Wang, Zhen

e19503 Background: The risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) despite mandatory thromboprophylaxis (TPx) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving contemporary lenalidomide (Len)-based regimens is not well-defined. Methods: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were queried to identify phase 1-3 clinical trials of Len-based regimens with mandatory TPx published until April 2018. Random effects meta-analysis was performed using CMAv3 software to obtain crude, and per 100 patient-cycle incidence rate (IR). Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed to obtain IR for VTE by (1) line of treatment (newly diagnosed [ND], relapsed/refractory [RR] and maintenance [Mx] phase) and (2) different Len-based regimens. Results: We screened 1069 citations and analyzed data from 43 trials with 8696 patients, including 17 in ND, 23 in RR and 3 in Mx phase. 12 out of 43 were Phase 3 randomized controlled trials. The overall incidence of VTE in 8696 patients was 4.6% (95% CI, 3.7-5.8%), with 1.0 event (95% CI, 0.7-1.4%) per 100 patient cycles. In patients with NDMM (n = 3295), 193 (5.9%) experienced VTE with a pooled IR of 0.9 (95% CI, 0.3-2.3) per 100 patient-cycle. Among RRMM patients (n = 3981), 251 (6.3%) experienced VTE with a pooled IR of 1.0 (95% CI, 0.4-2.3) per 100 patient-cycle. The incidence of VTE was highest with the following triplet regimens: Rd + Proteasome inhibitor (PIs) and Rd + Anthracycline (Ac) [+/- Vincristine], with the latter having a high risk of VTE regardless of the treatment phase (table). With Len Mx (n = 1420), 38 (2.7%) patients had VTE, with a pooled IR of 0.2 (95% CI, 0-2.1) per 100 patient-cycle. Conclusions: Patients with MM undergoing treatment with Len-based regimens remain at risk of VTE despite current TPx strategies. The estimates of VTE IR provided by this analysis can guide clinicians in assessing treatment-related risk of VTE in this setting. [Table: see text]

709 Background: Several immunotherapy (IMT) combinations either as an IMT doublet or IMT in combination with TKIs are now available for first-line therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, we performed an indirect comparison of frontline treatment options to provide clinical guidance. Methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant trials. Hazard ratios (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for primary outcome of progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary outcome of overall survival (OS) were abstracted. Network meta-analysis was performed using a multivariate, consistency model, random-effects meta-regression. Data on Grade 3 or higher AEs was abstracted and meta-analyzed. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on risk categories (high risk vs low and intermediate vs), history of prior nephrectomy, PD-L1 positivity, age and sex. Risk for bias(RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: Nine studies were included for PFS analysis, and 6 studies for OS analysis. Avelumab-axitinib (AA) (HR 0.69, 0.48-0.96), and Pembrolizumab-Axitinib (PA) (HR 0.89, 0.50-0.96) significantly improved PFS, while there was no significant PFS benefit with atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) (HR 0.83, 0.62-1.13) and nivolumab-ipilimumab (NI) (HR 0.85, 0.63-1.15) as compared to Sunitinib. PA (HR 0.53, 0.38-0.75) and NI (HR 0.63, 0.44-0.90) significantly improved OS, while AB (HR 0.93, 0.75-1.12) showed no significant OS benefit as compared to Sunitinib. NI and AB had significantly fewer grade ≥3 AE than sunitinib. No significant interaction was found by risk group, age, sex or prior nephrectomy. Significant interaction was found by PD-L1 expression(p<0.001), with significant PFS improvement in PD-L1 positive (HR 0.62, 0.53-0.73) but not in PD-L1 negative patients (HR 0.92, 0.81-1.05). Overall, RoB was low amongst included studies. Conclusions: AA improved PFS, NI improved OS, whereas PA improve both PFS and OS as compared to sunitinib monotherapy. However, no IMT combination was superior to other combinations. Cost effectiveness analysis will be reported separately.

PURPOSE: Gender disparity persists in academic medicine. Female faculty are underrepresented in leadership positions and have lower research output. We studied gender differences in faculty rank and departmental leadership and contributing factors among academic hematologists and oncologists in the United States. METHODS: For clinical faculty at 146 hematology or oncology fellowship programs listed in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database, we collected data on demographics, academic rank, and research output using the Doximity and Scopus databases. We compared unadjusted characteristics of men and women by using 2-sided t tests and χ2 tests where appropriate. To predict probability of full professorship or leadership position among men versus women, we performed multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for clinical experience in years, number of publications, h-index, clinical trial investigator status, National Institutes of Health funding, and workplace ranking (top 20 v not). RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred sixty academic hematologists and oncologists were included. Women composed 21.9% (n = 142) of full professors, 35.7% (n = 169) of associate professors, and 45.4% (n = 415) of assistant professors. Thirty percent (n = 70) of departmental leaders were women. Female faculty, compared with male faculty, had a lower mean h-index (12.1 v 20.9, respectively; P < .001) and fewer years of professional experience since fellowship (10 v 16 years, respectively; P < .001). After adjusting for duration of clinical experience, academic productivity, and workplace ranking, the odds of obtaining professorship (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.57; P = .85) or divisional leadership (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.58; P = .28) for female physicians were not different compared with male physicians. CONCLUSION: Gender disparity exists in senior ranks of academic hematology and oncology; however, gender is not a significant predictor in achieving professorship or department leadership position.

Purpose To systematically evaluate the outcomes and complications of osteochondral autograft transfer (OAT) and osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) for the surgical treatment of capitellar osteochondritis dissecans (OCD). Methods A literature search was conducted across 3 databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature]) from database inception through December 2019 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Individual study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non‐randomized Studies scale. Studies were published between 2005 and 2019. Results Eighteen studies consisting of 446 elbow OCD lesions treated with OAT surgery were included. There was a single OCA study eligible for inclusion. Patient ages ranged from 10 to 45 years. Of the OAT studies, 4 used autologous costal grafts whereas the remainder used autografts from the knee. Outcome measures were heterogeneously reported. A significant improvement in Timmerman‐Andrews scores from preoperatively to postoperatively was reported in 9 of 10 studies. Return‐to‐play rates to the preinjury level of competitive play ranged from 62% to 100% across 16 studies. Significant improvement in motion, most often extension, was noted in most studies. Reported complication, reoperation, and failure rates ranged from 0% to 11%, 0% to 26%, and 0% to 20%, respectively. When used, knee autografts resulted in low donor‐site morbidity (Lysholm scores, 70‐100). Conclusions OAT surgery for large, unstable OCD lesions of the capitellum reliably produced good outcomes, few complications, and a high rate of return to competitive play. Complications are relatively uncommon, and donor‐site morbidity is low. Less is known about the performance of OCA given the paucity of available literature. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.

Background Thromboprophylaxis is routinely used with lenalidomide‐based regimens in multiple myeloma because of a substantial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known about the incidence of VTE with contemporary lenalidomide‐based regimens. The objective of the current study was to estimate the incidence of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis with currently used lenalidomide‐based regimens in patients with myeloma. Methods The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from study inception to January 2019 for keywords to cover the following concepts: “lenalidomide,” “venous thromboembolism,” and “multiple myeloma.” Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials evaluating lenalidomide‐based regimens with thromboprophylaxis were included. The pooled incidence rate of VTE was estimated using a random‐effects model. Results The search generated 1372 citations, with 51 clinical trials and 9069 patients included for analysis. The most common thromboprophylaxis agents were aspirin, low‐molecular‐weight heparin or warfarin, administered either per risk‐stratification or at investigators' discretion. The pooled incidence of VTE in trials of patients who had newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory myeloma was 6.2% (95% CI, 5.4%‐7.1%) over median treatment durations ranging from 2 to 34 cycles, which translated into 1.2 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles (95% CI, 0.9‐1.7 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles). Among contemporary regimens, the risk of VTE was low with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone (0.2 [95% CI, 0.1‐0.6] events/100 patient‐cycles) and lenalidomide maintenance (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0‐0.7] events per 100 patient‐cycles). VTE risk was higher with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone plus proteasome inhibitors (1.3 [95% CI, 0.7‐2.3] events per 100 patient‐cycles). Conclusions Despite adequate thromboprophylaxis, lenalidomide‐based regimens have a substantial risk of VTE in controlled clinical trial settings. Further studies are needed on new thromboprophylaxis strategies with regimens that have a high VTE risk.

Objective To examine the effect of HLP, defined as having a pre-existing or a new in-hospital diagnosis based on low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥100 mg/dL during index hospitalisation or within the preceding 6 months, on all-cause mortality after hospitalisation for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and to determine whether HLP modifies mortality associations of other competing comorbidities. A systematic review and meta-analysis to place the current findings in the context of published literature. Design Retrospective study, 1:1 propensity-score matching cohorts; a meta-analysis. Setting Large academic centre, 1996–2015. Participants Hospitalised patients with AMI or ADHF. Main outcomes and measures All-cause mortality and meta-analysis of relative risks (RR). Results Unmatched cohorts: 13 680 patients with AMI (age (mean) 68.5 ± (SD) 13.7 years; 7894 (58%) with HLP) and 9717 patients with ADHF (age, 73.1±13.7 years; 3668 (38%) with HLP). In matched cohorts, the mortality was lower in AMI patients (n=4348 pairs) with HLP versus no HLP, 5.9 versus 8.6/100 person-years of follow-up, respectively (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.80). A similar mortality reduction occurred in matched ADHF patients (n=2879 pairs) with or without HLP (12.4 vs 16.3 deaths/100 person-years; HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86). HRs showed modest reductions when HLP occurred concurrently with other comorbidities. Meta-analyses of nine observational studies showed that HLP was associated with a lower mortality at ≥2 years after incident AMI or ADHF (AMI: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.76; heart failure (HF): RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81). Conclusions Among matched AMI and ADHF cohorts, concurrent HLP, compared with no HLP, was associated with a lower mortality and attenuation of mortality associations with other competing comorbidities. These findings were supported by a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: We have previously reported underrepresentation of female faculty at senior academic ranks in hematology/oncology (H/O). In this analysis we aimed to investigate the influence of sex in attaining leadership positions amongst academic hematologists/oncologists in United States. Methods: Faculty members were identified at 146 H/O fellowship programs listed on fellowship and residency electronic interactive database (FREIDA.) Data was collected on demographics, academic rank and research output using Doximity and Scopus databases. We compared the unadjusted characteristics of men and women by using two-sided t-tests and χ2 tests where appropriate. In primary analysis, logistic regression models were used to evaluate sex differences on probability of having full professorship (versus assistant and associate professorship) and of achieving leadership positions including division chief, Program Director (PD) and Associate Program Director (APD). Adjusted models included the following variables: clinical experience in years, number of publications, h-index, appointment at top 20 hospital, clinical trial investigator status and National Institutes of Health funding. Stratified analysis was performed adjusting for duration of clinical experience (≤15 vs >15 years) Results: Fewer women were full Professors (21.9% vs 78.1%), division chiefs (16.7% vs 83.3%), and PDs (30.5% vs 69.5) but the number was similar for Associate Program Directors (47.1% vs 52.9%). In a univariate unadjusted model, women were less likely to be full professors compared to men (OR 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.48; P<.001). However, in the multivariable adjusted model no statistically significant sex difference in full professorship was found (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.71, 1.57; P=.85; Table). The likelihood of full professorship was positively associated with clinical experience in years, number of first/last author publications, h-index, and being a primary investigator on at least one clinical trial.In a univariate unadjusted model, women were less likely to be division chiefs as compared to males (OR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.80; P=.01). However, in the multivariable adjusted model, there was no statistically significant sex difference in achieving the position of division chief (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.20, 1.58; P=.28; Table). No significant difference was found between females and males for being program directors or associate program directors in both univariate and multivariate analysis. Similarly, a stratified analysis adjusting for duration of clinical experience (≤15 vs >15 years) found no significant sex differences in attaining leadership position (Table) Conclusion: We found that women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions in hematology/oncology, but that sex is not a significant negative predictor to women obtaining leadership positions after correcting for traditional predictors of academic success. However, "non-traditional" and therefore less measurable and analyzable factors such as networking, mentorship, sponsorship, gender bias, balancing work and home responsibilities and many others may contribute and should be further investigated. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.