Citations

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.

e12545 Background: Palbociclib(P), Ribociclib(R) and Abemaciclib(A) in combination with Endocrine therapy (ET) have demonstrated progression free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as compared to ET alone. In the absence of head to head clinical trials and to provide clinical guidance, we performed an indirect comparison for P, R and A using network Meta-Analysis (NMA). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs comparing P+ET, R+ET, A+ ET vs ET alone. NMA for PFS and toxicity endpoints was conducted using a multivariate random-effects meta-regression, using a consistency model, as described by White and colleagues. We used a frequentist approach and provided a point estimate from the network and a 95% CI from the frequency distribution of the estimate. We also estimated the relative ranking of the different treatments for each outcome using the distribution of the ranking probabilities and the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration tool. Results: 8 RCTs were identified including 4580 patients. Risk of bias was low. 5 RCTs tested CDK 4/6 inhibitors in endocrine naive and 2 in the refractory setting, while MONALESSA-3 included patients both with endocrine naive and endocrine resistant disease. In the endocrine naïve patients, PFS for P was similar when compared indirectly with R (HR, 0.95, 95% CI 0.67-1.35) or A (HR, 1.00, 95% CI 0.62-1.61). Similarly, indirect comparison between R vs A did not show any statistical significant (HR, 0.95, 95% CI 0.62-1.45). In endocrine refractory patients, P showed no difference when compared indirectly to A (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.87) or R (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.52-1.86). R vs A did not show any statistically significant PFS either (HR, 1.14, 95% CI 1.61-4.51). P was ranked first in terms of PFS in frontline setting (SUCRA of 70.5) while R ranked first in the refractory setting (SUCRA of 39.5). QT prolongation was reported for R only. P caused more neutropenia while A caused more fatigue, anemia and diarrhea, although the results were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The efficacy of using either palbociclib, ribociclib or abemaciclib in combination with ET was similar in terms of PFS in either endocrine naïve or resistant disease. Palbociclib causes more neutropenia, abemaciclib causes more fatigue, anemia and diarrhea while ribociclib causes QT prolongation.

e12057 Background: Several RCTs have evaluated a shorter duration of T ( < 12 months) with hopes of similar efficacy, reduced cardiotoxicity, cost and burden of treatment. Of the 5 major studies, PERSPHONE showed that 6 months was non-inferior compared to 12 months. However, four additional studies of shorter duration failed to demonstrate non-inferiority. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the optimal duration of adjuvant T. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus and conference proceedings were searched to identify RCTs comparing one year of adjuvant T with a shorter duration in early-stage HER2+ breast cancer. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects Meta-Analysis was performed using CMAv3 software to derive pooled Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates for overall survival (OS, Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Odds Ratio(OR) estimates of cardiac toxicity. Q-test was used to assess between-study heterogeneity; I2 statistic was computed to express the percentage of the total observed variability due to study heterogeneity. The risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: We screened 1772 citations and identified 5 studies(n = 11,377) for analysis. 5691 patients were randomized to 12 months of adjuvant T while 5686 were randomized to a shorter duration (3 studies evaluated 6 vs 12 months, 2 studies evaluated 9 weeks vs 12 months). OS (HR, 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31, P= 0.015,I2 0.00, p= 0.837) and DFS (HR, 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.26 , P = 0.016,I2 14.90, p= 0.319) were significantly worse in patients receiving shorter duration T as compared to 12 months. Cardiotoxicity was significantly higher in the 12 month group vs shorter duration (OR, 2.10, 95% CI 1.58-2.80, p = 0.000 ,I2 51.182, p= 0.085). Grade 3/4 cardiac events and cardiac events leading to discontinuation of therapy were significantly higher in patients receiving 12 months (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60-2.63, P = 0.000, I2 3.967, p= 0.384). There was no significant heterogeneity among studies. Risk of bias was low. Conclusions: Twelve months of adjuvant T is associated with significantly better DFS and OS compared to a shorter duration. As such, 12 months should remain the standard of care for most patients. There is an unmet need to identify lower risk groups which might do well with from shorter duration of HER2-directed therapy.

Background: Four large RCTs (ASSURE, S-TARC, PROTECT, ATLAS) tested adjuvant VEGF-TKI therapy in high risk RCC. The results were variable for efficacy and there were concerns for increased toxicity and decline in quality of life (QoL). We performed an updated meta-analysis including results of ATLAS trial to asses a risk-benefit for adjuvant post-operative treatments in high risk RCC patients by assessing reported disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity endpoints. Methods: Literature search was done using Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to pool estimates for DFS, OS, and common side effects across the 4 trials. A subgroup analysis was performed for sunitinib alone because of its FDA approval. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane Q statistic and was quantified with I2 test. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: The 4 RCTs included 4,820 patients. Adjuvant therapy with TKIs yielded no significant improvement in DFS or OS as compared to placebo (DFS HR=0.916; 95% CI, 0.832–1.009 and OS HR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.886–1.150). Separate analysis of DFS in sunitinib vs placebo did not show any benefit (2 studies, N=1,909; HR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.67–1.19). Use of TKIs was associated with significantly increased risk of drug toxicity. Increased risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (RR=5.110; 95% CI, 3.765–6.935), diarrhea (RR=10.725; 95% CI, 4.672–24.622), fatigue (RR=3.310; 95% CI, 1.879–5.829), hypertension (RR=4.274; 95% CI, 3.452–5.292) and palmar/plantar dysesthesia (RR=20.53; 95% CI, 9.006–46.801) was observed. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity amongst included trials. QoL endpoints were inconsistently reported. Risk of bias was low. Conclusions: This pooled analysis provides further evidence that there is no OS or DFS benefit associated with adjuvant TKI treatment. There was a significantly increased risk of grade 3 or 4 toxicity in greater than half of the patient population leading to decline in QoL during TKI therapy. Carefully selected very high-risk patients who can tolerate these agents without dose modifications may benefit from adjuvant TKI approach.

263 Background: In non-metastatic CRPC with short PSA doubling time, APA or ENZA with ADT have shown to slow development of metastasis. We performed an indirect comparison of APA and ENZA clinical effectiveness (efficacy and side effects) using network meta-analysis. Methods: A search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify relevant RCTs. Collected data included hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for primary outcome of median time to metastasis free survival (MFS) and secondary outcomes of median time to overall survival (OS), PSA progression, initiation of cytotoxic therapy and number of adverse events (AE) in each study arm. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. We used a fixed effects model using Bayesian approach to generate pooled estimates. Results: Two randomized trials (n=2608) were analyzed. SPARTAN trial compared APA plus ADT to ADT alone and PROSPER compared ENZA plus ADT to ADT alone. Risk of bias was low. There were no statistically significant differences between APA and ENZA in MFS, OS, median time to PSA progression and initiation of cytotoxic therapy. The MFS endpoint hazard ratio (HR) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.73-1.28) for comparing the two drugs. APA had fewer reports of hypertension (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.91) compared to enzalutamide. However, no significant differences were observed in other AEs including grade 3 or higher AE, serious AE, AE leading to death or trial discontinuation. Common AEs (nausea, diarrhea, fall, dizziness, arthralgia, weight loss) and AEs of special interests (mental impairment disorders, seizures) were also comparable between APA and ENZA. Conclusions: In non-metastatic CRPC with short PSA doubling time, APA and ENZA showed similar time to metastasis free survival. APA was associated with lower incidence of hypertension than ENZA; otherwise, side effect profile was similar. Given similar efficacy and risk profile demonstrated in this study, clinical decision making should depend on other factors such as cost and availability.