Dizman, Nazlı

PURPOSE Despite international medical graduates (IMGs) accounting for up to one third of all practicing oncologists in the United States, and nearly half of fellowship trainees, little is known about their contributions to presentations at international oncology meetings. Therefore, we investigated the representation of IMGs in invited faculty roles at the ASCO Annual Meeting as a representative example. METHODS Presentation data from ASCO 2022 and 2023 Annual Meetings were obtained from program guides. We collected presentation-level and speaker-level variables of invited faculty roles and original research. Speakers were categorized as American medical graduate (AMG), IMG, non–US-based, or non-MD (Doctor of Medicine). Univariable and multivariable analyses assessed factors influencing selection for invited faculty roles. RESULTS A total of 2,590 presentations by 2,109 unique speakers were reviewed, including primary research presenters and invited faculty. Among the 1,352 presentations by AMGs, 30% were primary research and 70% were invited faculty roles. For the 374 presentations by IMGs, 41% were primary research and 59% were invited faculty roles. Notably, first-author IMGs were significantly less likely to receive invited faculty roles relative to their primary research output compared with first-author AMGs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.90]; P = .006), even when accounting for academic rank, presumed sex, and year. CONCLUSION Relative to IMGs' original research output, IMGs appear to receive fewer invitations for ASCO Annual Meeting invited faculty roles compared with AMGs. Our findings suggest potential underrepresentation and under-recognition of IMGs in these roles, despite their contributions to the oncology workforce in the United States.

9009 Background: International Medical Graduates (IMGs) are a vital component of the US oncology workforce, representing nearly half of practicing medical oncologists. However, systemic barriers may influence their career trajectories differently. Understanding these challenges is essential for addressing workforce disparities and optimizing cancer care delivery across diverse geographic regions. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 13,497 medical oncologists using the 2024 Dec CMS Provider Dataset linked with the 2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC). Medical oncologists were identified by their self-reported primary specialties, including Hematology/Oncology, Medical Oncology, and Hematopoietic Cell Transplant. Physicians were categorized by graduation origin (based on their self-reported medical school), career stage (early: 0–10 years, mid: 11–30 years, late: >30 years post-medical school graduation). The primary outcomes included practice at Main Campus of NCI Designated Cancer Centers (as an indicator of academic practice) and the geographical location of their practice (Metro, Non-Metro, Mixed). We employed chi-squared tests for statistical comparisons and performed stratified analyses by career stage to evaluate transition patterns over time. Results: 6920 IMGs constituted 48.7% of the oncology workforce, with similar gender distributions between IMG and non-IMG oncologists (37.9% vs 36.5% female, p=0.068). Notably, early career oncologists were less likely to be IMGs (IMG vs non-IMGs: 8.2% vs 12.5%, p<0.001). Compared to Non-IMGs, IMG oncologists are less likely to practice at main campuses of NCI Center (19.9% vs. 27.7%, p<0.001), especially as their career advances (all p<0.01). (Table). IMGs had higher representation in non-metropolitan areas than non-IMGs (11.4% vs 9.1%, p<0.001), particularly in late-career stages (14.7% vs 12.3%, p=0.033), indicating their unique role in serving underserved regions. (Table). Conclusions: Our findings reveal that, IMGs are less likely to practice at main campuses of NCI-Cancer Center than their non-IMG colleagues. Meanwhile, IMG oncologists are disproportionately serving rural communities. Supporting IMG pathways in oncology is critical to ensure a balanced cancer care delivery across the United States. Practice setting distribution and academic affiliation among international medical graduates (IMGs) and US graduates (USGs) by career stage. IMG (N=6,577) Non-IMG (N=6,920) IMG (N=6,577) Non-IMG (N=6,920) NCI Center Other NCI Center Other Metro Non-Metro/Mixed Metro Non-Metro/Mixed Total 19.9% 80.1% 27.7% 72.3% 88.6% 11.4% 90.9% 9.1% Career Stage Early (0-10y) 29.1% 70.9% 36.1% 63.9% 91.1% 8.9% 95.4% 4.6% Mid (11-30y) 21.3% 78.7% 28.8% 71.2% 90.1% 9.9% 91.6% 8.4% Senior (30+y) 15.0% 85.0% 22.0% 78.0% 85.3% 14.7% 87.7% 12.3%

PURPOSE Although international medical graduates (IMGs) and Puerto Rican Medical Graduates (PRMGs) comprise an integral part of the health care workforce, these individuals, particularly women, frequently face numerous types of discrimination throughout medical training and independent practice. To our knowledge, we conducted the first cross-sectional study to understand the journeys and consequences of migration faced by IMGs and PRMGs in the US oncology workforce. METHODS We developed a cross-sectional, online survey consisting of 51 multiple choice and open-ended questions that captured demographic information, professional status, period of migration to the United States, location within the United States that participants migrated to, reasons for migration, cultural adaptation, experiences of discrimination during training, and overall professional experiences in the United States. RESULTS The majority of participants cited better education, professional gains, and a lack of opportunities in participants' home country as primary reasons for migration to the United States. However, most participants, particularly women, experienced staunch assimilation to fit the mold of professional American standards; women were also particularly likely to report experiences of racial/ethnic, language, and gender discrimination during oncology training in the United States, which only marginally improved during independent practice. Despite such discrimination, most participants reported excellent professional satisfaction during training and independent practice, although only moderate personal satisfaction. Most participants decided to stay in the United States, citing reasons pertaining to enhanced professional opportunities, whereas those that returned home valued reasons relating to family and quality of life. CONCLUSION Our sobering findings underscore the need for institutional enforcement of an inclusive environment encompassing cultural humility, enactment of programs addressing barriers to socialization, immigration laws, and financial support, creation of IMG-specific support networks, and the sponsorship and promoting of minority women physicians.

PURPOSE International medical graduates (IMGs) are an essential component of the oncology workforce in the United States, comprising a third of all practicing oncologists and almost half of hematology/oncology fellows. In this article, we discuss the contributions of IMGs in the US oncology workforce, review unique challenges faced by IMGs, and propose potential solutions to overcome these challenges. METHODS ASCO's IMG Community of Practice was established with the mission to connect, mentor, guide, raise awareness, and overcome the challenges unique to IMGs interested in pursuing medical oncology in the United States. The content of this article is based on discussions at the IMG Community of Practice meetings at ASCO's 2023 and 2024 Annual Meetings. RESULTS IMGs bring an inherent diversity of thought and experience to the oncology workforce. They provide high-quality, culture- and language-concordant care to a diverse population of patients with cancer. However, IMGs in oncology face significant hardships throughout their careers, including visa-related restrictions, psychosocial and cultural struggles, as well as differential treatment while applying for residency and fellowship training, and early career positions. Greater awareness of these challenges among the members of the hematology/oncology community, along with institutional and individual efforts to support IMGs, is warranted. CONCLUSION We encourage oncology professionals and institutions to join our efforts in recognizing the unique paths of IMGs and providing support and advocacy to maximize the potential of IMGs in the US oncology workforce.

29 Background: International Medical Graduates (IMGs) comprise over one-third of internal medicine (IM) trainees and practicing oncologists in the United States. We aimed to examine challenges faced by IM IMG residents in pursuing hematology-oncology (HO) fellowship positions. Methods: We conducted a pilot survey using SurveyPluto to assess demographics and evaluate visa related challenges amongst ACGME residents interested in HO. The survey was disseminated through the ASCO IMG Community of Practice (CoP), the Heme-Onc Fellows Mentorship Empowerment (H.O.M.E) group and the IMG Oncologists social media homepage (@IMG_Oncologists). Results: A total of 59 IMG residents completed the survey (20% PGY-1, 36% PGY-2 and 44% PGY-3). The majority of trainees (88%) were from community or university-affiliated community programs. J-1 visa was the most common visa type (67.8%). The visa process was rated as difficult or very difficult by 36% of trainees. Annual visa renewal was required by 51% trainees and 55.9% reported visa related impact on plans for research grant applications (Table). The greatest challenges associated with visa status were disruption of travel plans and inability to unite with family (35.6%); obtaining documentation from home country (33.9%); visa renewal (28.8%) and lack of clarity in visa instructions (27.1%). Among resources that respondents wanted better access to, IMG networking groups (81.4%), legal/financial aids (47.5%), institutional visa seminars (45.8%) and flexibility from their program to visit family overseas (45.8%) were identified as priorities. Conclusions: Visa related barriers pose significant challenges to IMGs interested in HO. Policy changes, advocacy work and additional resources could be beneficial for future IMG oncologists. Challenges associated with visa status for hematology/oncology aspirants. Greatest visa related barriers during training % of respondents (n=59) Documentation from home country 33.9% Disruption in travel plans/ inability to unite with family 35.6% Lack of clarity in renewal instructions/ renewal process post document procurement 55.9% Ability to secure grant affected by visa 22% Non-monetary grant aspects affected by visa 13.6% Did not pursue grants due to visa 20.3% Desired resources during residency Institutional visa seminars 45.8% IMG network groups 81.4% Program flexibility to visit family overseas/ legal and financial aids 45.8%/47.5%

9011 Background: 'Gender disparities' is a familiar term in medicine. Only 35.2% of oncologists in the U.S. self-identified as women in 2021. Women in medicine are undercompensated and underpromoted. Little is known of the experiences of non-U.S. female physicians in the U.S. We created the first cross-sectional study to assess gender disparities in IMGs and Puerto Rican medical graduates (PRMGs) in oncology in the U.S. Methods: An anonymous online survey was created and distributed via Survey Monkey. Eligible participants were non-U.S. IMGs and PRMGs who trained and/or practiced independently in the U.S. Participants were recruited through email and social media from Sept-Dec 2023. Bivariate association analyses were performed using the two-sample Wilcoxon test for ordered categorical variables and Fisher’s exact test for nominal categorical variables. Results: 97 IMGs and PRMGs in oncology completed the survey. As shown in the table, women were more likely to move to the U.S. for family (22.4% vs 6.2%, p=0.040), whereas men did more for financial gains (20.8% vs 6.1%, p=0.040). culture, particularly to the traditions (65.3% vs 43.8%;p=0.042) and dress code (44.9% vs 20.8%, p=0.017). Women experienced higher rates of gender discrimination during training (53.2% vs 4.5%, p <0.001) and independent practice (57.6% vs 3.6%, p<0.001) than men. Women were also more likely than men to face ethnic/racial discrimination during training (69.6% vs 38.1%; p=0.005). Despite lack of statistical significance, higher trends of ethnic/racial discrimination during independent practice were reported by women (table). More women reported no plans on returning home (68.8% vs 38.3%), whereas more men planned to return home at some point (38.3% vs 16.7%). 18.8% of men vs 0% of women elected leadership opportunities as the reason for returning to their home country (p=0.001). Conclusions: Our study reveals the unfortunate reality that many IMG and PRMG women face in oncology in the U.S. Despite national efforts to reduce the gap in gender disparities, minority women continue to experience racial/ethnic and gender discrimination at higher rates than men. To overcome inequities and achieve gender equity pay transparency, diversity in selection committees is necessary. Further, efforts should be across all settings, academia, private practice, and industry. The time for gender equity in oncology is now. [Table: see text]

9001 Background: With an increasingly diverse patient population in the U.S., the need for a diverse clinician workforce has been exemplified. In 2021, 28% of the practicing physicians in the U.S. were born/trained outside of the continental U.S. Though strides in promoting diversity among oncologists have been made, continuous longitudinal assessments and improvements are important to ensure goals are met. We conducted the first cross-sectional study to understand the challenges and experiences of IMGs and Puerto Rican (PR) medical graduates in oncology in the U.S. Methods: An anonymous online questionnaire via Survey Monkey was developed. Non-U.S. IMGs and PRMGs who trained and/or practicing independently in the U.S. were eligible to participate. The study launched on Twitter with promotional materials, inviting participants to complete the survey. A list of IMGs and PR medical graduates was also compiled and an email invitation with the survey link was sent to. The enrollment period was from Sept-Dec 2023. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 97 participants from oncology-related fields completed the survey. Most were attendings (62.9%), and women (50.5%). 95.9% were IMGs and 5.2% PRMGs. 79.4% participants migrated after medical school and 90.7% were still living In the U.S. The main reasons for migrating were looking for better training (63.9%), seeking professional gains (57.7%), and lack of opportunities in their home country (49.5%). Most had to adapt to new cuisine (51.5%), community (53.6%), traditions (54.6%), and celebrations (58.8%). Participants expressed the need to change their dress code (33%), tone of voice (39.2%), the way they spoke (51.5%), and conducted themselves (49.5%). Participants faced racial/ethnic (54.5%), gender (29.7%), and language (41.9%) discrimination during training in the U.S. Similarly, they experienced racial/ethnic (46.8%), gender (32.8%), and language (24.6%) discrimination during independent practice in U.S. Most participants reported moderate personal (57%), yet extreme professional (57.4%) satisfaction in the U.S. 10.5% of participants had returned to their home country, 27.4% planned to, and 53.7% did not plan to return. The main reasons for going back home were family (67%), quality of life (28.9%), and feelings of isolation/lack of community (22.7%). Conclusions: Our study reveals that the main reasons physicians migrate to the U.S. is for education and professional opportunities. Yet these could come at a high cost, leading foreign-born physicians to compromise their true identities. Despite increasing representation of IMGs and PRMGs in the medical field in the U.S., they remain victims of discrimination at frequent rates. It is imperative to implement changes beyond diversifying the work field and strive for equity to create a more conducive environment for minority physicians.

9000 Background: Despite IMGs accounting for up to one-third of all practicing oncologists in the United States, little is known about their contributions to presentations at international oncology meetings, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Therefore, we investigated the representation of IMGs in invited faculty roles at ASCO Annual Meetings. Methods: Speaker presentation details at ASCO 2022 and 2023 Annual Meetings were collected using publicly available program guides. We collected presentation-level variables of invited faculty roles (discussant, moderator, chairmanship, session topic presenter) and original research type (oral abstract, poster discussion, plenary session). Speaker-level variables comprised presumed gender, academic rank, and institution. Speakers were categorized into the following groups - American Medical Graduate (AMG): currently affiliated with a US institution, completed medical school in the US; IMG: affiliated with a US institution, completed medical school outside the US; non-US based speakers: affiliated with an institution outside the US; non-MD speakers. Univariable and multivariable analyses were employed to assess factors associated with the selection of presenters for invited faculty roles. Results: A total of 3337 presentations (1649 from 2022, 1688 from 2023) were included. 71.6% of the speakers were US-based, 56.6% were male and 40.5% were full professors. The highest proportion of podium presentations was by AMGs (48.5%), followed by non-US based (28.3%), IMGs (14.1%), and non-MD (9.1%) speakers. 57% of IMG presentations consisted of original research compared to 48.7% for AMGs (Table). Notably, compared to AMGs, IMGs were significantly less likely to be included in invited faculty roles (odds ratio [OR] 0.72 [95% CI 0.58 – 0.88], p <0.01), a finding that remained significant after accounting for gender and academic rank (adjusted OR 0.75 [0.61 – 0.94], p= 0.01). Conclusions: Relative to IMGs’ original research output, IMGs appear to receive less invitations for ASCO Annual Meeting invited faculty roles compared to AMGs. Our findings suggest potential under-representation and under-recognition of IMGs in these roles, despite their contributions to the oncology workforce in the US. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti–PD-1- or anti–PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was –0.06 months (95% CI, –5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, –4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.