Eid, Marc

Abstract Background There is limited data on immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and known pericardial effusions. Methods This international multi-center observational retrospective study included patients with advanced NSCLC with or without pericardial effusions receiving ICIs. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were graded per CTCAE v5.0. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards multivariable models assessed the association between survival outcomes and clinicopathologic variables, and an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) model compared outcomes between the two groups. Results A total of 1248 patients with advanced NSCLC treated with ICIs across 13 institutions were included. Of these, 85 patients (6.8%) had pre-existing pericardial effusions. Compared to controls, patients with pericardial effusions were younger (median age 63 vs 67 years, P = .007), diagnosed more frequently with PD-L1 positive tumors (96% vs 76%, P < .001), and had a higher median number of baseline metastatic sites (3 vs 1, P < .001). IrAEs were similar between both groups (42% vs 38%), and no cardiac irAEs occurred in patients with pericardial effusions. PFS (median 5.6 vs 4.6 months, P = .3) and OS (median 10.2 vs 14.7 months, P = .50) were not statistically different between patients with pericardial effusions and the controls, respectively. In both multivariable and IPTW models, pericardial effusions were not associated with PFS or OS. Conclusions Among patients with NSCLC and pre-existing pericardial effusions, ICIs demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit similar to those without effusions, with no new cardiac or severe toxicities.

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.