Bakouny, Ziad

PURPOSE Despite international medical graduates (IMGs) accounting for up to one third of all practicing oncologists in the United States, and nearly half of fellowship trainees, little is known about their contributions to presentations at international oncology meetings. Therefore, we investigated the representation of IMGs in invited faculty roles at the ASCO Annual Meeting as a representative example. METHODS Presentation data from ASCO 2022 and 2023 Annual Meetings were obtained from program guides. We collected presentation-level and speaker-level variables of invited faculty roles and original research. Speakers were categorized as American medical graduate (AMG), IMG, non–US-based, or non-MD (Doctor of Medicine). Univariable and multivariable analyses assessed factors influencing selection for invited faculty roles. RESULTS A total of 2,590 presentations by 2,109 unique speakers were reviewed, including primary research presenters and invited faculty. Among the 1,352 presentations by AMGs, 30% were primary research and 70% were invited faculty roles. For the 374 presentations by IMGs, 41% were primary research and 59% were invited faculty roles. Notably, first-author IMGs were significantly less likely to receive invited faculty roles relative to their primary research output compared with first-author AMGs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.90]; P = .006), even when accounting for academic rank, presumed sex, and year. CONCLUSION Relative to IMGs' original research output, IMGs appear to receive fewer invitations for ASCO Annual Meeting invited faculty roles compared with AMGs. Our findings suggest potential underrepresentation and under-recognition of IMGs in these roles, despite their contributions to the oncology workforce in the United States.

PURPOSE International medical graduates (IMGs) are an essential component of the oncology workforce in the United States, comprising a third of all practicing oncologists and almost half of hematology/oncology fellows. In this article, we discuss the contributions of IMGs in the US oncology workforce, review unique challenges faced by IMGs, and propose potential solutions to overcome these challenges. METHODS ASCO's IMG Community of Practice was established with the mission to connect, mentor, guide, raise awareness, and overcome the challenges unique to IMGs interested in pursuing medical oncology in the United States. The content of this article is based on discussions at the IMG Community of Practice meetings at ASCO's 2023 and 2024 Annual Meetings. RESULTS IMGs bring an inherent diversity of thought and experience to the oncology workforce. They provide high-quality, culture- and language-concordant care to a diverse population of patients with cancer. However, IMGs in oncology face significant hardships throughout their careers, including visa-related restrictions, psychosocial and cultural struggles, as well as differential treatment while applying for residency and fellowship training, and early career positions. Greater awareness of these challenges among the members of the hematology/oncology community, along with institutional and individual efforts to support IMGs, is warranted. CONCLUSION We encourage oncology professionals and institutions to join our efforts in recognizing the unique paths of IMGs and providing support and advocacy to maximize the potential of IMGs in the US oncology workforce.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32–1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24–2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70–6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71–5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83–12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63–3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20–2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66–3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89–22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Funding: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Clinical trial number: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701 .

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. Significance: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426

5077 Background: Several ICIs are used in first and subsequent lines of therapy for mRCC, either alone or in combination with another ICI or targeted therapy (TT). There are no data on the efficacy and safety of using an ICI in patients who have already received an ICI in a prior line of therapy. Methods: We reviewed patients with mRCC at 8 institutions who received 2 separate lines of ICI therapy (ICI-1, ICI-2), including as a single-agent and/or combination with other agents. The primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR) and time to progression (TTP) with ICI-1 and ICI-2. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were graded using CTCAEv5.0. Results: 65 patients were included. Median age at diagnosis of mRCC was 60 years (range 30-86) and the majority had clear cell RCC (n=56, 86%). Median follow-up was 3.5 years (95% CI 2.9-4.4). Median lines at which ICI-1 and ICI-2 were received were 1 (1-6) and 3 (2-8) respectively. Reasons for discontinuing ICI-1 were disease progression (n=47, 72%), toxicity (n=15, 23%) or other (n=3, 5%). Therapies received at ICI-2 were single-agent ICI (n=26, 40%), or combinations of ICI with another ICI (n=20, 31%), TT (n=11, 17%) or other agent (n=8, 12%). Responses to ICI-1 and ICI-2 are shown in the Table; ORR to ICI-2 was significantly lower than to ICI-1 (23% vs. 36%, p=0.044). Amongst those who responded to ICI-2 (n=14), 7 (50%) received single-agent ICI, and the remainder received ICI in combination with another ICI (n=4, 29%) or TT (n=3, 21%); 7 patients (50%) had previously responded to ICI-1. The ORR to ICI-2 was higher in responders to ICI-1 (32%) compared to those with SD (17%) or PD (15%) to ICI-1. Median TTP (mTTP) at ICI-2 was shorter compared to ICI-1 (5.3 months vs. 8.5 months, Wilcoxon p=0.024). 29 patients (45%) experienced an irAE with ICI-2; 8 (12%) and 3 (5%) had a grade 3 or 4 irAE respectively, with 3 (30%) of these patients having previously had ≥grade 3 irAE to ICI-1. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: The ORR to ICI-2 was 23%, which is comparable to that seen with ICI after prior TT. Responses were seen even amongst those receiving single-agent ICI at ICI-2 and the likelihood of response to ICI-2 was higher if a patient had previously responded to ICI-1. No increase in toxicity with ICI-2 was apparent. Additional data from prospective studies are needed to determine whether sequential ICI has a role in treatment of mRCC. [Table: see text]