Lee, Alfred Ian

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected many aspects of healthcare, including medical education and training. Its impact on hematology/oncology (HO) fellowship programs has not yet been characterized. Methods The American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) sent an anonymous survey in June 2020 to all HO program directors (PDs) addressing program changes during the COVID-19 pandemic and their perception of impact on trainees' experience, education, and mental health. The survey included 32 multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Participants who completed the survey received a $10 gift card. Quantitative descriptive analyses of multiple-choice questions were conducted. Open-ended responses were analyzed qualitatively using NVivo software. Results Of 233 invited PDs, 103 (44%) respondents completed the survey; 22 additional surveys were incomplete and not included in the analysis. Table 1 summarizes PDs and program characteristics. In response to the pandemic, 42% (N=43) of programs removed fellows from outpatient clinics and 63% (N=65) changed research location to home (Figure 1). Most PDs reported their fellows were participating in telehealth for HO care (79%, N=81) and 21% (N=22) had their fellows re-deployed to cover medicine and other non-HO services. To support fellows' mental health most programs held additional virtual meetings (76%, N=78) and social events (52%, N=54). Twenty one percent of PDs (N=22) reported their program's professional development funds were completely cut or frozen and 17% (N=17) had funds cut slightly. Most PDs reported the pandemic negatively impacted fellowship overall (67% slight to significant negative impact, N=69), 72% identified clinical education as negatively impacted (72% slight to significant negative impact, N=74), and 35% (N=36) reported significant negative impact on research training/productivity. Twenty three percent (N=24) of PDs thought their fellows were not able to make good use of their time during the pandemic, professionally speaking. One third (33%, N=34) of PDs anticipated the pandemic would lead to lack of fellow clinical preparedness, 24% (N=25) with need to make up clinical rotations, and 15% (N=15) anticipated a negative impact on HO board pass rates. Post-pandemic, most PDs plan to maintain some virtual educational sessions (73%, N=75) and telehealth in fellows' continuity clinic (55%, N=57). Among PDs, the prevalence of burnout increased from 16% (N=16) pre-pandemic to 45% (N=46) during the pandemic (p<0.0001). Seventeen percent (N=18) of PDs witnessed moderate signs of fellow burnout and 52% (N=54) witnessed minor signs of fellow burnout during the pandemic. Several educational and research constraints were identified via qualitative analysis: limited in-person clinical rotations, supervision of telehealth encounters, training year promotion and making up clinical time, limited professional development activities, board exam cancellations, and inability to perform research. Additional PD-identified trainee concerns included: ability to obtain childcare, separation from family, and Visa concerns among international fellows. PDs anticipated that financial constraints leading to cuts or removal of discretionary funds may have negative consequences for fellows' professional development activities and could force PDs to decrease program size in the future. PD recommendations for ASH and ASCO included: reducing or eliminating fellow membership fees, providing free access to educational materials and meetings, eliminating in-training examination fees, providing virtual sessions on career development, telehealth and wellness, virtual journal clubs, PD webinars focused on navigating fellowship issues and virtual interviews, and extending ASCO YIA funding for a second year. Conclusions PDs reported that their fellowship programs' clinical, educational, and research experiences have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. PDs are concerned about the impact of budget cuts on fellows' professional and career development. PD burnout increased during the pandemic and most PDs observed at least mild burnout among their fellows. Professional societies can support fellowship programs by limiting fees and costs associated with membership, exams, and meetings, and increasing virtual opportunities for both fellows and PDs. Disclosures Velazquez Manana: Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Midatech: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership.

Introduction: While the COVID-19 pandemic has affected many aspects of clinical care, research, and medical training, its impact on hematology-oncology trainees and professional development has not been described. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) sought to assess the impact of COVID-19 on fellows enrolled in hematology-oncology programs. Methods: In spring 2020, ASH and ASCO developed and administered a survey by e-mail to active hematology-oncology fellow members. Response formats used both a semi-Likert scale and open-ended text. Questions focused on fellow experiences and how changes in their programs have impacted their personal and professional lives across several domains. Multiple-choice responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and NVivo software was used for qualitative analysis of open-ended questions. Results: Respondent demographics are described in Table 1. Of 2,306 trainees, 620 (27%) responded to the survey. Most respondents continued patient care responsibilities during the pandemic (80%). Almost half of all trainees (47%) reported that they felt less productive than usual. Stress and/or anxiety about the current situation was the most cited factor affecting productivity in the overall cohort (Figure 1). One-third (33%) of respondents had volunteered or were assigned to clinical/non-clinical COVID-19-related efforts. Of the 90 visa holders in our cohort, 30% (N=27) reported experiencing issues with their visa/immigration status. Eight percent of respondents stated their career plans had changed due to COVID-19. Of those who said their plans had changed, 30 respondents were considering careers in academia pre-pandemic and 11 were considering private practice. However, only 14 respondents were considering academia post-pandemic while 19 were interested in private practice. Overall, most respondents had concerns about at least one of the following: salary reductions, availability of networking events, family well-being, mental health and obtaining a job (Figure 2). The prevalence of burnout increased from 22% (N=105) before the pandemic to 33% (N=161) during (p<.001). Of the respondents who did not report burnout before COVID-19, 22% noted new-onset burnout during the pandemic. New-onset burnout prevalence varied based on the type of work respondents performed: no COVID-related work (17%), COVID-related non-clinical work (26%), and COVID-related clinical work (34%) (p<0.01). The open-ended responses yielded several consistent themes. Clinical and educational constraints were enumerated: lost learning opportunities due to low patient volumes, unavailability of colleagues to discuss cases, and overall low perceived quality of virtual learning. Trainees also reported reduced motivation to complete work within a stipulated time frame due to lack of robust discussions in the virtual environment and technological challenges in navigating educational resources. Trainee research was also severely impacted as laboratories closed, experimental animal colonies were lost, and many research activities ceased. Respondents also expressed concern that cuts in research training initiatives and budgets would jeopardize faculty positions for graduating fellows and that funding for travel and conferences was suspended. Fellows' recommendations for ASH and ASCO included improved online education, virtual research training and networking opportunities, practical guidance on caring for immune-compromised patients during the pandemic, increased funding resources for trainees, mental health resources, and advocating on behalf of trainee visa holders. Conclusions: Hematology-oncology trainees reported their training experiences have been deeply impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A majority of trainees are concerned about the negative impact on career opportunities, research funding, financial well-being, and mental health. Burnout increased during COVID-19, especially in trainees who were assigned to specific COVID-related efforts. Training programs and professional societies can support trainees by increasing trainee research funding, online networking and learning opportunities, mental health resources and, support for international trainees. Disclosures Velazquez Manana: Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Midatech: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership. Wun:Glycomimetics, Inc.: Consultancy.

Key Points A mixed methods study of surveys, interviews, and focus groups raises concerns about the state of the adult hematology workforce. Hematology/oncology fellowship program directors, fellows, and practicing clinicians offer different strategies to address these problems.

Mentorship Experiences Among Second-Year U.S. Hematology/Oncology Fellows in the 2019 ASH Hematology/Oncology Fellows Survey Introduction: The majority of fellows graduating from U.S. hematology/oncology training programs pursue careers incorporating both fields, albeit with a greater focus on medical oncology than on hematology. Over the past 15 years, the number of physicians in the U.S. identifying as hematologists or seeking certification in hematology has been dwarfed by those identifying as medical oncologists or seeking oncology certification, with only a small percentage of fellows having a primary interest in benign hematology. In response to these concerns, in 2017 the American Society of Hematology (ASH) launched a multiyear study of the U.S. hematology workforce in clinical practice, research, and training in collaboration with the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity at the George Washington (GW) University. The initial phase of the ASH workforce study was a survey of over 1800 hematology/oncology fellows conducted in 2018, which identified clinical exposure to hematology during training, research experiences, and mentorship to all be positively and strongly associated with career interest in hematology. A follow-up survey of second-year hematology/oncology fellows was competed in 2019, focusing on career interests, mentorship, and job expectations. The present study reports findings of second-year fellows' perceptions regarding mentorship. Methods: The 2019 Hematology/Oncology Fellows Survey was developed by ASH and GW investigators. Survey questions asked about fellows' career and research interests, clinical exposure during training, mentorship, and perceptions of job security and availability after fellowship. Mentorship questions focused on specific mentorship activities (e.g., coauthoring papers, participating in research projects, developing networking, career advice), perceived mentorship needs, and overall satisfaction with mentorship. The survey was pilot-tested in a small group of second-year hematology/oncology fellows. The final survey was sent electronically to second-year fellows in U.S. hematology/oncology fellowship programs (n = 735) in the spring of 2019 using Qualtrics. Descriptive analyses were performed using Stata 15. Results: Among 212 second-year fellows with complete responses (28.8% response rate), 5.2% declared a primary interest in benign hematology, 20.8% malignant hematology, 30.7% solid tumor oncology, and the remainder some combination of hematology and oncology. The vast majority of survey respondents (83.3%) intended to dual board in hematology and oncology. About one-third (31.9%) reported having a new or continuing mentor in benign hematology during their second year of fellowship, compared to 51.2% in malignant hematology and 60.8% in solid tumor oncology. Less than half of all fellows (45.4%) indicated that their training program had a formal mentorship program. When asked to indicate domains where they wanted more support from mentors, second-year fellows prioritized career development strategies (69.9%), job options (43.7%), optimizing fellowship experiences (41.3%), manuscript review prior to submission (19.4%), clinical trial design review (17.5%), and grant review prior to submission (17.5%). The vast majority of fellows expressed a definite (69.7%) or possible (8.7%) interest in interacting with a mentor virtually via Facebook, Skype, email, or other media if in-person mentorship meetings were not an option. Conclusions: Second-year hematology/oncology fellows in the U.S. reported a wide range of mentorship needs and interests. Most second-year fellows believe they could use more advice from mentors about career development strategies. Few fellows have a primary interest in benign hematology, and the percentage of fellows who report having mentors in benign hematology is lower than malignant hematology or solid tumor oncology. The vast majority of fellows are interested in virtual mentorship if local mentorship is not available. Further expansion of existing mentorship systems and the development of new mentorship models including virtual mentorship may improve the mentorship experience for fellows. Disclosures Connell: Michael H. Flanagan Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Key PointsClinical, research and mentorship experiences in hematology are positively associated with fellows' plans to pursue hematology-only careers.

Abstract Background. Transfusion of blood products is an integral component of the management of patients with acute leukemias. However, high-quality evidence and clinical trial data to support specific practices of blood product transfusion in this population are limited. We hypothesized that there is wide variation in blood product transfusion practices among providers in North America who manage patients with acute leukemia. Methods. A 30-question web-based survey about transfusion practices was emailed to members of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance), and the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), and the Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU) on 7/6/2015 with 4 subsequent weekly reminders. The distribution list included 9,859 recipients, of whom at least 741 were providers who treated patients with acute leukemia. Responses were anonymous, and the survey distribution was approved by the respective cooperative group chairs. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results. Of 254 responses received, 113 were excluded as they were returned by recipients not directly treating patients with acute leukemia. Another 30 responses were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 111 responses (43.7%) eligible for the primary analysis. Of those, 109 responders were from North America representing 83 institutions in 33 states and the province of Ontario. Eighty-four of the included responders (75.7%) were physicians, and 44 (39.6%) were females. Median age of responders was 44 years (range, 26-76). A hemoglobin (Hb) level of ≤7 g/dL was the most commonly used threshold (44%) for red blood cell (RBCs) transfusions to asymptomatic stable hospitalized patients, followed closely by 8 g/dL (38%) (Figure 1). In the outpatient setting, the most commonly reported threshold was 8 gm/dL (49%) (Figure 1). Most providers reported that they "always" use leukocyte-reduced (93%) and irradiated (79%) RBCs. A platelet level of 10,000/µL was the threshold for platelet transfusions in the stable non-bleeding hospitalized patients cited by the majority of responders (76%) (Figure 2). This platelet level remained the most common threshold for platelet transfusions for non-bleeding patients in the outpatient setting (49%), although 31% of responders reported a higher threshold of 20,000/µL. A preference for single-donor apheresis platelets was reported by 81% respondents, and 57% use these products exclusively. Most providers (70%) reported always using irradiated platelets. With respect to cryoprecipitate and plasma infusions, nearly half of the respondents reported a threshold fibrinogen level of 100 mg/dL as a trigger for administering a product to a stable non-bleeding patient (Figure 3). The most commonly reported platelet threshold for performing a bone marrow biopsy (BMB) was 10,000/μL (69% of responders), followed by 20,000 (21%), 50,000 (6%), and 30,000 (4%). Therapeutic anticoagulation was held by most responders (80%) before performing a BMB. Most responders (73%) reported a platelet level of 50,000/µL as the lowest level for performing a lumbar puncture (LP) without prophylactic platelet transfusion. Conclusions. This survey demonstrates wide variability in blood product transfusion patterns among providers who treat patients with acute leukemias. A platelet level of 10,000/µL is the most common trigger for platelet transfusions for stable non-bleeding patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings. This, along with a platelet threshold of 50,000/µL for performing an LP, appear to be most widely accepted practices. Our findings emphasize the need to obtain high-quality data to develop consensus evidence-based guidelines for transfusion practices in acute leukemia with the goal of limiting unnecessary transfusions without compromising patient outcomes. Figure 1. The most common reported hemoglobin level thresholds for red blood cell transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 1. The most common reported hemoglobin level thresholds for red blood cell transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 2. The most common reported platelet level thresholds for platelet transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 2. The most common reported platelet level thresholds for platelet transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 3. The most common reported fibrinogen level thresholds for cryoprecipitate or plasma transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 3. The most common reported fibrinogen level thresholds for cryoprecipitate or plasma transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Disclosures Sekeres: TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Steensma:Onconova: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Prebet:CELGENE: Research Funding. Komrokji:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incite: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; AROG: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB for clinical trial; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche/Genetech: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Erba:GlycoMimetics; Janssen: Other: Data Safety & Monitoring Committees; Sunesis; Pfizer; Daiichi Sankyo; Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda; Celator; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis; Incyte; Celgene: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties. Barbarotta:Celgene, BMS, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract On behalf of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in 2-12% of patients with acute leukemia (AL) despite disease and therapy-associated thrombocytopenia, and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Due to limited high-quality studies, there are no evidence-based guidelines for VTE prophylaxis in this patient population. Based on our experience and the lack of consensus guidelines, we hypothesized that there would be a wide range in provider practice regarding methods of VTE prevention in patients with AL. To determine the current individual practices in North America, we devised a web-based survey of VTE prophylaxis practice among clinicians caring for patients with AL. Methods: An anonymous 19 question web-based survey, approved by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board, was distributed by email to members of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group on 10/22/14. Four reminders were sent at two-week intervals with the survey closing on 12/8/14. Results: Of the total 215 respondents, 64 were excluded for the following reasons: 52 did not directly manage medical care of AL patients, 3 referred AL patients to other centers, 5 left blank responses to all questions regarding VTE prophylaxis, 1 was a duplicate entry, and 3 described their position as support or office staff. One hundred fifty-one responses were eligible for analysis, with a response rate of 20.9% among physicians who treated leukemias. One hundred forty-seven were from the United States and 4 from Canada, representing 88 different institutions and 37 states or provinces. Overall, 47% and 45% of providers reported using pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis during induction and consolidation phases, respectively. Among the providers using pharmacologic prophylaxis, 60% designated 50,000/μL as the platelet count threshold below which they would hold prophylaxis and 26% used a platelet count of 30,000/μL. Fewer providers chose a platelet count of 20,000/μL (4%), 75,000/μL (4%), and 100,000/μL (2%). Lastly, 2% held prophylactic anticoagulation only in the setting of an active bleed and 2% reported variable thresholds. Approximately 15% of providers did not utilize any VTE prophylaxis while 36% used mechanical methods and ambulation. Among providers who did not recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis, the most commonly cited reasons were the perceived high risk of bleeding (51%), absence of data supporting use (38%), and perceived low risk of VTE (11%). Conclusions: These results demonstrate wide variation in clinician practice regarding VTE prevention in hospitalized AL patients during induction and consolidation therapy. Our findings emphasize the need to develop standardized, evidence-based guidelines in this at-risk population. VTE: venous thromboembolism, AL: acute leukemia, SC: subcutaneous, TED: thromboembolic deterrant stockings, SCD: sequential compression device Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Disclosures Barbarotta: Celgene, BMS, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Prebet:CELGENE: Research Funding. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

BACKGROUNDTransfusion of blood products is a key component of the supportive management in patients with acute leukemia (AL). However high‐quality trial evidence and clinical outcome data to support specific transfusion goals for blood products for patients with AL remain limited leading to diverse transfusion practices. The primary objective of this study was to determine the spectrum of transfusion patterns in a variety of care settings among providers who treat AL patients.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSA 31‐question survey queried providers caring for AL patients about the existence of institutional guidelines for transfusion of blood products, transfusion triggers for hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (PLTs), and fibrinogen in various settings including inpatient and outpatient and before procedures.RESULTSWe analyzed 130 responses and identified divergent transfusion Hb goals in hospitalized and ambulatory patients, fibrinogen goals for cryoprecipitate transfusions, and variation in practice for use of certain PLTs and red blood cell products. The least variable transfusion patterns were reported for PLT goals in thrombocytopenia and in the setting of invasive procedures such as bone marrow biopsy and lumbar punctures.CONCLUSIONSThis survey confirmed wide variations in blood product transfusion practices across several clinical scenarios in patients with AL. The findings emphasized the need for large prospective randomized trials to develop standardized evidence‐based guidelines for blood product transfusions in patients with AL with the goal of limiting unnecessary transfusions without compromising outcomes.