Manochakian, Rami

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Although small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for a smaller percentage of lung cancer cases, it has remained a significant contributor to the overall mortality burden because of its inherently aggressive nature. Over several years, and until recently, there have been no major breakthroughs in the management of SCLC. Concurrent chemoradiation with platinum doublet chemotherapy has remained the mainstay of treatment in limited-stage disease, with chemotherapy being the main and only treatment in extensive stage. Despite having an initial good response to those treatments in most patients, progression of cancer has been nearly inevitable, with no additional effective therapeutic options, and the majority of patients with SCLC dying of their disease. Fortunately, the last decade has witnessed some major scientific advances addressing the huge unmet needs in the realm of SCLC management and ushered in renewed hope in the lung cancer community. From approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors and lurbinectedin, a newer chemotherapy agent, to novel immunotherapies such as tarlatamab, a DLL3-CD3 bispecific T-cell engager, and other upcoming promising drugs, the therapeutic armamentarium for SCLC is steadily expanding. In this study, we review the current landscape of both systemic therapy as well as radiation therapy for SCLC, with a focus on major developments over the past decade, current standards of care, and novel therapeutics that are expected to revolutionize the treatment of this aggressive malignancy.

e13677 Background: The development of AI led to the emergence of tools such as AIS, which have been increasingly adopted in medicine. However, formal evaluation of barriers and clinical care gaps in HemOnc is limited, particularly regarding treatment plan complexities and toxicity documentation. Methods: Structured investigator-developed surveys about AIS availability, adoption, benefits, and challenges were developed on Qualtrics and approved by the IRB. HemOnc faculty physicians (FP), advanced practice providers (APP), and trainees (HOT) were surveyed between 11/14/25-1/16/26. Surveys were distributed in the USA via email, social media (on X), and ASCO myConnection. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results: 132 participants responded to the survey: 55 FP (42%), 14 APP (11%), and 63 HOT (48%). 80% of them reported having AIS at their institutions, and 54% of those reported using these tools in their clinical practice. Among FP and APP, 72% practiced in academic settings, 14% in community, and 13% in hybrid centers. Among those not using AIS, identified barriers were issues with note formatting (56%), lack of training (25%), and concerns that the note content is incorrect or inadequate (25%). 60% are willing to use AIS if note formatting matched their preference, and 42% would try it if contents better reflected the patient encounter. Table 1 details the proportion of encounters using AIS, the portion of documentation it was used for, and the perceived challenges with these tools. Among AIS users, the average satisfaction score was 5.3 on a 7 point scale, corresponding to participants being somewhat satisfied. Participants agreed slightly that AIS had reduced their feeling of work-related burnout, with an average score of 3.6 on a 5 point scale. Overall, participants felt neutral about how well-suited AIS are for HemOnc, with an average score of 4.0 on a 7 point scale. Conclusions: Despite AIS being widely available, 46% of the surveyed HemOnc workforce do not use them in clinical practice. Those who do reported decreased time spent on documentation outside work hours and a slight reduction in the feeling of burnout. Formatting issues and record integration remain barriers, with substantial concerns about AIS not adequately describing HemOnc treatment plans. To bridge the last mile of integration into HemOnc, partnership between AIS developers and the clinical workforce is essential to meet clinical needs, while prioritizing patient safety and data privacy. FP + APP % HOT % Patient encounters where AIS is used 62 44 Used AIS for the subjective portion of note 68 96 Used AIS for the assessment/plan portions of note 40 25 AIS decreased the time on clinical documentation outside work hours 96 93 AIS note formatting needs improvement 68 57 Issues integrating AIS and outside records 46 71 AIS note contents about the plan are suboptimal 32 61

9030 Background: AI use is ubiquitous among HOT and healthcare workers, but with variable base knowledge and comfort level. Its indiscriminate use may be problematic. To address this educational gap, we developed a WS for HOT to assess their use of AI and educate them on how to employ it in MedEd and patient-centered CP based on LSP. Methods: A faculty member developed a WS on how to use AI in MedEd and CP based on LSP of analogy, contrasting cases, elaboration, generation, and question driven learning. The WS was for HOT, but faculty could join. It had 3 sections: introduction to basic concepts of AI; principles of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and protected health information; AI in MedEd; and AI in CP. Sections had real use case examples of AI, for participants to interact, ask questions, and share their personal use cases. HOT were invited to compare and generate examples during the WS, based on their educational and clinical experience and needs. Participants’ AI use and self-perceived and objective knowledge about it were assessed in a pre activity survey, a post WS survey, and a post 8 week survey to evaluate long term learning. Results: A 2 hour WS with 9 HOT and 2 faculty was completed successfully. 10 participants completed the pre WS survey, and 11 completed the post WS and the post 8 week surveys. 100% of them used generative AI tools before the WS, while 10% had prior training in AI. 90% used AI in personal life and MedEd, 70% used it in CP, and 30% in academic research. Table 1 shows participants’ self-assessed knowledge of AI, comfort level in using AI for MedEd and CP, self-assessed preparedness to implement AI in MedEd and CP, and objective knowledge. 8 weeks post WS, 91% of participants reported increased AI use in CP, leading anywhere from slight to significant decreases in time spent on documentation tasks for 91% of them. In MedEd, 73% reported increased AI use, and 82% described slight to significant improvement in the quality of time dedicated to it. 82% described the WS as extremely relevant to their daily responsibilities, and 91% reported confidence navigating ethical and privacy risks of AI in HemOnc. All participants were interested in having a similar WS in the future. Conclusions: An LSP based WS about AI increased the self-perceived and objective knowledge of HOT about using this tool in MedEd and CP. It also increased HOT comfort level, preparedness, and efficiency using AI. With the ubiquitous use of AI by HOT, ongoing education about it focused on supporting high-quality patient care should be a part of fellowship curriculum. Pre WS % Post WS % Post 8 week % Moderately/Very knowledgeable about AI 50 91 100 Comfortable using AI in MedEd 60 82 82 Prepared to implement AI in MedEd 30 91 73 Comfortable using AI in CP 40 73 82 Prepared to implement AI in CP 0 91 73 Correct answers on objective assessment 53 68 71

9007 Background: Since transition to virtual interviews, application and interview inflation have increased the work burden of GME recruitment. In 2021, AAMC ERAS implemented a process that allows applicants to assign signals to top programs of interest. There is a paucity of guidance on optimal use of ERAS signals (ES), resulting in apprehension and uncertainty amongst applicants and program directors (PD). For the 2026 ERAS cycle, Hematology/Oncology programs (HOP) had the option to participate in ES, in which applicants are provided 5 gold (G) signals and 15 silver (S) signals. First-hand knowledge on how ES was utilized by HOP, as well as PD perceptions about ES, may guide best practices on ES. Methods: During the ASCO Oncology Training Program Leadership Retreat in November 2025, an anonymous survey, assessing HOP utilization and perception of ES, and the impact of ES on recruitment practices, was launched. One PD from each HOP was invited to complete the survey while onsite. Results: 88 HOP (46% of ACGME HOP) are represented. 97% (n=85) utilized ES. Of HOP who used ES, 74% are academic. 32% are small (1-9 fellows), 43% medium (10-19 fellows), and 25% large (20+ fellows). 79% received 400+ applications. 69% reviewed applications without signals but gave higher consideration to signaled applicants. 25% only reviewed applications with signals. 28% used ES when creating rank list; 45% think ES utilization is appropriate during ranking. 85% reported ES did not alter their approach to applicants requiring visa sponsorship. 78% felt ES made the interview selection process easier. 66% were more satisfied with this year’s recruitment process compared to years without ES. The most requested change to ES was reduction of allowed signals, especially silver. 98% will use ES next year. Conclusions: Despite limited knowledge on ES impact on recruitment, nearly all surveyed HOP participated in ES this past year and will continue. Most HOP view ES positively though many desire changes, particularly with the number of signals. Most HOP consider all applications regardless of ES. However, some HOP with larger applicant pool are using ES as inclusion criteria for interview consideration. Signals are a strong predictor for interview invitation when internal selection criteria are met. The “borderline” applicant may be the greatest benefactor from ES, viewed similarly to the non-signaled applicant who meets internal selection criteria. Sharing PD perspectives and real-life data from this year’s ES process breeds opportunities for further improvement and increased confidence with ES. Likelihood HOP offer interview invitation based on quality of application and signals (%, n=85). Internal Selection Criteria Signal Extremely Likely Likely Neutral Unlikely Extremely Unlikely Met G 73 22 5 0 0 S 42 47 8 2 1 None 8 27 24 22 19 Nearly met G 4 35 39 19 3 S 0 9 52 28 11 Not met G 0 2 12 41 45 S 1 1 6 30 62

9021 Background: An escape room is a team-based activity in which participants collaborate to solve puzzles within a fixed time limit and escape. Prior studies demonstrate high learner satisfaction and improved teamwork and communication with medical education escape rooms. To date, no published reports describe an escape room designed specifically for hematology/oncology (hem/onc) fellows. As part of Hem/Onc Curriculum, we designed and implemented a hem/onc-focused escape room and evaluated learner satisfaction and perceived learning impact. Methods: The escape room was designed using evidence-based learning science principles (Table 1). Teams worked to solve sequential puzzles, centered on a patient case, addressing key hem/onc concepts, including transfusion medicine, peripheral blood smears, lymphoma classification, and coagulation disorders. Each solved puzzle revealed additional patient laboratory and pathology data. Successful completion required teams to diagnose the patient and select appropriate treatment. Following the activity, teams participated in a facilitator-led debrief focused on team dynamics, communication, and problem solving. Teams observed each other and shared feedback. A larger group debrief co-led by chief fellows and faculty reviewed learning objectives and key takeaways. Learner outcomes were assessed using a post-activity survey evaluating satisfaction, engagement, and impact on learning. Results: Eighteen learners participated, including 14 hem/onc fellows, 1 APP hem/onc fellow, and 3 internal medicine residents. Three of four teams escaped within 1 hour (mean completion time, 52 minutes). All participants provided positive verbal feedback. Fifteen learners completed the post-activity survey, and all respondents reported satisfaction with the activity and would recommend it for future fellows. One-word descriptors included “engaging,” “fun,” and “challenging.” Most respondents (93.3%) agreed that the activity reinforced key hem/onc concepts and improved confidence in clinical problem-solving. All learners felt the activity supported learning, and 93.3% reported that collaboration enhanced the learning experience. Participants identified team-based problem solving, clinical application, and interactive puzzles as the most effective components. Conclusions: A hem/onc escape room resulted in high learner satisfaction and reinforced hem/onc knowledge and clinical problem-solving. This feasible, fun, and innovative activity complements traditional fellowship education by leveraging adult learning principles through gamified, team-based learning and should be incorporated into training programs’ curriculum. Learning science principles applied in a hem/onc escape room. Active Learning Belonging Contrasting Cases Debriefing Deliberate Practice Elaboration Generation Listening and Sharing Reward Worked Examples

1615 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized lung cancer treatment but cause adverse events, including immune-related colitis (ir-colitis). Accurate identification of ir-colitis is critical for improving patient outcomes and clinical research. However, current methods relying on ICD codes have substantial limitations: non-specific categories that fail to capture the cases or distinguish cases from infectious or ischemic etiologies, as well as incomplete coding that leads to missed cases. Large language models (LLMs), with advanced natural language understanding capabilities, offer a scalable approach for automated phenotyping using unstructured clinical notes. We aimed to develop and evaluate an LLM-based approach for identifying ir-colitis in patients with lung cancer receiving ICIs and compare it with ICD code based method. Methods: We identified 5,278 lung cancer patients with ICI administration at Mayo Clinic (2012-2025). To investigate ir-colitis occurrence within two years after ICI initiation, patients were stratified into three ICD-based cohorts: (1) IR-Colitis, with clinician-assigned ir-colitis-specific diagnosis codes; (2) Non-IR Colitis, with colitis diagnosis codes excluding ir-colitis; and (3) No-Colitis, absent of any colitis-related codes. We used three open-source LLMs to process clinical notes : Llama4, MedGemma, and Qwen. Prompts were designed to extract both gold standard evidence (explicit ir-colitis terminology, such as "immune-mediated colitis" and "checkpoint inhibitor colitis") and supportive evidence (such as pathology and lab results). Results: Llama4 demonstrated superior accuracy among three LLMs in manual evaluation and was thus selected for all cohort analyses. Among ICD-based IR-Colitis patients (n = 339), 82.0% had confirmatory evidence while 18% lacked evidence, suggesting potential false-positive coding. In the Non-IR Colitis cohort (n = 297), LLM-based extraction identified 43.8% patients in fact had ir-colitis, demonstrating substantial misclassification. In the No-colitis cohort (n = 4,642, random sample of 996 for analysis), the LLM identified 10.7% with documented ir-colitis, revealing substantial missing by administrative coding. Conclusions: LLM-based phenotyping demonstrates superior sensitivity for identifying ir-colitis compared to ICD codes alone, successfully uncovering cases missed by administrative coding. This scalable approach enables more comprehensive case identification for immunotherapy safety research and clinical surveillance. ICD-Based Cohorts LLM-Identified ir-Colitis Gold Standard Evidence Supportive Evidence Any Evidence ir-Colitis (n = 339) 277/339 (81.7%) 275/339 (81.1%) 278/339 (82.0%) Non-ir-Colitis (n = 297) 129/297 (43.4%) 126/297 (42.4%) 130/297 (43.8%) No Colitis (n = 996) 106/996 (10.6%) 104/996 (10.4%) 107/996 (10.7%)

Background: In the last decade, a surge of advancements in and approvals of immunotherapies has revolutionized the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Even as an increasing number of immune checkpoint inhibitors and antibody–drug conjugates gained FDA approval for the remarkable response and durable remission they imparted to some patients, persistent challenges of primary and acquired resistance, imperfect predictive biomarkers, and toxicity remain. Methods: This review identifies and summarizes the most significant emerging clinical data being reported for immunotherapies in NSCLC. Results: We found that the most recent clinical trials are centered on antibody–drug conjugates, bispecific and multispecific antibodies, cellular therapies, and immunocytokines, while other ongoing trials continue to explore new monoclonal antibodies as well as a variety of immunotherapy modalities. Conclusions: Immunotherapy in NSCLC remains an area of rapid advancement, with the potential for further improvements in safety and efficacy as monotherapy and in multimodal approaches.

PURPOSE Artificial intelligence (AI) has been rapidly evolving in medicine. While there are existing data about the perceptions and concerns of health care workers regarding AI, those of the hematology and oncology (HemOnc) workforce remain unknown. We assessed opinions of physicians (faculty and fellows), advanced practice providers (APPs), and nurses in HemOnc on integrating AI in medical education (MedEd) and clinical practice (CP). METHODS Group-specific electronic surveys were developed. The HemOnc workforce from the three Mayo Clinic sites was invited to participate. Participation was anonymous, with data collection between November 7, 2024, and January 20, 2025. Results were reported as proportions, with 95% binomial CI when appropriate. RESULTS A total of 344 participants responded, 118 physicians (77 faculty, 41 fellows), 49 APPs, and 177 nurses. Most had used AI although less than half felt very or moderately knowledgeable about it. A total of 95% of fellows, 97% of faculty physicians, 96% of APP, and 92% of nurses believe that AI will be integrated in MedEd. A total of 94% of physicians and 88% of nonphysicians believe that this integration would be beneficial. In CP, 98% of fellows, 96% of faculty physicians, 100% of APPs, and 92% of nurses believe in AI's integration. However, 51% of physicians and 68% of nonphysicians had some concerns, including technology time, medical costs, and burnout. Nonetheless, 85% of fellows, 94% of faculty physicians, 98% of APPs, and 86% of nurses would embrace AI. CONCLUSION The majority of this single health system HemOnc's workforce endorsed AI integration into MedEd and CP but highlighted relevant concerns. Proper education, effective partnership among all stakeholders, and well-organized integration are essential for optimizing AI's incorporation into HemOnc's MedEd and CP and ensuring that it fully supports the mission of providing high-quality patient care.

8545 Background: Brain metastases (BM) correlate with poor prognosis, occurring in 10% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (pts) at diagnosis and up to 40% over the disease course. Immunotherapy (IO) with or without chemotherapy has become the new standard of care for stage IV NSCLC. However, the survival benefit of IO in pts with BM remains unclear as most studies are limited to small sample sizes or highly selected pts with asymptomatic or treated BMs. This study represents the largest real-world data analysis evaluating the survival benefits of IO in stage IV NSCLC pts with BM. Methods: Demographics, clinical features, and survival were analyzed in stage IV NSCLC pts with BM from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2014-2020. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling assessed factors impacting mortality. Results: Of 204,249 pts with stage IV NSCLC, 30% had BM. The mean age was 68 years, with 54% male. Most pts were White (82%), followed by Black (12%) and Asian (3.1%). Government insurance covered 70% of pts, and 26% had private insurance. Adenocarcinoma was the predominant histology (62%), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (20%). Liver and bone metastases were observed in 19% and 42% of pts, respectively. Among pts with BM, 18% received immunotherapy, 53% received chemotherapy, 66% received whole-brain radiation, and 18% received limited-brain radiation. Multivariate Cox analysis showed that pts receiving IO had a 46% lower mortality risk compared to not receiving IO (HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.51–0.56, p < 0.001), demonstrating the independent benefit of IO in pts with BM, regardless of brain radiation or chemotherapy. Females had a lower mortality risk than males (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85–0.91, p < 0.001). Asian (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.64–0.79), Hispanic (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.65–0.89), and Black pts (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.84–0.93) had improved survival as compared to White. Pts with private insurance have lower mortality risk (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90–0.98), compared to lack of insurance (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.08–1.31). SCC was linked to worse survival (HR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.22–1.35). Conclusions: IO significantly improves survival in pts with NSCLC with BM, regardless of brain radiation therapy or chemotherapy. However, survival disparities based on histology, insurance status, and demographic factors persist, highlighting the need for more equitable treatment strategies.

9029 Background: Addressing guideline concordant FP and TPP with cancer is challenging, especially for OT. SIM, a well-known education tool, has not been traditionally used to teach these topics. As part of the hematology/oncology fellowship curriculum, we designed a SIM applying LSP to bridge this educational gap. Methods: Applying LSP of contrasting cases, elaboration, feedback, generation and just-in-time telling, chief OTs and faculty designed a SIM with 3 clinical scenarios (CS) and 3 standardized pts (SP): FP for a female pt hospitalized for acute lymphoblastic leukemia tx, FP for a male pt in clinic for germ cell tumor tx, and breast cancer tx for a pregnant pt in 2 nd trimester. OT received written educational materials (WEM) and attended a lecture 1 week and 1 day pre SIM, respectively. OT were split into 2 groups; 1 started in the FP CS and 1 in the TPP CS, and then they switched. To reduce cognitive overload, each OT participated in 1 of 2 FP CS: half in the female FP CS and half in the male. Faculty and chiefs led debriefing sessions after all CS. The FP debrief ended with a special “learner as a teacher” part, where OT who attended the female CS taught those from the male CS about their topic and vice versa. The SIM concluded with "take-home" points. Pre (after having WEM) and post SIM anonymous surveys and verbal feedback assessed OT comfort, perceptions, and knowledge. Results: A 3 hour SIM with 14 OT and 5 faculty was completed successfully. SIM ended with all OT verbally sharing a learning point and positive feedback. All OT filled pre and post SIM surveys. Pre SIM, 17% reported having prior FP education, and 42% had prior TPP education. However, only 8% and 25% felt adequately prepared for FP and TPP discussions, respectively. Post SIM survey showed major improvement in comfort and knowledge about FP and TPP (see table 1). 75% of OT favored a combination of SIM and learning by teaching over other SIM formats. 83% supported having a TPP lecture before SIM. 100% reported satisfaction with FP and TPP SIM’s quality and wanted similar activities in the future. 92% were satisfied with the learner as a teacher tool. 100% felt education about FP and TPP with cancer should be part of fellowship training. Moral/cultural concerns were discussed as possible challenges in FP education. Conclusions: The application of LSP through SIM significantly increased OTs’ comfort discussing FP and TPP with cancer, and objectively enhanced their knowledge on these topics compared to after reading WEM. The SIM was largely perceived as a successful activity to educate about challenging topics and should become part of fellowship curriculum. Pre SIM % Post SIM % Comfortable addressing FP 17 92 Comfortable addressing TPP 8 100 Correct answers about female FP 63 83 Correct answers about male FP 67 94 Correct answers about TPP with cancer 68 98