Özay, Zeynep İrem

109 Background: C and Lu are associated with overall survival benefit and approved for pts with mCRPC after prior treatment with docetaxel and an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). However, in real-world settings, administering Lu requires coordination across specialties and resources [PMID: 36637862], which could delay its administration. Herein, we sought to compare the time from medication order to administering the first dose of C versus Lu. Methods: This study used pt level data from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. Inclusion criteria: availability of the date of the first order of single-agent C or Lu and the date of first administration of the drugs. The time between the first medication order to the administration of single-agent C or Lu was measured. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the median days between medication order to administration between these 2 agents and a stratified analysis by practice type and insurance was performed. Results: Of 2,329 orders, 2,045 orders were for C between 1/1/2013 and 1/26/2024, while 284 were for Lu between 8/1/2013 and 12/6/2023. The time from medication order to administration was significantly longer with Lu (median 22 days, IQR 12-43) compared to C (median 7 days, IQR 3-14, p < 0.001). Time from medication order to administration of C and Lu by practice type and insurance is summarized (Table). At the time of the first order, pts in Lu cohort, compared to C cohort, were significantly older (median age 74 vs. 72, p < 0.001), more likely to be treated at an academic practice (27% vs. 15%, p < 0.001), and more likely to be covered by a commercial health plan (80% vs. 73%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our results show that it takes significantly longer to administer Lu compared to C across different practice types and most insurance plans. These results could inform healthcare policies aimed at improving access to Lu and guide treatment selection in the clinic. Time from medication order to administration of C and Lu by practice type and insurance. Category Subtype (number of orders for C/number of orders for Lu) CN = 2045 LuN = 284 p-value Practice type, mean (range) (days) Academic (315/77) 1.3 (0 – 59) 9.2 (0 – 55) < 0.001 Community (1730/207) 13 (0 – 243) 44 (1 – 282) < 0.001 Insurance, mean (range) (days) Commercial (1494/226) 11 (0 – 163) 32 (0 – 215) < 0.001 Medicare/other government programs (266/46) 10 (0 – 120) 46 (0 – 282) < 0.001 Medicaid (32/2) 9 (0 – 76) 28 (0 – 55) 0.8 Others (72/6) 12 (0 – 42) 21 (0 – 41) 0.2 Unknown (181/4) 14 (0 – 243) 76 (39 – 91) < 0.001

104 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification [ADT + androgen receptor-pathway inhibitor (ARPIs) +/- docetaxel] has been shown to improve survival outcomes in pts with mHSPC and is recommended as standard of care by all major guidelines. However, prior studies have shown underutilization of ADT intensification [PMID: 39191549]. There are limited updated and large-scale studies on the use of ADT intensification, beyond January 2023. In this study, we aimed to assess the treatment patterns of ADT intensification in real-world pts with mHSPC in the US, including data on those treated since January 2023. Methods: This retrospective study utilized the nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record (EHR) derived de-identified database. Eligibility: Pts diagnosed with mHSPC and availability of treatment information (ADT and/or line of therapy in mHSPC). The data cut-off date was 5/31/2024. Treatment patterns were summarized using frequency and percentages. All analysis was done using R version 4.2.3. Results: Among 24,105 pts with metastatic prostate cancer in the database, a total of 14,084 were eligible and included. The median age at metastatic diagnosis was 72 years (IQR 65 – 79), and 60% were White non-Hispanic. In the overall cohort (1/1/2013–5/15/2024), 56.8% received ADT monotherapy, and 37.7% received ADT intensification. Table summarizes the treatment patterns by year, highlightinga consistent increase in adoption of intensified ADT regimens, and a decline in use of ADT monotherapy. Notably, since January 2023, 76.8% pts with mHSPC received ADT intensification while only 17.3% of pts received ADT monotherapy. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first and largest study to evaluate the current use of ADT intensification. These data indicate a notable improvement in the adoption of level 1 evidence (ADT intensification) in the treatment of pts with mHSPC. These encouraging data emphasize the benefits of continued efforts to promote guideline-concordant care and provide the current treatment landscape to design clinical trials. Treatment patterns by year in pts with mHSPC. Treatment 2013–2017n = 5,263(%) 2018n = 1,313 (%) 2019n = 1,407(%) 2020n = 1,353(%) 2021n = 1,483(%) 2022n = 1,556(%) 2023n = 1,459(%) 2024n = 250(%) ADT monotherapy 4,095 (77.8) 856 (65.2) 819 (58.2) 664 (49) 698 (47.1) 569 (36.6) 291 (20) 5 (2) ADT + ARPI 155 (2.9) 238 (18) 354 (25.1) 452 (33) 555 (37.4) 695 (44.7) 842 (58) 154 (61.6) ADT + Docetaxel 709 (13.5) 156 (12) 175 (12.4) 156 (12) 134 (9.0) 117 (7.5) 78 (5.3) 19 (7.6) Triplet(ADT + ARPI + Docetaxel) 6 (0.1) 2 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 2 (0.1) 9 (0.6) 82 (5.2) 166 (11.1) 53 (21.2) Other therapies 298 (5.7) 61 (4.6) 58 (4.1) 79 (5.8) 87 (5.9) 93 (6) 82 (5.6) 19 (7.6)

9000 Background: Despite IMGs accounting for up to one-third of all practicing oncologists in the United States, little is known about their contributions to presentations at international oncology meetings, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Therefore, we investigated the representation of IMGs in invited faculty roles at ASCO Annual Meetings. Methods: Speaker presentation details at ASCO 2022 and 2023 Annual Meetings were collected using publicly available program guides. We collected presentation-level variables of invited faculty roles (discussant, moderator, chairmanship, session topic presenter) and original research type (oral abstract, poster discussion, plenary session). Speaker-level variables comprised presumed gender, academic rank, and institution. Speakers were categorized into the following groups - American Medical Graduate (AMG): currently affiliated with a US institution, completed medical school in the US; IMG: affiliated with a US institution, completed medical school outside the US; non-US based speakers: affiliated with an institution outside the US; non-MD speakers. Univariable and multivariable analyses were employed to assess factors associated with the selection of presenters for invited faculty roles. Results: A total of 3337 presentations (1649 from 2022, 1688 from 2023) were included. 71.6% of the speakers were US-based, 56.6% were male and 40.5% were full professors. The highest proportion of podium presentations was by AMGs (48.5%), followed by non-US based (28.3%), IMGs (14.1%), and non-MD (9.1%) speakers. 57% of IMG presentations consisted of original research compared to 48.7% for AMGs (Table). Notably, compared to AMGs, IMGs were significantly less likely to be included in invited faculty roles (odds ratio [OR] 0.72 [95% CI 0.58 – 0.88], p <0.01), a finding that remained significant after accounting for gender and academic rank (adjusted OR 0.75 [0.61 – 0.94], p= 0.01). Conclusions: Relative to IMGs’ original research output, IMGs appear to receive less invitations for ASCO Annual Meeting invited faculty roles compared to AMGs. Our findings suggest potential under-representation and under-recognition of IMGs in these roles, despite their contributions to the oncology workforce in the US. [Table: see text]