Citations

TPS7101 Background: Patients with high-risk CLL/SLL not achieving a complete response (CR) after ≥ 12 months of BTK inhibitor (BTKi) monotherapy remain at risk for early progression due to residual disease and BTKi resistance. A BCL-2 inhibitor (BCL-2i) introduces a complementary, BCR-independent apoptotic mechanism that may deepen responses and prolong progression-free survival (PFS). Lisaftoclax, a selective oral BCL-2i with a short half-life (4-6 h), enables once-daily dosing and is approved in China as second-line CLL therapy. Lisaftoclax monotherapy has demonstrated overall response rates (ORRs) of 67% in relapsed/refractory CLL and 62.5% in BTKi-refractory disease, including del(17p)/ TP53 -mutated cases. Lisaftoclax combined with acalabrutinib achieved ORRs >97% with favorable tolerability. This study evaluates whether lisaftoclax plus BTKi (acalabrutinib, zanubrutinib, or ibrutinib) improves PFS and/or overall survival (OS) (vs continued BTKi monotherapy) in patients with CLL/SLL and residual disease after prolonged BTKi treatment. Methods: This study will enroll approximately 440 patients randomly allocated to receive lisaftoclax plus BTKi or BTKi alone. Eligible patients have CLL/SLL and, after ≥12 months of BTKi monotherapy (lines 1-3), have achieved neither CR nor progressive disease (PD). Randomization is stratified by del(17p)/ TP53 status. Key inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, ECOG PS 0-2, and residual disease with either high-risk features (del(17p)/ TP53 mutation, unmutated IGHV , or complex karyotype [≥5 abnormalities]), or measurable residual disease with lymph nodes ≥2.5 cm in the absence of high-risk features. Exclusion criteria include prior BCL-2i therapy or Richter transformation. Patients in the investigational arm will undergo a 5-day oral lisaftoclax ramp-up to 400 mg once daily plus physician's choice of BTKi in 28-day cycles until progression or toxicity. Control patients continue their current BTKi monotherapy. Safety and disease assessments (CT/MRI) will occur regularly. The primary endpoint is PFS by independent review committee (iwCLL 2018); key secondary endpoint OS; and other secondary endpoints, PFS by investigator, ORR, duration of response, MRD negativity, and safety. Enrollment is ongoing across 126 sites in 18 countries (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06104566). Clinical trial information: NCT06104566 .

Background: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a global health challenge. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI), such as large language models (LLMs) and chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, offer novel approaches for clinical recommendations. This study compared the readability and guideline adherence of responses from physicians and AI for a standardized PAD case. Methods: This cross-sectional study gathered responses from 30 specialized physicians (11 cardiologists, 19 vascular surgeons) across seven Latin American countries and 13 LLM systems (10 standard, three CoT). Both groups addressed diagnosis, treatment, risks, and prognosis; LLMs responded as vascular specialists. Responses were blindly evaluated with five validated Spanish readability indices and compared to the 2024 ACC/AHA multisocietal PAD guideline. Three experts scored guideline adherence; nonparametric tests were applied. Results: Guideline adherence did not differ significantly between physicians (median 5.8 [3.4–7.6]) and LLMs (7.3 [4.7–9.7], p = 0.169), though CoT-LLMs achieved the highest scores (9.7 [8.5–11.0]). LLMs more often recommended supervised exercise (84.6% vs 30.0%, p = 0.002) and revascularization for quality of life (69.2% vs 20.0%, p = 0.004), whereas physicians favored cilostazol (60.0% vs 30.8%, p = 0.104). LLM responses had lower Readability μ values (46.9 vs 51.4, p = 0.012). Inter-rater reliability was highest for CoT-LLMs (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.98) versus physicians (ICC = 0.76). Conclusion: LLM showed comparable guideline adherence to physicians although CoT models achieved the highest scores. The difference in physician and AI treatment preferences suggest the potential of AI as adjunct clinical tools and warrants further study.

Abstract Background In 2021, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation established the Multi‐Disciplinary Post‐Acute Sequelae of SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection Collaborative to provide guidance from established Long COVID clinics for the evaluation and management of Long COVID. The collaborative previously published eight Long COVID consensus guidance statements using a primarily symptom‐based approach. However, Long COVID symptoms most often do not occur in isolation. Aims This compendium aims to equip clinicians with an efficient, up‐to‐date clinical resource for evaluating and managing adults experiencing Long COVID symptoms. The primary intended audience includes physiatrists, primary care physicians, and other clinicians who provide first‐line assessment and management of Long COVID symptoms, especially in settings where subspecialty care is not readily available. This compendium provides a holistic framework for assessment and management, symptom‐specific considerations, and updates on prevalence, health equity, disability considerations, pathophysiology, and emerging evidence regarding treatments under investigation. Because Long COVID closely resembles other infection‐associated chronic conditions (IACCs) such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, the guidance in this compendium may also be helpful for clinicians managing these related conditions. Methods Guidance in this compendium was developed by the collaborative's established modified Delphi approach. The collaborative is a multidisciplinary group whose members include physiatrists, primary care physicians, pulmonologists, cardiologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neurologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, patients, and government representatives. Over 40 Long COVID centers are represented in the collaborative. Results Long COVID is defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine as “an IACC that occurs after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” The current global prevalence of Long COVID is estimated to be 6%. Higher prevalence has been identified among female gender, certain racial and ethnic groups, and individuals who live in nonurban areas. However, anyone can develop Long COVID after being infected with the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. Long COVID can present as a wide variety of symptom clusters. The most common symptoms include exaggerated fatigue and diminished energy windows, postexertional malaise (PEM)/postexertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), cognitive impairment (brain fog), dysautonomia, pain/myalgias, and smell and taste alterations. Holistic assessment should include a traditional history, physical examination, and additional diagnostic testing, as indicated. A positive COVID‐19 test during acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is not required to diagnose Long COVID, and currently, there is no single laboratory finding that is definitively diagnostic for confirming or ruling out the diagnosis of Long COVID. A basic laboratory assessment is recommended for all patients with possible Long COVID, and consideration for additional labs and diagnostic procedures is guided by the patient's specific symptoms. Current management strategies focus on symptom‐based supportive care. Critical considerations include energy conservation strategies and addressing comorbidities and modifiable risk factors. Additionally, (1) it is essential to validate the patient's experience and provide reassurance that their symptoms are being taken seriously because many patients have had their symptoms dismissed by loved ones and clinicians; (2) physical activity recommendations must be carefully tailored to the patient's current activity tolerance because overly intense activity can trigger PEM/PESE and worsened muscle damage; and (3) treatment recommendations should be delivered with humility because there are many persistent unknowns related to Long COVID. To date, there are limited data to guide medication management specifically in the context of Long COVID. As such, medication use generally follows standard practice regarding indications and dosing, with extra attention to prioritize (1) patient preference via shared decision‐making and (2) cautious use of medications that may improve some symptoms (eg, cognitive/attention impairment) but may worsen other symptoms (eg, PEM/PESE). Numerous clinical trials are investigating additional treatments. The return‐to‐work process for individuals with Long COVID can be challenging because symptoms can fluctuate, vary in nature, affect multiple functional areas (eg, physical and cognitive), and often manifest as an “invisible disability” that may not be readily acknowledged by employers or coworkers. Clinicians can help patients return to work by identifying suitable workplace accommodations and resources, providing necessary documentation, and recommending occupational or vocational therapy when needed. If these efforts are unsuccessful and work significantly worsens Long COVID symptoms or impedes recovery, applying for disability may be warranted. Long COVID is recognized as a potential disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Conclusion To contribute to the overall health and well‐being for all patients, Long COVID care should be delivered in a holistic manner that acknowledges challenges faced by the patient and uncertainties in the field. For more detailed information on assessment and management of specific Long COVID symptoms, readers can reference the collaborative's symptom‐specific consensus guidance statements.

Abstract Background Physiatry is a specialty with high rates of burnout. Although organizational strategies to combat burnout are key, it is also important to understand strategies that individual physiatrists can use to address burnout. Objective To identify changes that resulted in improvement of occupational well‐being of physiatrists over a 6‐ to 9‐month period. Design We employed two quantitative surveys spaced 6 to 9 months apart to identify physiatrists who experienced meaningful improvement in occupational burnout and/or professional fulfillment between the two survey timepoints. These physiatrists were subsequently recruited to participate in a qualitative study using semi‐structured interviews to identify changes that respondents felt contributed to improvements in burnout and professional fulfillment. Setting Online surveys and interviews. Participants Physiatrists in the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) Membership Masterfile. Main Outcome Measure Burnout and professional fulfillment were assessed using the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index. Results One hundred twelve physiatrists responded to the baseline and follow‐up surveys. Of these, 35 were eligible for interviews based on improvements in the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index, and 23 (64%) agreed to participate. Themes from the qualitative interviews highlighted the importance of personal lifestyle choices, approaches to improve professional satisfaction, and strategies to foster work‐life harmony. Personal lifestyle strategies included investing in wellness and mental health. Efforts to improve professional satisfaction included decreasing work intensity, prioritizing meaningful aspects of work, and building relationships with colleagues. Fostering work‐life harmony also included making trade‐offs in both domains, setting boundaries at work, setting expectations at home, and overcoming personal challenges. Conclusion Our findings illustrate that, in addition to organizational strategies demonstrated to be effective, there are actions that individual physiatrists can take to recover from burnout and foster professional fulfillment.

AbstractBackgroundAs the proportion of women and individuals who are underrepresented in medicine slowly rises, disparities persist in numerous arenas and specialties. In physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R), there is a continued need to focus on diversity among trainees. This study aims to evaluate diversity among PM&R applicants and residents over the past 6 years.ObjectiveTo describe the demographic trends in PM&R over the last 6 years and compare those findings with trends in other specialties.DesignSurveillance.SettingAnalyses of national databases from self‐reported questionnaires.ParticipantsThe study consists of 126,833 medical school matriculants, 374,185 resident applicants, and 326,134 resident trainees over the last 6 years.Main outcome measuresSelf‐reported demographic data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were analyzed for medical school matriculants, PM&R applicants, and current residents for the cycles of 2014–2015 to 2019–2020. The data were then comparatively reviewed between PM&R and other medical specialties.ResultsIn the 6 cycles evaluated, women accounted for 36%–39% of PM&R residents, but 47%–48% in non‐PM&R specialties. Women applicants to the PM&R specialty averaged 34.4% over the 6 years analyzed, which was the fourth lowest of the 11 specialties examined. Black or African American and Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin populations each accounted for only 6% of PM&R residents. PM&R demonstrated a noticeably higher proportion of White (62.1% vs. 60.3%) and an observably lower proportion of Black or African American (6.0% vs. 7.1%) and Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin (6.3% vs. 7.9%) residents compared with non‐PM&R specialties.ConclusionThere is underrepresentation of women and multiple racial and ethnic minority groups in the field of PM&R from applicants to trainees demonstrating a need to improve recruitment efforts.

AbstractIntroductionMultiple national studies suggest that, among physicians, physiatrists are at increased risk for occupational burnout.ObjectiveTo identify characteristics of the work environment associated with professional fulfillment and burnout among U.S. physiatrists.DesignBetween May and December 2021, a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach was used to identify factors contributing to professional fulfillment and burnout in physiatrists.SettingOnline interviews, focus groups, and survey.ParticipantsPhysiatrists in the AAPM&R Membership Masterfile.Main Outcome MeasuresBurnout and professional fulfillment assessed using the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index.ResultsIndividual interviews with 21 physiatrists were conducted to identify domains that contributed to professional fulfillment followed by focus groups for further definition. Based on themes identified, scales were identified or developed to evaluate: control over schedule (6 items; Cronbach's alpha = 0.86); integration of physiatry into patient care (3 items; Cronbach's alpha = 0.71); personal‐organizational values alignment (3 items; Cronbach's alpha = 0.90); meaningfulness of physiatrist clinical work (6 items; Cronbach's alpha = 0.90); teamwork and collaboration (3 items; Cronbach's alpha = 0.89). Of 5760 physiatrists contacted in the subsequent national survey, 882 (15.4%) returned surveys (median age 52 years; 46.1% women). Overall, 42.6% (336 of 788) experienced burnout and 30.6% (244 of 798) had high levels of professional fulfillment. In multivariable analysis, each one‐point improvement in control over schedule (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45–2.69), integration of physiatry into patient care (OR = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.32–2.38), personal‐organizational values alignment (OR = 1.92; 95% CI = 1.48–2.52), meaningfulness of physiatrist clinical work (OR = 2.79; 95% CI = 1.71–4.71) and teamwork and collaboration score (OR = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.48–3.03) was independently associated with higher likelihood of professional fulfillment.ConclusionsControl over schedule, optimal integration of physiatry into clinical care, personal‐organizational values alignment, teamwork, and meaningfulness of physiatrist clinical work are strong and independent drivers of occupational well‐being in U.S. physiatrists. Variation in these domains by practice setting and subspecialty suggests tailored approaches are needed to promote professional fulfillment and reduce burnout among U.S. physiatrists.

Introduction: With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic causing the need for social distancing, telemedicine saw a significant increase in use to provide routine medical care. As a field, physiatry had already been implementing telemedicine prior to the pandemic. In this study, we characterized the use of telemedicine among physiatrists during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the barriers and facilitators to implementing telemedicine use in the field of physiatry in the future. Methods: Online survey of a cross-sectional sample of physiatrists. Analysis was conducted using logistic regression. Results: One hundred seventy one ( n = 171) participants completed the survey. Before the pandemic, only 17.5% of respondents used telemedicine. In the logistic regression, physicians who used a hospital-provided platform were more likely to use telemedicine in the future compared with those who used their own secure platform, conducted a phone visit, and used a non-secure platform or other platforms. The three most popular barriers identified were “inability to complete the physical examination,” “patients lack of access to technology,” and “patients lack of familiarity with the technology.” Discussion: Focus on education on telemedicine functional examination strategies and technology strategies for patients and providers (including addressing the digital divide and hospital-provided secure platforms) are potential targets of implementation strategies for greater telemedicine uptake for physiatrists in the future.

Abstract Background Symptoms of burnout are highly prevalent among physiatrists, and prior studies have helped identify key contributors to this epidemic of burnout. Little is known about the physician stressors unique to those providing care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and what strategies such facilities have used to help mitigate burnout among inpatient physiatrists. Objective To identify what IRF leaders perceive as stress points contributing to burnout among inpatient rehabilitation physicians and what, if any, interventions their programs have implemented to help mitigate physician burnout. Design 10 item cross‐sectional survey study of IRF physician and nonphysician leaders in the United States. Participants 104 physicians serving in the roles of IRF medical director, director of rehabilitation, and/or executive leadership and 19 nonphysician IRF leaders. Results Regulatory demands, late admissions, understaffing, and on‐call responsibilities were the major stress points most identified as contributing to physician burnout among both the physician and nonphysician respondents. The use of advanced practice providers and hospitalists were the most common system changes reportedly used to help mitigate physician burnout. Although 57.8% of physician leaders felt late admissions were a major stress point for physicians, only 18.2% of those responding reported having implemented admission cutoff times. Conclusions There are stressors unique to the practice of inpatient rehabilitation that are likely contributing to physiatrist burnout, including late admissions and on‐call responsibilities. Many IRFs have begun to implement system changes to help mitigate burnout among inpatient physiatrists. The use of nonphysiatrist providers is a commonly reported strategy. Future studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of such a strategy on reducing symptoms of burnout among IRF physicians as well as its effect on IRF patient outcomes.

11035 Background: In 2017, ASCO established the ASCO medical student and resident Abstract Forum. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of the ASCO medical student and resident abstract forum participants. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational study of Abstract Forum participants from 2017 to 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the participants' demographics by gender, stage of training, and institution location. We reported the publication rates and career paths of presenters. Results: The number of participants has more than tripled in the five years since the program's inception. Female participants are almost half of the total. In 2017, there was only one international participant. Over the subsequent five years, international members have steadily increased and represented nearly one-third of all participants in 2021. In the inaugural year, most forum participants were from institutions with ASCO Sponsored Oncology Student Interest Groups (OSIG), but in 2021 almost half were from institutions without OSIGs. The majority of participants were medical students, followed by internal medicine residents. Of a total of 179 abstracts presented between 2017 and 2021, 35 (19.55%) were subsequently published as full-text peer-reviewed manuscripts. Studies presented orally and studies presented by participants from the United States were significantly more frequently published as articles. 58.49% of medical student presenters that started residency chose Internal Medicine or Radiation Oncology. 50% of the student presenters that graduated internal medicine residency went to Hematology-Oncology fellowship. Most of the resident presenters that completed residency went to pursue careers in Hematology-Oncology (72.73%). Conclusions: The steady increase in participants since the program's creation demonstrates interest in the medical student and internal medicine resident community in these types of initiatives. The increase in international participants over the years highlights opportunities for ASCO to expand its global reach and efforts, particularly in low-income countries where trainees have the highest need for mentoring and organized support. Our study provides critical insights into the profile of participants of the Abstract Forum. Participation in this program should be encouraged, especially in countries with high cancer prevalence and mortality.