Zahid, Umar

PURPOSE: Gender disparity persists in academic medicine. Female faculty are underrepresented in leadership positions and have lower research output. We studied gender differences in faculty rank and departmental leadership and contributing factors among academic hematologists and oncologists in the United States. METHODS: For clinical faculty at 146 hematology or oncology fellowship programs listed in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database, we collected data on demographics, academic rank, and research output using the Doximity and Scopus databases. We compared unadjusted characteristics of men and women by using 2-sided t tests and χ2 tests where appropriate. To predict probability of full professorship or leadership position among men versus women, we performed multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for clinical experience in years, number of publications, h-index, clinical trial investigator status, National Institutes of Health funding, and workplace ranking (top 20 v not). RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred sixty academic hematologists and oncologists were included. Women composed 21.9% (n = 142) of full professors, 35.7% (n = 169) of associate professors, and 45.4% (n = 415) of assistant professors. Thirty percent (n = 70) of departmental leaders were women. Female faculty, compared with male faculty, had a lower mean h-index (12.1 v 20.9, respectively; P < .001) and fewer years of professional experience since fellowship (10 v 16 years, respectively; P < .001). After adjusting for duration of clinical experience, academic productivity, and workplace ranking, the odds of obtaining professorship (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.57; P = .85) or divisional leadership (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.58; P = .28) for female physicians were not different compared with male physicians. CONCLUSION: Gender disparity exists in senior ranks of academic hematology and oncology; however, gender is not a significant predictor in achieving professorship or department leadership position.

Introduction: We have previously reported underrepresentation of female faculty at senior academic ranks in hematology/oncology (H/O). In this analysis we aimed to investigate the influence of sex in attaining leadership positions amongst academic hematologists/oncologists in United States. Methods: Faculty members were identified at 146 H/O fellowship programs listed on fellowship and residency electronic interactive database (FREIDA.) Data was collected on demographics, academic rank and research output using Doximity and Scopus databases. We compared the unadjusted characteristics of men and women by using two-sided t-tests and χ2 tests where appropriate. In primary analysis, logistic regression models were used to evaluate sex differences on probability of having full professorship (versus assistant and associate professorship) and of achieving leadership positions including division chief, Program Director (PD) and Associate Program Director (APD). Adjusted models included the following variables: clinical experience in years, number of publications, h-index, appointment at top 20 hospital, clinical trial investigator status and National Institutes of Health funding. Stratified analysis was performed adjusting for duration of clinical experience (≤15 vs >15 years) Results: Fewer women were full Professors (21.9% vs 78.1%), division chiefs (16.7% vs 83.3%), and PDs (30.5% vs 69.5) but the number was similar for Associate Program Directors (47.1% vs 52.9%). In a univariate unadjusted model, women were less likely to be full professors compared to men (OR 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.48; P<.001). However, in the multivariable adjusted model no statistically significant sex difference in full professorship was found (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.71, 1.57; P=.85; Table). The likelihood of full professorship was positively associated with clinical experience in years, number of first/last author publications, h-index, and being a primary investigator on at least one clinical trial.In a univariate unadjusted model, women were less likely to be division chiefs as compared to males (OR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.80; P=.01). However, in the multivariable adjusted model, there was no statistically significant sex difference in achieving the position of division chief (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.20, 1.58; P=.28; Table). No significant difference was found between females and males for being program directors or associate program directors in both univariate and multivariate analysis. Similarly, a stratified analysis adjusting for duration of clinical experience (≤15 vs >15 years) found no significant sex differences in attaining leadership position (Table) Conclusion: We found that women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions in hematology/oncology, but that sex is not a significant negative predictor to women obtaining leadership positions after correcting for traditional predictors of academic success. However, "non-traditional" and therefore less measurable and analyzable factors such as networking, mentorship, sponsorship, gender bias, balancing work and home responsibilities and many others may contribute and should be further investigated. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

512 Background: The tumor microenvironment in PDA is heterogeneous and immunosuppressive given the presence of regulatory T cells and exhausted effector T cells. Despite the upsurge of effective immunotherapeutic agents (IA) in other tumor types, the role in PDA remains unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis of IA in PDA. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Elsevier/Embase, Wiley/Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov. Articles were selected per the following criteria: (1) Study participants had a diagnosis of PDA; (2) An IA was used in the trial. Titles, abstracts and full text articles were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers; disagreements were resolved by a third. Data extraction and analysis were performed by 3 independent reviewers. Descriptive analysis, mean, median, confidence interval and forest plots were used for statistical analysis. Results: We found 20,792 studies through the database, 16,105 remained after duplicates were removed and 15,889 were excluded due to irrelevance. Strict inclusion criteria were applied to the full text of 216 articles. The most common reason for exclusion were conference abstracts (44%) and ongoing trials (16%). Fifty-four trials (39 metastatic (met), 12 adjuvant (Ad) and 3 neoadjuvant (nAd) met criteria for further analysis. Age range was 27-86 (median 61) and 52.3% were males. IA included cytokine therapy (33%), peptide vaccines (22%), dendritic cell vaccine (13%), oncolytic viruses (9%), CTLA-4 inhibitors (2%) and others. IA in met-PDA had a median overall survival (mOS) of 8.1 months (ms) and a disease control rate (DCR) of 55.4% (95% CI, 51.85-58.95). There was no statistical difference in DCR among IA subtypes (range 49-60%) (p = 0.22). The mOS of Ad-PDA trials was 25 ms (historically comparable to gemcitabine, p = 0.75) and 18 ms for nAd-PDA. The most common Gr1/2 toxicities were skin reactions, fever, and chills and Gr3/4 were cytopenias, diarrhea, and mucositis. One death occurred due to neutropenic sepsis. Conclusions: IA demonstrates modest efficacy in the treatment of met-PDA albeit exhibits a favorable toxicity profile. Many trial results are available only in abstract format and some are ongoing.