Citations

Precision immuno-oncology involves the development of personalized cancer treatments that are influenced by the unique nature of an individual’s DNA, immune cells, and their tumor’s molecular characterization. Biological sex influences immunity; females typically mount stronger innate and adaptive immune responses than males. Though more research is warranted, we continue to observe an enhanced benefit for females with lung cancer when treated with combination chemoimmunotherapy in contrast to the preferred approach of utilizing immunotherapy alone in men. Despite the observed sex differences in response to treatments, women remain underrepresented in oncology clinical trials, largely as a result of gender-biased misconceptions. Such exclusion has resulted in the development of less efficacious treatment guidelines and clinical recommendations and has created a knowledge gap in regard to immunotherapy-related survivorship issues such as fertility. To develop a more precise approach to care and overcome the exclusion of women from clinical trials, flexible trial schedules, multilingual communication strategies, financial, and transportation assistance for participants should be adopted. The impact of intersectionality and other determinants of health that affect the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in women must also be considered in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the unique impact of immunotherapy in all women with lung cancer.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

11005 Background: Despite progress in the enrollment of underrepresented in medicine (UIM) individuals in medical schools, hematology/oncology (HO) remains one of the least diverse medical subspecialties. We evaluated current recruitment efforts and barriers to the inclusion of UIM individuals in HO fellowship programs. Methods: We conducted a national online survey of program directors (PDs) and associate PDs (reported in aggregate as PDs) of adult and pediatric HO fellowships. Each PD received a unique survey link via email and 4 email reminders over the 8-week study period. Interim results at 4-weeks are presented and summarized with descriptive statistics. Results: At a pre-defined interim time point of 4 weeks, 78 HO PDs participated (18% response rate) and 69 completed the survey (88% completion rate). Most self-identified as women (57%, n = 38) and White (55%, n = 37), were affiliated with an academic program (79%, n = 53), and led an adult HO fellowship (73%, n = 49). Most PDs reported under or no representation of UIM faculty in their divisions; 9% (n = 6) self-identified as UIM. PDs reported their HO fellowships matched a median of 3 UIM fellows over the last 5 years (IQR 2-5 over 5 years); 46% (n = 32) reported UIM recruitment was unchanged and 4% (n = 3) decreased during this period. About half of PDs (51%, n = 35), matched a UIM candidate in the 2023 match. Of the 21% (n = 14) of PDs whose programs had no UIM fellows, 0% matched a UIM applicant in the 2023 match. 52% (n = 36) of PDs endorsed an inability to match UIM applicants despite consistently ranking them highly. PDs perceive the top 3 barriers to UIM recruitment as: low number of UIM applicants (53%, n = 41), geographic program location (50%, n = 39), and lack of diverse faculty/fellows in their program (42%, n = 31). 10% (n = 7) also reported meeting resistance about DEI initiatives. While 53% (n = 41) of PDs believe fellow demographics should reflect the local population, 23% (n = 16) don’t know how to increase diversity and 11% (n = 8) do not believe their program’s diversity needs to increase. In answers to open ended questions, some PDs expressed disagreement with the definition of UIM and reported a perceived limited number of qualified UIM applicants. Almost all institutions provide DEI training (96%, n = 72) for faculty and most PDs believe it has improved recruitment and inclusion of diverse individuals (52% and 65%, respectively). Yet, 34% (n = 23) agree that UIM fellows in their program are treated differently because of their race/ethnicity and 22% (n = 15) agree that UIM fellows repress their identity or background to be respected by faculty, peers, and staff. Conclusions: Historically and currently excluded populations remain underrepresented in the HO workforce. PDs face multiple barriers to the recruitment of diverse fellows, including differing views on the definition of UIM and perception of the value of diversity in the physician workforce.

6636 Background: Equitable regional enrollment in clinical trials is critical to addressing global inequities in health care outcomes. Therefore, we quantified disparities in regional recruitment in global cancer trials. Methods: Phase II/III clinical trials in prostate (PC), breast (BC), colorectal (CRC) and lung cancer (LC), and reporting regional recruitment were identified from Medline. Global regions were defined as North-(NA) and South- America (SA), Europe (EU), Africa (AF), Asia (AS), and Australia (AU). For multi-regional trials, enrollment incidence ratios (EIR) which compare region-wise trial enrollment against global estimates of region-wise specific cancer incidence obtained from Global Burden of Disease 2019 database. Trial-level EIRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. A pooled EIR of < 1.0 indicates underrepresentation of a particular region in clinical trial enrollment compared to the actual burden of the specific cancer in that region. Statistical analyses were conducted in R v4.1.2. Results: Of the total 2125 trials identified, 1681 (79.1%) trials with 691,800 participants reported information regarding regional recruitment. Among those, only 1400 (65.9%) trials reported proportions of patients from pre-defined regions. A total of 1231 (57.9%) trials were single-regional recruiting patients from EU (589; 47.8%), NA (329; 26.7%), AS (295; 23.9%), AU (10; 0.8%), AF (4; 0.3%), and SA (4; 0.3%). There was significant underrepresentation of patients from AS (EIR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.41-0.54) in cancer clinical trials. This was consistent across different cancers: PC (0.49; 0.35-0.71), BC (0.63; 0.43-0.94), CRC (0.63; 0.43-0.94), LC (0.39; 0.30-0.50). Similarly, there is a trend of under-representation of patients from AF (0.67; 0.43-1.04). Consistently, patients from were under-represented in PC (0.43; 0.24-0.77) and LC (0.26; 0.09-0.79) trials. Patients from NA (1.27; 1.08-1.51), EU (1.64; 1.57-1.72), and AU (5.41; 3.90-7.51) were significantly over-represented in multi-regional cancer clinical trials. The results are provided in table. Conclusions: There is suboptimal reporting of region-wise enrollment in cancer clinical trials. Representation of Africa and Asia in cancer clinical trials appears to be less than their expected share based on their burden of cancer incidence. [Table: see text]

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

AbstractBackgroundIn 2016, the IDWeek program committee was charged with ensuring gender equity in speaker sessions. Whether this charge also resulted in more opportunities for historically underrepresented speakers is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of trends in the demographic composition of IDWeek speakers and program committee members between 2013 and 2021. We used descriptive statistics to summarize data, χ2 tests to compare speaker demographics between 2013–2016 (before 2016) and 2017–2021 (after 2016), and Cochran–Armitage tests for trend. Each speaker slot was considered an independent event.ResultsA total of 5482 speaker slots were filled by 3389 individuals from 2013 to 2021. There was a linear increase in female speakers from 38.6% in 2013 to 58.4% in 2021 (P &lt; .001). The proportion of white speakers decreased overall from 84.9% in 2013 to 63.5% in 2021. Compared with white speakers, more slots were filled by Asian speakers after 2016 versus before 2016 (20.1% vs 14.8%, respectively; P &lt; .001). Program committee members from 2013–2021 were &gt;80% non-Hispanic white; &lt;5% of committee members identified as black, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic. More program committee slots were filled by women after 2016 than before 2016 (52.7% vs 33.9%; P = .004).ConclusionsIntentional consideration of gender equity by the program committee was associated with equitable gender representation of invited speakers at IDWeek after 2016. Gradually, the proportions of IDWeek speakers from historically excluded racial/ethnic approached their respective proportions in the IDSA membership. White speakers remained overrepresented relative to membership proportions until 2021, and gaps in program committee racial/ethnic demographic representation highlights opportunities for continued inclusion, diversity, access, and equity at IDWeek.

175 Background: In 2009, ASCO confirmed that addressing cancer care disparities is critical for the Society and committed to approaches to eliminate such disparities. Yet, gaps remain in identifying the best approaches to do so. It remains unknown which cancer care providers serve patients from “underserved populations'' (defined as individuals who have historically received inadequate health care and health care services), what unmet needs they experience in their cancer care delivery, and how best to engage and support these providers. The objectives of this study were to explore challenges faced by providers serving underserved patients to inform development of a broader online survey and identify solutions that ASCO can implement to better support these providers. Methods: A multi-phase mixed-methods approach was utilized. Phase 1 involved key informant semi-structured interviews with 12 oncology providers caring for adult patients in the US from April to May 2021. Phase 2 involved survey development based on themes identified in Phase 1. The survey assessed: provider needs; processes for eliciting, documenting, and addressing social and economic needs of patients; and how ASCO could best support these providers. Phase 3 involved email distribution of the online survey in May 2022 to 5800 individuals identified through ASCO’s customer database. Eligibility criteria included providing care for adults with cancer in the US and prior consent to receive ASCO survey communications. Results: Of 477 respondents, the majority were ASCO members (88%), in an academic practice (57%), medical oncologists (77%), non-Hispanic (89%) and/or Caucasian/White (67%) and had > 15 years’ clinical experience (57%). A majority (60%) provided ≥25% of their clinical time providing cancer care to underserved populations and routinely engaged with administration to secure resources (61%) and local community organizations to obtain services (42%) for patients. Most (43-77%) indicated that a social worker/case manager was primarily responsible for addressing patient social needs. The majority reported that identification and dissemination of best practices (55%) and development of a return-on-investment business model (60%) would best help address patient needs. Some respondents expressed a desire to collaborate with ASCO on policy reform (32%) and for ASCO to help build or strengthen partnerships with local initiatives (29%). Conclusions: This is the first US-based survey assessing barriers and solutions to delivering cancer care among underserved populations. The findings from this work provide insights about how ASCO can help equip practices to address the social needs of their patients. Further work will be conducted to develop and implement suggested solutions.

72 Background: The integration of biopsychosocial screening programs (BSP) has been promoted as a way by which to identify unmet needs and to provide tailored treatments to patients. Studies have reported mixed outcomes regarding the impact of such services on hospital admissions during cancer treatment. This study sought to evaluate the effect of a BSP on hospital admissions and length of stay among a large, heterogenous sample of patients diagnosed with cancer (March 2020 to December 2021). Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients diagnosed with cancer receiving treatment at a single institution located in the capital of Brazil. We assessed patients’ characteristics via chart review (e.g., age, sex, histology, hospital admission, length of hospitalization). In addition, as per the BSP protocol, patients were assessed via standardized self-report questionnaires (Distress Thermometer, FACT-G, Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment), and appropriate interventions are provided. This program was offered at no cost to all patients and engagement was voluntary. We compared the number of hospital admissions and length of stay between groups (patients who participated in the BSP vs. those who did not). Mixed linear models adjusted for selected characteristics (age, type of cancer and disease stage) were assessed. Results: A total of 1014 patients were included in this analysis. From the total sample, 84% participated in the BSP and 20% were hospitalized for an average of 9 days (ranging from 1-80 days). Mostly patients were female (63%), median age was 63 years old. Breast cancer (26%), hematological (18%), and gastrointestinal cancer (14%) were the most common types of cancer, and the majority had advanced disease (stage III-IV; 67%). Compared to those who engaged in the BSP, patient’s characteristics were well balanced, however, the proportion of patients hospitalized during their cancer treatment was higher among patients who did not participate in the BSP (27% vs 8%: P = 0.001), as was the length of hospitalization spent more days in the hospital than patients who has participated in the BSP (M = 9.5 days vs M = 4.2 days; P = 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings suggest the benefit of a BSP in reducing hospitalizations and length of stay among patients with cancer. An integrated model of care may assist in targeting patient’s unmet needs and may positively impact clinical and hospital-based outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the effects of a BSP among a Brazilian population using real world data.