Dalgetty, Mark

9030 Background: AI use is ubiquitous among HOT and healthcare workers, but with variable base knowledge and comfort level. Its indiscriminate use may be problematic. To address this educational gap, we developed a WS for HOT to assess their use of AI and educate them on how to employ it in MedEd and patient-centered CP based on LSP. Methods: A faculty member developed a WS on how to use AI in MedEd and CP based on LSP of analogy, contrasting cases, elaboration, generation, and question driven learning. The WS was for HOT, but faculty could join. It had 3 sections: introduction to basic concepts of AI; principles of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and protected health information; AI in MedEd; and AI in CP. Sections had real use case examples of AI, for participants to interact, ask questions, and share their personal use cases. HOT were invited to compare and generate examples during the WS, based on their educational and clinical experience and needs. Participants’ AI use and self-perceived and objective knowledge about it were assessed in a pre activity survey, a post WS survey, and a post 8 week survey to evaluate long term learning. Results: A 2 hour WS with 9 HOT and 2 faculty was completed successfully. 10 participants completed the pre WS survey, and 11 completed the post WS and the post 8 week surveys. 100% of them used generative AI tools before the WS, while 10% had prior training in AI. 90% used AI in personal life and MedEd, 70% used it in CP, and 30% in academic research. Table 1 shows participants’ self-assessed knowledge of AI, comfort level in using AI for MedEd and CP, self-assessed preparedness to implement AI in MedEd and CP, and objective knowledge. 8 weeks post WS, 91% of participants reported increased AI use in CP, leading anywhere from slight to significant decreases in time spent on documentation tasks for 91% of them. In MedEd, 73% reported increased AI use, and 82% described slight to significant improvement in the quality of time dedicated to it. 82% described the WS as extremely relevant to their daily responsibilities, and 91% reported confidence navigating ethical and privacy risks of AI in HemOnc. All participants were interested in having a similar WS in the future. Conclusions: An LSP based WS about AI increased the self-perceived and objective knowledge of HOT about using this tool in MedEd and CP. It also increased HOT comfort level, preparedness, and efficiency using AI. With the ubiquitous use of AI by HOT, ongoing education about it focused on supporting high-quality patient care should be a part of fellowship curriculum. Pre WS % Post WS % Post 8 week % Moderately/Very knowledgeable about AI 50 91 100 Comfortable using AI in MedEd 60 82 82 Prepared to implement AI in MedEd 30 91 73 Comfortable using AI in CP 40 73 82 Prepared to implement AI in CP 0 91 73 Correct answers on objective assessment 53 68 71

Background: Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is one of the most treatable leukemias in the current era, with cure rates upwards of 90%. Early mortality due to coagulopathies often seen at diagnosis is a major driver of adverse outcomes. Prompt initiation of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) is crucial for suspected APL, as it is known to reverse these coagulopathies. Chemotherapy-free protocols consisting of arsenic trioxide (ATO) and ATRA have become the standard of care for low-risk APL with high cure rates and reduced hematologic toxicities. For high-risk disease, there are multiple treatment options that have not been compared. Since APL is rare, there is a lack of real-world data for this disease. This retrospective review aimed to assess the outcomes of APL patients (pts) across multiple institutions and to examine the most common induction regimens, characteristics linked to early (30-day) mortality, and supportive care strategies. Methods: This retrospective study involved 9 institutions in the US and was conducted through the Consortium on Myeloid Malignancies and Neoplastic Diseases (COMMAND). Data included pts admitted from 8/5/2006 through 2/3/2024 with a confirmed diagnosis of APL. Each institution received a data-collection form and contributed data on APL pts from presentation to last follow-up. Key data categories included patient demographics, presenting laboratory and molecular data, treatment regimen, supportive care, and patient outcomes. Results: Data for 412 pts were identified with a median age of 51 (range 17-90) and 49% were female. Cardiovascular comorbidities were present in 44% of pts and 16% had a known pulmonary comorbidity. At presentation 109 (27%) had high risk-disease, defined as a white blood cell count (WBC) greater than 10 x 109/L. A FLT3 mutation was seen in 50% of tested pts, WT1 (22%), KRAS (3.6%), and NRAS (6.5%). The median WBC at presentation was 2 x 109/L (range: 0-166 x 109/L) and the median platelet count was 27 x 109/L (range: 2.0-315 109/L). Twenty-six percent presented with grade 2+ thrombosis, bleeding, or both. A higher percentage of pts with high-risk vs. low-risk disease presented with grade 2+ thrombosis, bleeding, or both (43% vs. 20%), DIC (60% vs. 36%), and mutated FLT3 (81% vs. 37%). The majority of pts received a chemotherapy-free induction regimen consisting of ATRA plus ATO. It was determined that 36 (8.7%) pts received induction with intermittent ATO plus ATRA (Burnett AK, Lancet Oncol 2015), 276 (67%) received daily ATO plus ATRA (Ravandi F, J Clin Oncol 2009 and Lo Coco, NEJM 2013), and 70 (17%) received a regimen inclusive of an anthracycline plus ATRA. Eleven pts did not start an induction regimen other than single-agent ATRA due to early death, while 19 had their regimen classified as “other” because they did not follow a conventional induction path. In total, 295/358 (82%) received ATRA within 24 hours of admission. At least 1 dose of gemtuzumab ozogamicin was given to 58 (14%) pts, of which 35 (60%) were considered high risk. The incidence of differentiation syndrome (DS) was 37% (n=154). Among the 243 pts who received steroid prophylaxis, 30% developed DS, compared to 52% of those who did not receive prophylaxis. Among the 360 pts with at least 1 available PCR result after starting induction, 94% achieved PCR-negativity. The 30-day mortality rate was 6.6%. On univariate analysis, presenting variables associated with a higher 30-day mortality include older age, diabetes, cardiovascular comorbidities, thrombosis or bleeding, DIC, eGFR < 60, elevated total bilirubin and D-dimer levels, and high-risk disease. The median overall survival (OS) of the cohort was not reached, and the 5- and 10-year OS was 88% (95% CI: 84-91%) and 79% (95% CI: 72-87%) respectively. The cumulative incidence of relapse at 3 years was 2.7% (95% CI: 1.4 - 5.1%), with no additional relapses observed. The incidence of CNS relapse at 3 years was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.3% - 2.8%), with 2 of the 4 pts classified as high-risk. Conclusion: This is the largest real-world evidence data collection in the US evaluating the outcome of pts with APL in the current era, inclusive of ATO as front-line induction. Outcomes for this disease remain extremely positive, with low 30-day mortality rates noted in this study along with durable OS rates and low incidence of relapse. Additional information on outcomes, safety, and supportive care will be presented at the meeting.