Hook, C. Christopher

Background: The term classical hematology (CH), referring to a subspecialty focusing on non-cancer blood disorders, was officially adopted by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in 2022. There is a perceived shortage of classical hematologists, although data are limited (Winter JN, Hematologist 2022). Prior studies have shown that <6% of hematology-oncology fellows pursue a practice subspecializing in CH after training (Todd RF, Blood 2004; Marshall Al, Blood Adv 2018). Moreover, mentorship is consistently cited as the most important factor guiding fellows' career decisions (Sharma D, Blood Adv 2019; Masselink LE, Blood Adv 2019). To help bridge the CH workforce gap, ASH has supported additional hematology-focused fellowship programs (HFFP) within select hematology-oncology fellowship programs. CH constitutes a large proportion of consults in US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers (West CV, JCO Oncol Pract 2024). The goals of our study were: 1) to determine the proportion of adult hematologist-oncologists within NCI cancer centers who practice CH; and 2) to describe the physician characteristics of cancer centers with HFFP and compare these centers to those without HFFP. Methods: We included all NCI-designated cancer centers with a clinical program as of April 1, 2024. The only exception was St Jude Children's Hospital due to its pediatric focus. We obtained the practice profile of each internal medicine-trained adult hematologist-oncologist (henceforth, physician) as well as the availability of HFFP from the respective cancer center websites. We also searched the corresponding department of medicine and division of hematology at each affiliated academic institution to ensure inclusion of all physicians practicing CH. Each physician was classified into one of the following categories: classical hematologist (attending to only non-cancer conditions), general hematologist-oncologist (cancer and non-cancer conditions), and oncologist (cancer only). The number of hematology-oncology fellowship programs in the US was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results: We included 64 NCI-designated cancer centers, 55 of which were considered as comprehensive cancer centers. There was a total of 4,616 physicians (3,891 oncologists [84.3%], 487 hematologists-oncologists [10.6%], and 238 classical hematologists [5.1%]). The median numbers of physicians, oncologists, general hematologist-oncologists, and classical hematologists per center were 55 (range, 16-275), 45 (range, 12-270), 5 (range, 0-48), and 3 (range, 0-13), respectively. The median proportions of classical hematologists and physicians practicing CH (general hematologist-oncologists plus classical hematologists) were 5.1% (range, 0-20.0) and 14.9% (range, 0-55.6%), respectively. There were 12 HFFP within NCI-designated cancer centers (18.8%). Most (11/12) centers with HFFP had >50 physicians (median 95 [range, 38-185]) and >5% classical hematologists (median 6% [range, 3.8-13.5%]); 11 centers with similar characteristics did not have HFFP. Centers with HFFP have significantly higher numbers of physicians (median 95.0 [range, 38-185] vs 49.5 [range, 16-275]; P=0.001) and classical hematologists (median 6.0 [range, 3-13] vs 2.0 [range, 0-11]; P<0.001) but similar proportions of classical hematologists (median 6.0% [range, 3.8-13.5] vs 4.5% [range, 0-20.0]; P=0.078) and physicians practicing CH (median 12.3% [range, 6.5-47.7] vs 15.7% [range, 0-55.6]; P=0.402) compared to those without HFFP. Conclusions: Among adult hematologist-oncologists at NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 20 are classical hematologists, although 1 in 7 have CH as part of their practice. Within NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 5 have an HFFP. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity for NCI-designated cancer centers to encourage and recruit physicians subspecializing in CH and a rationale to create additional HFFPs. These measures may help further alleviate CH workforce shortages and expand CH mentorship to meet the needs of an increasingly complex subspecialty within hematology.

Background The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) launched the Diversity in Oncology initiative in 2017 to address the need for increased minority representation in the hematology-oncology workforce. A recent series of reports, titled “State of the Oncology Workforce in America,” published in JCO Oncology Practice in 2021 and 2022, focused on this issue. Notably, these reports did not include any data regarding the representation of Asian minorities in the field. Therefore, our objective was to assess the proportion of Asian professionals within the hematology-oncology workforce, encompassing both practitioners and trainees. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search for publicly available data regarding Asian representation among US hematology-oncology practitioners and trainees in both adult and pediatric fields. Our primary data sources included the 2020 US Census, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and various professional societies. We defined practitioners to include hematologist-oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical oncologists, hematopathologists, hematology-oncology nurse practitioners, hematology-oncology physician assistants, and nurses specializing in hematology-oncology. Trainees encompassed fellows and residents. Additionally, we gathered comparable data on the US population, medical students, adult internal medicine residents, gynecology residents, pediatric residents, pathology residents, surgery residents, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. To provide a comprehensive overview of the hematology-oncology workforce, we utilized data from 2020 to 2022, and whenever possible, we collected longitudinal data on trainees over the years. Results As of 2020, Asians represented 6.2% of the US population. Among hematology-oncology physician practitioners, the percentage of Asian individuals ranges from 14.7% to 32.1%, including 32.1% of adult hematologist-oncologists, 20.4% of pediatric hematologist-oncologists, 25.9% of radiation oncologists, 14.7% of gynecologic oncologists, and 7.0% of hematology-oncology physician assistants. In the realm of physician trainees, Asian representation is between 17.9% and 35.3%, with 35.3% of adult hematology-oncology fellows, 20.0% of pediatric hematology-oncology fellows, 26.4% of radiation oncology residents, and 17.9% of gynecologic oncology fellows. Additionally, the proportion of Asian residents from which hematology-oncology fellows are drawn ranges from 14.9% to 35.9%. Specifically, 35.9% of internal medicine residents, 22.0% of pediatric residents, 14.9% of gynecology residents, 26.6% of pathology residents, and 19.2% of surgical residents are Asian. Furthermore, 26.7% of medical students identify as Asian. Notably, the proportions of Asian hematology-oncology trainees and medical students have remained relatively stable from 2005 to 2022. Data on hematopathologists, surgical oncologists, and non-physician practitioners are limited, although Asian representation among hematology-oncology physician assistants is 7.0% and among nurses is 7.2%. Conclusions Asians comprise a large segment of the hematology-oncology workforce in the US. While only 1 in 20 people in the US are Asians, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 hematology-oncology physician practitioners and trainees, are Asians. Data are limited for non-physician practitioners. Asian minority representation should be highlighted and considered as an example of success in diversity in hematology-oncology workforce. This framework should be embraced moving forward to continue advancing minority representation throughout the field of hematology-oncology.

Purpose: The discovery of MAPK/ERK pathway mutations has led to the approval of MEK-inhibitor (MEKi) cobimetinib in histiocytic neoplasms. However, the pivotal clinical trial that led to the approval of cobimetinib included only 4 patients with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH). Therefore, there is a need to define outcomes with MEKi therapy in patients with LCH. We undertook a multi-center collaboration through the Adult LCH Working Group for the Histiocyte Society to address this gap in knowledge. Methods: Adults with LCH who received MEKi therapy were included from five institutions. Objective response rate (ORR) was evaluated using PET/CT criteria, and CT/MRI if PET scan was not available; response categories were categorized into complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the time of targeted therapy initiation. Risk organ disease was defined as liver, spleen, or bone marrow involvement. Results: 25 adults with LCH were included in this study; median age at MEKi initiation 43y (range, 18-85). Most common systems involved at diagnosis were bone (52%), pituitary (44%), and lung (36%). Risk organ involvement was observed in 7 (28%, 6 liver, 1 liver and spleen) and 2 (8%) patients had intra-axial CNS involvement. Median lines of prior therapy received were 2 (range: 1-5), and 4 (16%) patients received MEKi in first-line. MAPK/ERK pathway status was assessed via target capture next generation sequencing (NGS) in 22 (96%) cases. Amongst those who underwent NGS, alterations identified included: BRAF V600E (2/22, 9%), BRAF deletions (11/22 50%), MAP2K1 or MEK mutations (4/22, 18%), and MAPK1 or ERK2 (n=1, 5%). Overall, 5 patients also received BRAF inhibitors (4 patients as first therapy prior to MEKi and 1 concomitantly due to BRAF V600E positive melanoma). Specific MEKi agents utilized included cobimetinib (n=13) and trametinib (n=12). Among the response evaluable patients (n=23), ORR to MEKi treatment was 78% (9 CR, 9 PR, 4 SD, 1 PD). Among the 7 patients with liver involvement, responses were seen in 2 (29%) cases. ORR did not significantly differ according to mutation status among those with NGS data (78% MAPK mutated vs. 100% unmutated; p=1.0). In this subcohort, all of the 4 cases that did not respond to MEKi had liver involvement; 3 had BRAF deletions (2 SD and 1 PD), and one had MAPK1 mutation (SD). Median follow-up duration after MEKi initiation in the entire cohort was 18 months (95% CI 6 - 30). The median PFS and OS were not reached; 2-year PFS and OS were 78.1% and 79.9%, respectively (Figure 1A). The median PFS was much shorter in those with liver involvement (7 months [95% CI 0 - 14]) compared with those without liver disease (not reached [95% CI 19-not reached] P=0.047; Figure 1B). PFS did not differ significantly between MAPK pathway mutated and unmutated patients (p=0.34) Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 36% (n=9) and most commonly included rash (n=5) and fatigue (n=3). Four patients experienced grade 3-4 AEs including rash, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia. Common causes of MEKi discontinuation included AEs (n=3), progression (n=2), and drug holiday (n=2). At last follow-up, 5 patients died and 18 remained on MEKi. Death was attributable to LCH (n=3), concomitant malignancy (n=1), or unknown causes (n=1). Conclusions: In our multi-institutional study of adults with LCH, we found MEKi therapy to be highly efficacious. However, liver involvement correlated with a lack of response and worse PFS, while mutational status did not. Future studies are needed to evaluate optimum treatment for high-risk subgroups of LCH like liver disease.

AbstractThe current study was approached with the assumption that response to induction chemotherapy, in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), overshadows pre‐treatment risk variables in predicting survival and therefore be used as an anchor for a simplified risk model. We considered 759 intensively‐treated patients with AML, not promyelocytic: median age 60 years; primary 66%, secondary 25%, and therapy‐related 9%; European LeukemiaNet cytogenetic risk category favorable 8%, intermediate 61%, and adverse 31%. Complete remission with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery was achieved in 608 (80%) patients. After a median follow‐up of 22 months, 503 deaths, 272 relapses, and 257 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (AHSCTs) were recorded. Multivariable analysis identified failure to achieve CR/CRi (HR 3.8, 95% CI 3.1–4.8), adverse karyotype (2.2, 1.8–2.8), and age >55 years (2.1, 1.6–2.7) as main risk factors for survival. HR‐weighted scoring resulted in four‐tiered risk stratification: low (0 points; N = 183), intermediate‐1 (1 point; N = 331), intermediate‐2 (2 points; N = 117), and high (≥3 points; N = 128), with respective median survival (5‐year rate) not reached (68%), 34 (37%), 13 (20%), and 5 (5%) months (p < .001). FLT3‐ITD mutation was associated with inferior survival in intermediate‐1 (p = .004) and TP53 in intermediate‐2 (p = .06) and high (p = .02) risk disease; the latter was fully accounted for by the close association between TP53 mutation and complex/monosomal karyotype while the observations regarding FLT3‐ITD were not affected by treatment with midostaurin. AHSCT had a favorable impact on survival, most apparent in intermediate‐1 (p < .001), intermediate‐2 (p = .03), and high (p = .01) risk disease. The proposed 3‐factor survival model offers a novel prototype that is amenable to further enhancement by molecular information and was validated in an external cohort of 1032 intensively‐treated AML patients.