 4.0 on a 7 point scale. Conclusions: Despite AIS being widely available, 46% of the surveyed HemOnc workforce do not use them in clinical practice. Those who do reported decreased time spent on documentation outside work hours and a slight reduction in the feeling of burnout. Formatting issues and record integration remain barriers, with substantial concerns about AIS not adequately describing HemOnc treatment plans. To bridge the last mile of integration into HemOnc, partnership between AIS developers and the clinical workforce is essential to meet clinical needs, while prioritizing patient safety and data privacy. FP + APP % HOT % Patient encounters where AIS is used 62 44 Used AIS for the subjective portion of note 68 96 Used AIS for the assessment/plan portions of note 40 25 AIS decreased the time on clinical documentation outside work hours 96 93 AIS note formatting needs improvement 68 57 Issues integrating AIS and outside records 46 71 AIS note contents about the plan are suboptimal 32 61

11079 Background: Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) inform the standard of care in cancer treatment yet have a mixed track record of success. In this study, we sought to 1) determine the overall success rate of phase 3 RCTs; 2) assess whether authorship patterns differ between successful (positive) and unsuccessful (negative) trials; and 3) explore if individual authors have distinct track records of success. Methods: The HemOnc knowledgebase (KB) was queried for initial publications of phase 3 RCTs of systemic anticancer therapy; those without primary outcome described were excluded. RCTs were labeled positive if the primary endpoint was met per HemOnc standard criteria (P value ≤ 0.05 or hazard ratio upper bound ≤ 1 for any experimental arm[s]) and negative if they did not meet these criteria or if the experimental arm was statistically inferior. Trial metadata and author information were extracted from the HemOnc KB. Author positive publication rate (PPR) was defined as % of publications reporting a positive result divided by total number of eligible publications. Prolific authors were defined as those with 6+ eligible publications. Author count for manuscripts reporting positive vs negative results was evaluated with the Mann-Whitney U test; other statistics were descriptive. Results: 3328 studies met criteria as of February 5, 2024; these were associated with 3305 initial publications between 1960-2023, involving 25,412 unique authors. 1474 (44.3%) of the studies were positive. Publications reporting positive trial results had, on average, 3 more authors, median (interquartile range) of 18 (12-23) vs 15 (11-20), p<0.0001. The mean (±SD) PPR for n=1967 prolific authors was 47.7% (±22.3%). The PPR was not related to individual author output; mean PPR for non-prolific authors was 48.0% (SD not reported). Differences in PPR were apparent by the disease under study and the years of publication (Table). Among the 46 prolific authors who had a PPR 2+ SD above the mean, 26 (55%) were from China followed by Italy with 3 (6%). Conclusions: Despite known positive publication bias, the success rate of published phase 3 RCTs remains <50%. Publications reporting positive results had significantly more authors; this finding requires further study including adjustment for trial sample size. Significant variation in PPR amongst fields could be due to watershed therapeutic advances, differential selection of primary endpoints, and/or selective reporting of results. Finally, a signal for geographic association of outlier PPRs suggests the need for further investigation. [Table: see text]