González-Vélez, Miguel

10503 Background: Gender bias can be reinforced through the use of gender-subordinating language and differences in the forms of address. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. Methods: A retrospective observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO annual meetings was conducted. Data were extracted by mixed-gender coders. Professional address was defined as professional title followed by full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. Results: 2511 videos were reviewed and 812 met inclusion criteria. Regarding speakers’ characteristics, 530 (65%) were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 743 (92%) held a MD or MD-PhD degree, and 484 (60%) were an associate or full professor. Female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address compared to male speakers (61% vs. 81%, p < 0.001). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared to male speakers (53% vs. 80%, p < 0.01). No gender differences in professional address were observed for female introducers (p = 0.13). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared to female introducers (24% vs. 7%, p < 0.01). In a multivariable regression including gender, race, degree, and academic rank, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared to female speakers (OR: 2.67, 95%CI: 1.81-3.94, p < 0.01). Black speakers of both genders were less likely to receive a professional address compared to NHW (OR: 0.10, 95%CI: 0.01-0.53, p < 0.01). Female gender was a predictor for a non-professional form of address (first name only) (OR: 9.50, 95%CI: 4.38-20.62, p < 0.01). Conclusions: When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared to male speakers. Selective use of forms of address may strengthen gender bias; more research is needed to explore the causes of this disparity and its influence.

30 Background: BM in patients (pts) with CRPC are associated with shorter overall survival (OS) and higher costs. BRI zoledronic acid and denosumab are frequently used to prevent skeletal-related events (SRE) in pts with CRPC and BM. AA is the most common 1st line therapy for men with metastatic CRPC. We aimed to assess the impact of BRI on OS and time to first SRE (ttSRE) of pts receiving 1st line treatment AA for CRPC with BM. Methods: A retrospective cohort of pts starting AA as 1st line therapy for CRPC with BM between 2013-2016 was identified through 8 hospitals’ IRB approved registries. Pts were classified by use of concomitant BRI and subgrouped by volume of disease (per E3805 definition) at AA start. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox models were used to assess OS and ttSRE with hazard ratio (HR) estimates (95% CI). Results: Of the 745 pts included (543 deaths), 529 (71.0%) had AA alone and 216 (29.0%) AA+BRI. Median follow-up was 23.5 months. Pts receiving concomitant BRI showed a significantly longer OS and a 35% reduced risk of death compared to AA alone (HR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; P<.0001). The OS benefit with BRI was greater for the subgroup with high volume disease (HV) (HR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.68; P<.0001). The cohort with AA+BRI had a significantly shorter ttSRE (HR=1.27; 95% CI; 1.0-1.60; P=.0439) and, notably, the risk of first SRE was more than doubled for the subgroup with LV (HR=2.29; 95% CI, 1.57-3.35; P<.0001). On MVA, BRI vs. no BRI, prior local therapy (PLT) vs. no PLT, LV vs. HV, baseline VAS pain ≤3 vs. >5, PS 0 vs. ≥1, and PSA are independently associated with longer OS. Conclusions: The addition of BRI to 1st line AA for CRPC men with BM was associated with improved OS, particularly in HV, and worsened ttSRE, more evident in LV. These data suggest a potentially different impact of concomitant BRI on HV vs. LV, which could affect clinical decision making.[Table: see text]

PURPOSE In a professional setting, the introduction of female speakers without their professional title may have an impact on the public’s perception of the female speaker. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the ASCO Annual Meeting. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO Annual Meetings. A “professional address” was defined as the professional title followed by the speaker’s full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. RESULTS Of 2,511 videos reviewed, 781 met inclusion criteria. Female speakers were addressed less often by their professional title compared with male speakers (62% v 81%; P < .001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared with females when introducing male speakers (53% v 80%; P < .01). When women performed speaker introductions, no gender differences in professional address were observed (75% v 82%; P = .13). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% v 3%; P < .001). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared with female introducers (24% v 7%; P < .01). In a multivariable regression including gender, degree, academic rank, and geographic location of the speaker’s institution, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared with female speakers (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.71 to 3.47; P < .01). CONCLUSION When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared with their male peers.

e16508 Background: BM in patients (pts) with CRPC correlate with higher mortality and costs. BRI zoledronic acid and denosumab are frequently used for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SRE) in pts with CRPC and BM. AA is the most common 1st line treatment for men with metastatic CRPC. We sought to evaluate the impact of BRI on time to first SRE (ttSRE) and OS of pts receiving 1st line therapy AA for CRPC with BM. Methods: We identified a cohort of men starting AA as 1st line therapy for CRPC with BM between 2013-2015 from 7 hospitals’ IRB approved registries. Pts were grouped by use of concomitant BRI and subgrouped by volume of disease (per E3805 definition) at AA start. The endpoints were OS, defined as time from AA start to death or last follow-up visit, and ttSRE. Results: Of the 338 pts included, 256 (76%) received AA alone and 82 (24%) AA+BRI. ECOG PS (PS) was ≥1 for 178 pts (52.7%). No statistically significant difference in ttSRE was found between the 2 cohorts [see Table]. Median follow-up for OS was 25.6 months. Pts receiving concomitant BRI showed a significantly longer OS and a 36% decreased risk of death compared to AA alone (HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.64 0.46-0.91; p = 0.012). Notably, OS in the AA alone group was shorter than commonly described. The OS benefit with BRI was greater for men with high volume disease (HV) (HR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.71; p = 0.001). On MVA, BRI vs. no BRI, low volume of disease vs. HV, PS 0 vs. ≥1, baseline VAS pain ≤3 vs. > 5, and baseline PSA are independently associated with longer OS. Conclusions: Using a multicenter database, the addition of BRI to 1st line AA for CRPC men with BM and poor prognostic factors did not improve prevention of SRE. However, concomitant use of BRI and AA was associated with a significantly improved OS, particularly in HV. Further research to determine the driving factors is needed. [Table: see text]

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) occurs in all races, but the incidence in non-Hispanic black patients (NHBs) is two to three times higher than in non-Hispanic white patients (NHWs). We determined the representation of minorities and elderly patients in MM clinical trials. Enrollment data from all therapeutic trials reported in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2000 to 2016 were analyzed. Enrollment fraction (EF) was defined as the number of trial enrollees divided by the 2014 MM prevalence. Participation in MM clinical trials varied significantly across racial and ethnic groups; NHWs were more likely to be enrolled in clinical trials (EF 0.18%) than NHBs (EF 0.06%, p &lt; .0001) and Hispanic patients (EF 0.04%, p &lt; .0001). The median age of trial participants was 62 years, with 7,956 participants (66%) being less than 65 years of age. Collaborations between investigators, sponsors, and the community are necessary to increase access to clinical trials to our minority and elderly patients.