Rosenstein, Lori J.

The traditional combined hematology and oncology fellowship model is increasingly strained by accelerating subspecialization and therapeutic complexity. This commentary focuses on structural reforms within fellowship training to better align education with contemporary clinical practice and evolving workforce demands. We propose standardized, career-aligned tracks, earlier subspecialty focus within fellowship, and redesigned continuity clinic models that preserve foundational breadth while enabling depth of expertise. We further highlight how emerging assessment reforms and educational tools can support these structural changes. By aligning fellowship training with both real-world clinical demands and established educational science, we can ensure a more sustainable and effective pathway for preparing future hematologists and oncologists.

In the rapidly evolving field of oncology, education and knowledge sharing have become essential aspects of oncology practice and must-needed tools to help patients conquer cancer. Oncology education is an art that needs to be mastered by applying scientific learning methods through structured frameworks into it, in order to have an impact. To effectively educate and share knowledge with oncology professionals, we propose following a “chain of education”. This chain consists of five links that are essential for creating a successful educational activity: “who”, “why”, “where”, “what”, and “how”. By following the “chain of education” through all links leading to the final key of how to educate, and guided by learning science principles, educators can optimize and enhance their teaching and knowledge-sharing skills and educate learners with more impact. Two common scenarios of medical education in oncology are the education of trainees and the education of community oncologists. In this article, we review them through the prism of the “chain of education”. We discuss how using effective learning science principles can guide small changes that lead to significant impacts in trainees' education and can also leverage social media platforms in the education of community oncologists. Alongside this described framework, we briefly review some available oncology education resources, and we discuss incorporating the “chain of education” into future technologies.

Background: The rising incidence of PCNSL in the elderly represents an unmet need with an undefined standard approach [Villano Br J Cancer 2011]. High-dose methotrexate-based (HD-MTX) therapy is feasible and effective in older patients, but outcomes in this population remain poor. Despite high response rates to HD-MTX induction therapy, poor candidacy for intensive consolidative therapy results in transient disease control that may benefit from maintenance strategies [David Am J Hematol 2023]. Lenalidomide (len) has demonstrated activity in PCNSL even at low doses and represents a potential alternative to consolidation considering its extensive use in maintenance settings [Vu Br J Haematol 2019]. Anecdotal activity in PCNSL by checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab (nivo) has been reported [Nayak Blood 2017], and its immune response may be enhanced by len [Görgün Clin Cancer Res 2015]. A051901 evaluates the feasibility of the addition of len and nivo to rituximab (R) and HD-MTX as first line induction therapy followed by len-nivo maintenance in elderly patients with PCNSL not eligible for intensive consolidation. Study Design and Methods: This is a single-arm phase 1 multicenter US study (NCT04609046) conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology with a traditional 3+3 design. Eligible patients are 18 years of age or older with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma PCNSL diagnosed through brain biopsy or resection, or cerebrospinal (CSF) or vitreous fluid not considered candidates for high dose chemotherapy consolidation. This study is available to all eligible patients, regardless of race, gender, or ethnic origin. Patients must have adequate end-organ function including creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Use of systemic corticosteroids for disease control to be tapered after initiation of therapy is allowed. Induction consists of six 14-day cycles with rituximab 500 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1, HD-MTX 3g/m2 i.v. on day 2. In the most recent treatment schedule, a 5-day course of lenalidomide PO at different dose levels (dose level (DL) 1 = 10 mg, DL2 = 15 mg, DL3 = 20 mg) is initiated immediately after adequate clearance of HD-MTX. Once a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of len is defined, a subsequent cohort will evaluate the addition of nivo 240 mg i.v. to the day 14 of the induction cycle of R-HD-MTX plus len at the MTD. Patients who present any clinical benefit from induction with at least stable disease by International PCNSL Collaborative Group response criteria are eligible for maintenance - twelve 28-day cycles of therapy with len 15 mg PO from day 1 to day 21 (regardless of dose during induction) +/- nivo 480 mg i.v. on day 1 (for those who received len and nivo during induction). The primary endpoint of the induction therapy is the MTD of len when given in combination with R-HD-MTX; the primary endpoint of maintenance is its feasibility, defined as the proportion of patients able to remain on maintenance for at least 6 cycles. As of July 2024, 16 patients have been enrolled with a maximum expected sample size of 47 patients with the assumption of 75% of patients being eligible to proceed with maintenance and 50% of those who begin maintenance not progressing in the first 6 cycles. Overall response, adverse events, progression-free and overall survival will be evaluated in all eligible patients with a focus on the outcome of patients treated at the MTD. For patients who consent to biobanking, diagnostic tissue, peripheral blood and CSF from different timepoints are collected and banked with planned exploratory analyses including whole exome sequencing, circulating tumor DNA, proteomics, metabolomics. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.

9022 Background: High quality education is crucial for hematology/oncology (H/O) training and lifelong learning. However, H/O has historically prioritized clinical and research careers over medical education careers. Consequently, few programs support H/O educators. A CoP is a group that shares “a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” We formed the ASCO Med Ed CoP in 2021 to provide a collaborative network and professional development venue for H/O educators. Methods: Following a published framework for developing a global health professions educator community (Establish-Grow-Sustain), we (ASCO Education Scholars Program graduates) developed CoP mission and vision statements and a leadership structure (Establish), formed committees and projects (Grow), and gathered at the ASCO Annual Meeting and via virtual Town Halls (Sustain). In 2023, we collected demographics and evaluated the CoP using a logic model focused on inputs, activities, outputs, and impact. Results: As of December 2023, the CoP includes 238 members from 143 institutions (38 [27%] non-U.S.): 207 (87%) ASCO members; 127 (53%) women, 106 (45%) men, 5 (2%) no response (NR); 111 (47%) White, 88 (37%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 27 (11%) Latinx/Hispanic, 12 (5%) Black/African-American, 8 (3%) Middle Eastern, 1 (0.4%) African, 16 (7%) NR; 146 (61%) hematologist/oncologists, 68 (29%) trainees, 6 (3%) radiation oncologists, 3 (1%) surgical oncologists, and 15 (6%) other professionals. The logic model is displayed (Table). Conclusions: The CoP has had an impact on its members, ASCO, and beyond and continues to grow and sustain itself by recruiting broadly, driving projects forward, and making structural adjustments for long-term sustainability. Upcoming projects include providing more educational resources and measuring outcomes such as changes in members’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Membership diversity continues to be a challenge and a priority. [Table: see text]

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

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 Background: Chemoimmunotherapy is considered standard initial therapy for follicular lymphoma (FL) with high tumor burden (HTB). Obinutuzumab and Bendamustine (OB) with maintenance Obinutuzumab (mO) is considered a standard therapy for the frontline treatment of HTB FL (GALLIUM, Marcus et al, NEJM 2017). Venetoclax (VEN), an oral BCL2 inhibitor, is an attractive target in FL given the high BCL2 expression; though single agent activity has been disappointing (Davids et al. JCO 2017). BCL2 inhibition is thought to be synergistic with chemotherapy. Thus, the PrE0403 study evaluated the OB-VEN combination in frontline HTB FL. Here we present end of induction (EOI) outcomes. Methods: The primary objective of this Phase II study was to estimate the complete remission (CR) rate at EOI. Potential participants must have had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of FL grade 1, 2, or 3a with HTB defined by GELF or high risk defined by FLIPI-1 criteria. They must have had adequate performance status and organ function. Notably, creatinine clearance must have been ≥50 mL/min. Participants must have not had prior treatment for FL. Eligible participants were treated with Bendamustine IV 90 mg/m2 Day (D) 1 & 2, Obinutuzumab IV 100 mg D1, 900 mg D2, 1000 mg D8 and D15 of Cycle (C) 1 then D1 of each cycle, and VEN 800 mg orally daily D1-10 every 28 days for 6 total cycles. Due to a high rate of laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during C1 in the first 21 patients, VEN was removed from C1 and given in C2-6 only. Participants with a CR at EOI were treated with mO IV 1000 mg D1 every 8 weeks for 2 years. Those with a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) were treated with mO as well as VEN 800 mg orally daily for 2 years. Pneumocystis jiroveci Pneumonia (PJP) and antiviral prophylaxis was required as was G-CSF support. Response was assessed via Lugano Criteria at EOI including PET/CT and bone marrow assessment. Adverse Events (AEs) were evaluated using CTCAE v5.0. To be considered promising, OB-VEN should improve the null hypothesis CR rate of 50% (OB) to 65%. With an 85% power and a one sided 15% type I error, 56 participants would be needed with an estimated 51 eligible. Support for the study was from Genentech, Member of the Roche Group. Results A total of 56 participants were enrolled and treated between 12/2017 and 11/2020; baseline characteristics are listed in Table 1. TLS was closely monitored in C1 and 8/21 participants developed TLS when VEN was administered in C1; 0/35 when it was not. However, monitoring for TLS in C1 became less stringent when VEN was not administered. Treatment related Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 47/56 participants (83.9%) with serious adverse events in 31 of 56 (55.5%). Atypical infections were seen; there was one treatment related death on study due to cytomegalovirus (CMV) encephalitis as well as PJP pneumonia which occurred after induction C6. Enrollment was temporarily suspended and CMV monitoring was implemented with no further occurrences. Another participant receiving mO later developed BK virus nephropathy following mO C6 and now requires ongoing hemodialysis. Another was diagnosed with Respiratory Syncytial Virus pneumonia 30 days after C6 and later PJP pneumonia after C2 of mO. Common (incidence >10%) AEs during induction are listed in Table 2. 45 of 56 (80.4%) participants were able to receive all 6 cycles of OB-VEN. CR was seen in 41 of 56 participants (73.2%, 2 sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 59.7-84.2%) at the EOI. 30 participants (53.5%) went onto maintenance. With a median follow up of 20.9 months, estimated 2 year Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) (90% CI) is 94.4% (82.4-98.3%) and 85.8% (68.8-93.9%) respectively. Conclusions This Phase II study of OB-VEN in untreated HTB FL showed high CR rate and met its primary endpoint with early signs of prolonged PFS. Laboratory TLS was identified but it was unclear if attributed solely to VEN, as baseline laboratory TLS rate for OB is unknown. The rate of Grade ≥3 AE of 83.9% (compared to 69% for OB in GALLIUM, Hiddeman JCO 2018) and the observation of opportunistic infections including CMV encephalitis, PJP pneumonia and BK nephropathy, suggests the combination is highly immunosuppressive. Therefore, while the study met its primary outcome, the combination of OB-VEN at 800 mg for 10 days, plus mO, does not have an acceptable risk/benefit profile. Participants will continue to be followed for efficacy and safety during the maintenance phase. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; SeaGen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Nowakowski: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl: AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is not approved for follicular lymphoma or in combination with bendamustine and obinutuzumab