Durani, Urshila

AbstractIn the POLARIX trial, pola‐R‐CHP demonstrated improved progression‐free survival (PFS) compared to R‐CHOP in untreated intermediate‐ to high‐risk DLBCL. We surveyed practicing clinicians regarding their interpretation of POLARIX, including impressions of efficacy, safety, and cost. Of 174 respondents, most from academic centers (82%) in the United States (57%), 70% stated they would not replace R‐CHOP with pola‐R‐CHP due to insufficient PFS difference, lack of overall survival benefit, and excessive cost. Respondents not recommending pola‐R‐CHP expressed concerns about financial implications for both society and patients. We observed considerable heterogeneity in both study interpretation and plans for real‐world implementation of pola‐R‐CHP.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented challenges in medical training, and we sought to assess the specific impact of COVID-19 on hematology-oncology (HO) fellowship programs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional anonymous online survey of 103 HO program directors (PDs) in conjunction with the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and ASCO. We sought to assess the specific impact of COVID-19 on HO fellowship programs' clinical, educational, and research activities, evaluate perceptions regarding PD and trainee emotional and mental health, and identify ways to support programs. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, parametric and nonparametric tests, and multivariable logistic regression models. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Significant changes to fellowship activities included transitioning fellow training from outpatient clinics to telehealth (77.7%), shifting to virtual education (94.2%), and moving to remote research work (63.1%). A minority (21.4%) of PDs reported that their fellows were redeployed to cover non-HO services. Most PDs (54.4%) believed COVID-19 had a slight negative impact on fellowship training. PD self-reported burnout increased significantly from 15.5% prepandemic to 44.7% during the pandemic, and most PDs witnessed minor signs of fellow burnout (52.4%). Common PD concerns included inadequate supervision for telehealth activities, reduced opportunities for fellow advancement and promotion, lack of professional development activities, limited research operations and funding, program financial constraints, and virtual recruitment. CONCLUSION: We encourage institutions and national societies to allocate resources and develop programs that can support fellowships and mitigate the potential negative effects of COVID-19 on trainee and PD career development.

PURPOSE: Graduate medical and research training has drastically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with widespread implementation of virtual learning, redeployment from core rotations to the care of patients with COVID-19, and significant emotional and physical stressors. The specific experience of hematology-oncology (HO) fellows during the COVID-19 pandemic is not known. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study using a survey of Likert-style and open-ended questions to assess the training experience and well-being of HO fellows, including both clinical and postdoctoral trainee members of the American Society of Hematology and ASCO. RESULTS: A total of 2,306 surveys were distributed by e-mail; 548 (23.8%) fellows completed the survey. Nearly 40% of fellows felt that they had not received adequate mental health support during the pandemic, and 22% reported new symptoms of burnout. Pre-existing burnout before the pandemic, COVID-19–related clinical work, and working in a primary research or nonclinical setting were associated with increased burnout on multivariable logistic regression. Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed significant concerns about employment after training completion, perceived variable quality of virtual education and board preparation, loss of clinical opportunities to prepare for independent clinical practice, inadequate grant funding opportunities in part because of shifting research priorities, variable productivity, and mental health or stress during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: HO fellows have been profoundly affected by the pandemic, and our data illustrate multiple avenues for fellowship programs and national organizations to support both clinical and postdoctoral trainees.

Abstract Background The proportion of women in the field of hematology and oncology (H&O) has increased over recent decades, but the representation of women in leadership positions remains poor. In an effort to close the gender gap in academia, it is important to report on such inequities in hopes to close these gaps and improve career development. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective, observational study of published award recipients from 1994 to 2019 from the seven major H&O societies in the world. Gender was determined based on publicly available data. The χ2 and Cochran-Armitage tests were used for data analysis. Results Of the 1,642 awardees over the past 26 years, 915 met inclusion criteria. Award recipients were overwhelmingly men (77.9%) and non-Hispanic White (84.7%). Women awardees received 30.3% of the humanistic and education-related awards, whereas only receiving 16.0% of basic science awards (p < .01). Women represent 35.6% of all hematologists and oncologists but only received 24.0% of awards given to these physicians (p = .004). Black, Hispanic, and Asian awardees represented 3.7%, 3.3%, and 6.8% of the total awardees, respectively. Conclusion From 1994 to 2019, women were less likely to receive recognition awards from the seven major H&O societies studied compared with men. We also observed a considerably low proportion of minority awardees across all oncology subspecialties. Further studies examining how selection criteria favor either gender would be warranted in order to achieve equal representation in academic awards. Implications for Practice In this study, women and minority groups were found to be underrepresented amongst award recipients. Significant disparities were seen in disciplines that have been historically male predominant, such as basic sciences. As awards on an international level enhance academic resumes and assist with career advancement, it is important that awards are being given in an equitable manner. First steps to promote diversity and inclusion in academic medicine is reporting of gender and racial disparities in various areas of academia.

In 2013, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) published recommendations with Choosing Wisely to limit surveillance imaging in aggressive lymphoma. We studied surveillance imaging practice patterns for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) before and after the ASH Choosing Wisely campaign. We used OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a national insurance claims database, to retrospectively study imaging frequency in survivors of DLBCL from 2008 to 2016. Three time periods were defined: Period 1 (2008 to 2010), Period 2 (2011 to 2013), and Period 3 (2014 to 2016). One thousand four hundred seventy-two patients were included. Median follow up was approximately 2 years. During the first and second years of surveillance, imaging remained stable between Period 1 (years 1 and 2: 199 [91%] and 137 [83%], respectively) and Period 2 (years 1 and 2: 257 [88%] and 172 [77%], respectively; P = .38), but decreased in Period 3 (years 1 and 2: 315 [78%] and 83 [61%], respectively; P < .01). In a multivariable logistic regression, year after 2012 was a significant predictor of decreased overuse (more than two scans per year in the first year of surveillance; [odds ratio, 0.49 for 2013 v 2008; P = .02]). Our study demonstrated the rate of surveillance scans—both computed tomography and positron emission tomography imaging—in DLBCL decreased after the ASH Choosing Wisely campaign. Multiple factors, such as changes in recommendations, reimbursement, and provider knowledge base, may have all contributed and should be studied further.

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.

Summary Tumour lysis syndrome (TLS) is a significant complication of haematologic malignancies and their management. The syndrome consists of laboratory abnormalities either alone (laboratory TLS) or with clinical sequelae including renal failure, seizures, and arrhythmias (clinical TLS). Clinical TLS is a predictor for worse overall morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, but can be prevented. Thus, accurate prognostication is critical to appropriate management of patients at risk for TLS, and incorporates both disease factors (tumour type and burden) and patient factors (baseline renal insufficiency or hyperuricaemia). Strategies to prevent TLS include hydration and allopurinol in low‐ and intermediate‐risk patients and rasburicase in high‐risk patients.