Citations

PURPOSE: Gender disparity persists in academic medicine. Female faculty are underrepresented in leadership positions and have lower research output. We studied gender differences in faculty rank and departmental leadership and contributing factors among academic hematologists and oncologists in the United States. METHODS: For clinical faculty at 146 hematology or oncology fellowship programs listed in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database, we collected data on demographics, academic rank, and research output using the Doximity and Scopus databases. We compared unadjusted characteristics of men and women by using 2-sided t tests and χ2 tests where appropriate. To predict probability of full professorship or leadership position among men versus women, we performed multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for clinical experience in years, number of publications, h-index, clinical trial investigator status, National Institutes of Health funding, and workplace ranking (top 20 v not). RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred sixty academic hematologists and oncologists were included. Women composed 21.9% (n = 142) of full professors, 35.7% (n = 169) of associate professors, and 45.4% (n = 415) of assistant professors. Thirty percent (n = 70) of departmental leaders were women. Female faculty, compared with male faculty, had a lower mean h-index (12.1 v 20.9, respectively; P < .001) and fewer years of professional experience since fellowship (10 v 16 years, respectively; P < .001). After adjusting for duration of clinical experience, academic productivity, and workplace ranking, the odds of obtaining professorship (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.57; P = .85) or divisional leadership (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.58; P = .28) for female physicians were not different compared with male physicians. CONCLUSION: Gender disparity exists in senior ranks of academic hematology and oncology; however, gender is not a significant predictor in achieving professorship or department leadership position.

PURPOSE: There is a concern that influenza vaccination could increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. The aim of our study was to determine the safety of influenza vaccination in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who received at least 1 dose of pembrolizumab during any influenza season from September 2014 to August 2017 and reviewed medical records for irAEs. The primary endpoint was the incidence of irAEs. We used multivariable logistic regression and cumulative incidence curve with competing risks for comparison. RESULTS: Among 162 patients with cancer included in this study, 70 patients (43.2%) received at least 1 influenza vaccination. The vaccinated group was significantly older ( P = .002) and received more cycles of pembrolizumab ( P = .006). The incidence of any grade irAEs in the vaccinated group trended toward being lower (25.7% v 40.2%; P = .07) compared with the nonvaccinated group. Influenza vaccination was independently associated with fewer irAEs, with an odds ratio of 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9; P = .03) in multivariable analyses. The vaccinated group was less likely to have irAEs compared with the nonvaccinated group (24.7% v 34.4% at 12 months; P = .05), with death as a competing risk. The median irAE-free duration in the vaccinated group was longer than the nonvaccinated group (not reached v 28 months; P = .037). CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy was not associated with increased irAEs. This supports the safety of influenza vaccination in this patient population.

Background Thromboprophylaxis is routinely used with lenalidomide‐based regimens in multiple myeloma because of a substantial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known about the incidence of VTE with contemporary lenalidomide‐based regimens. The objective of the current study was to estimate the incidence of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis with currently used lenalidomide‐based regimens in patients with myeloma. Methods The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from study inception to January 2019 for keywords to cover the following concepts: “lenalidomide,” “venous thromboembolism,” and “multiple myeloma.” Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials evaluating lenalidomide‐based regimens with thromboprophylaxis were included. The pooled incidence rate of VTE was estimated using a random‐effects model. Results The search generated 1372 citations, with 51 clinical trials and 9069 patients included for analysis. The most common thromboprophylaxis agents were aspirin, low‐molecular‐weight heparin or warfarin, administered either per risk‐stratification or at investigators' discretion. The pooled incidence of VTE in trials of patients who had newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory myeloma was 6.2% (95% CI, 5.4%‐7.1%) over median treatment durations ranging from 2 to 34 cycles, which translated into 1.2 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles (95% CI, 0.9‐1.7 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles). Among contemporary regimens, the risk of VTE was low with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone (0.2 [95% CI, 0.1‐0.6] events/100 patient‐cycles) and lenalidomide maintenance (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0‐0.7] events per 100 patient‐cycles). VTE risk was higher with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone plus proteasome inhibitors (1.3 [95% CI, 0.7‐2.3] events per 100 patient‐cycles). Conclusions Despite adequate thromboprophylaxis, lenalidomide‐based regimens have a substantial risk of VTE in controlled clinical trial settings. Further studies are needed on new thromboprophylaxis strategies with regimens that have a high VTE risk.

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.

Introduction Despite more robust attempts to deliver chemotherapy in the outpatient setting, certain regimens for hematologic malignancies require inpatient hospitalization for treatment and monitoring clinical status. Increased length of stay (LOS) for planned chemotherapy admissions leads to increased healthcare utilization and decreased patient satisfaction. We sought to identify potentially modifiable risk factors for increased LOS. Methods Planned chemotherapy admissions to the inpatient hematology services at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) from October 2018 through March 2019 were reviewed. We included patients who had treatment plans based on four pre-specified common regimens for acute myeloid leukemia, relapsed non-Hodgkins lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Patients who remained in the hospital for lack of caregiver support were excluded. Patient characteristics, including age, malignancy type, and chemotherapy regimen were recorded. Encounter characteristics included day of week of admission, time of admission, time chemotherapy plan initiated, and whether or not all necessary procedures (labs, vascular access, chemo orders) were completed prior to admission. Primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcome was time to treatment initiation (TTI) after admission. Results There were 100 planned admissions for patients receiving four regimens: cytarabine consolidation, EPOCH, ICE, VDT-PACE, during the six month review period. Thirty-six admissions did not occur as planned (regimen changed, rescheduled, or disease progression). Of the remaining 66 admissions, 11 outliers were excluded from primary analysis. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Univariate analysis with independent t-test found no difference in LOS for patients who had physician chemotherapy orders in place prior to admission. To the contrary, we detected a non-significant trend toward longer mean length of stay for patients that were not seen in clinic on day of admission (Table 2). On ANOVA, there was a statistically significant difference in LOS when comparing Monday admissions 3.93 days (95% CI 3.07 to 4.79) vs Friday 5.25 days (95% CI, 4.86 to 5.64), but not between any other days. There were no statistically significant differences in TTI when comparing by day of week, physician order status, or chemotherapy regimen. Again, a non-significant trend toward increased TTI was observed for patients not seen in clinic on the same day as admission. Conclusions This study serves as a starting point towards identifying modifiable factors that are essential to delivery of safe, satisfying inpatient care to our hematological malignancy patients.Our noteworthy finding regarding patients who were admitted on Friday having a longer LOS than those admitted on Monday requires further exploration. This study is ongoing with mature data to be presented at the meeting. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Carfilzomib (Car), a second-generation proteasome inhibitor (PI), has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as therapy for relapsed and /or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), either as a single agent or in combination with other agents. It has proven to be superior in many ways compared to the the first generation PI, bortezomib, both in terms of superior efficacy and neuropathy related adverse effect profile. Carfilzomib has lower rate of peripheral neuropathy. In this review, we gathered data from trials which studied Carfilzomib for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). Carfilzomib based two and three drug combination as induction regimens for the management of NDMM is an emerging approach. Through this systematic review, we explore efficacy, adverse effect profile of Car based regimens for NDMM. Methods: Per PRISMA guidelines, a thorough database search was conducted on 06/24/2019 using the following search engines; PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov. We included all published trials that used carfilzomib as an induction agent in NDMM patients and had at least response rates after induction. Results: The total number of articles identified with initial search were 1131, out of which 19 articles met our selection / eligibility criteria (n=2286). The overall response rates (ORR) after induction therapy with carfilzomib based regimens was very impressive (range: 84.3% - 100%). Two drug combination using carfilzomib and dexamethasone (n=72) had an ORR of 90% and a greater than very good partial response rate (>VGPR) of 84%. Three drug combinations used for induction therapy included carfilzomib/dexamethasone with immunomodulators (n=391) and alkylating agents (n=308). The combination of carfilzomib/dexamethasone with lenalidomide (n=189, ORR: 97% - 98%, >VGPR: 69% - 98%) and thalidomide (n=202, ORR: 90% - 94%, >VGPR: 66% - 68%) showed the best response. Alkylating agents used in combination with carfilzomib were melphalan (n=98, ORR: 90% - 93%, >VGPR: 58% - 70%), cyclophosphamide (n=192, ORR: 87% - 95%, >VGPR: 39% - 71%) and bendamustine (n=18, ORR; 100%, >VGPR: 89%). Four drug combinations with carfilzomib used were daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (n=22, ORR: 100%, >VGPR: 90%, 12m PFS: 95%) and cyclophosphamide / thalidomide / dexamethasone (n=64, ORR; 91%, >VGPR: 69%, 24m PFS: 76%). One trial directly compared carfilzomib/melphalan/dexamethasone (n=478, ORR: 84%, >VGPR: 61%, PFS: 22.3m) with bortezomib/melphalan/dexamethasone (n=477, ORR: 79%, >VGPR: 49%, PFS: 22.1m). Another trial compared the combination of carfilzomib / dexamethasone with lenalidomide (n=315) or cyclophosphamide (n=159) that showed similar ORR (97% vs 91%) though >VGPR rate was better with lenalidomide (75% vs 60%). Efficacy data including progression free survival (PFS) for carfilzomib based regimens is reported in table 1. Most common >grade 3 hematological adverse effects reported were anemia (2% - 35%), lymphopenia (5% - 76%), thrombocytopenia (4% - 28%) and neutropenia (1% - 38%). Most Common >grade 3 non-hematological adverse events included cardiac events (5% - 10%), respiratory disorders (8% - 16%), infections (2% - 9%), hypertension (6% - 17%), renal events (9% - 10%) and hyperglycemia (6% - 23%). (Table 1) Conclusion: The overall efficacy and favorable adverse effect profile of Carfilzomib-based induction regimens seem very promising for the treatment of NDMM. Car is now approved for weekly dosing which is convenient. Due to cardiovascular toxicity seen in upto 10% cases, Car should be used very judiciously in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and heart failure. Several ongoing phase 3 clinical trials are studying Carfilzomib in various combinations will help to establish foundation for future standard therapy as well as next phase of drug development through clinical trials. Disclosures Anwer: In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction Amyloidosis is a rare disease and there are currently no FDA approved therapies for AL amyloidosis. Most of the therapeutic and disease data come from expert guidelines, consensus and retrospective review papers. There is a paucity of data specifically for relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis (RRAL). We conducted this systematic review of clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies to evaluate patterns of relapse and therapeutic options for RRAL. Methods PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies on RRAL. Studies were selected according to PRISMA guidelines. Cross-trial comparison of included studies and meta-analysis could not be performed for a number of reasons but mainly due to a limited number of studies on one particular treatment regimen. Results From a total of 511 studies, 11 studies (n= 698 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Five were phase I/II clinical trials, five retrospective cohort studies, and one prospective cohort study. Most studies had less than 50 patients. The largest study, a retrospective cohort by Tandon et al. included 366 patients. Mean age was 61.2. Three studies reported 2 median prior lines of therapy (n= 22, 28, and 84 patients); two reported 3 median prior lines of therapy (n= 25 and 24) and 6 studies didn't specify this data. Prior treatment options included proteasome inhibitors (PI), most commonly bortezomib (n= 259), followed by melphalan (n=211), high dose melphalan and stem cell transplant (HDM/SCT [n= 207]) and IMiDs most commonly lenalidomide (n=154). Time to progression (TTP) from first-line treatment was reported in only 4 studies as 1 month, 5 months, 5 months and 34 months respectively. The study reporting a TTP of 34-months had 11 patients who received HDM/SCT as first line treatment. Three studies reported information about their criteria for initiation of subsequent treatment. Subsequent treatment was mostly a combination regimen with dexamethasone or an alkylating agent. The only agent evaluated as single agent was bortezomib in a phase I/II clinical trial by Reece et al. Therapeutic options for RRAL are PI (non-specific) based therapy (n= 145), lenalidomide (n= 105), bortezomib (n= 99), IMiD (non-specific) based therapy (n=83), melphalan based therapy (n= 33), carfilzomib (n=28), pomalidomide (n=27), ASCT (n= 25), daratumumab (n=25) and bendamustine (n=22). Efficacy: Hematologic responses were reported to be following: bortezomib + dexamethasone/melphalan (85%, n=17/20), daratumumab + dexamethasone (76%, n= 19/25), HDM/ASCT (73%, n= 8/11), single agent bortezomib (67%, n=23/34), carfilzomib ± dexamethasone (63%, n= 15/24), lenalidomide + dexamethasone (61%, n=51/84), bendamustine + dexamethasone (55%, 11/22) and pomalidomide + dexamethasone (50%, 12/24). Five of eleven studies reported organ responses which ranged from 18% to 23%. The studies which reported organ responses had evaluated the following agents: single agent bortezomib, carfilzomib ± dexamethasone, lenalidomide + dexamethasone, and bendamustine + dexamethasone. Best survival outcomes were seen with bortezomib with median overall survival (OS) 62 months. With bendamustine and dexamethasone (retrospective cohort study n=22) median OS was 31 months. With lenalidomide + dexamethasone (prospective cohort study n=24 ) median OS was 14 months. For the remaining studies, the median OS was either not reported or not reached at the time of presentation of data. Conclusion AL amyloidosis patients progressing after front line therapy show good responses with bortezomib (median overall survival of 62 months). Novel combinations using lenalidomide, pomalidomide, carfilzomib, daratumumab, and bendamustine show promising efficacy. Ongoing trials of daratumumab (AMYDARA trial) and ixazomib (TOURAMALINE-AL1) will bring further insight into therapeutic armamentarium for RRAL patients. After relapse, a salvage HDM/ASCT can be considered. Comparisons of regimen efficacy between studies are not practical because of multiple factors which include but are not limited to heterogenous nature of AL patients, small sample sizes, variable prior treatments, exposure to novel agents, observational study versus clinical trial and variable endpoints. Table Disclosures Anwer: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau.

241 Background: In a rapidly moving field, such as cancer immunotherapy, where immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used across 14 different tumor types, patients may receive suboptimal treatment or even be harmed if information on toxicity is not readily translated for use in clinical practice. Every single systematic review and meta-analysis which attempted to summarize toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) quickly became outdated. A living systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situation. Methods: The process of creating a living systematic review started with the creation of a comprehensive search designed by a librarian experienced in systematic reviews in collaboration with the study’s principle investigator. Search was constantly updated every 3 months and evidence is synthesized in a series of steps (microtasks) using a combination of human and augmented intelligence. A complete infrastructure is being developed and it includes automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform which will constantly update information for clinicians and patients in a live manner. Results: We screened 6746 studies during Sep 2018-March 2019 and identified 6746 studies and we were able to successfully maintain up-to-date toxicity estimates for immune mediated adverse events over this period while maintaining the rigor of a conventional systematic review. Eventually, we will integrate the steps of LSR into one, user-friendly, semi-automated format which can independently provide accurate estimates and feed into and support a living guidelines platform through shared Application Programing Interface (APIs). Conclusions: LSRs are feasible, efficient, and when fully developed can reduce redundancy and waste in medical research, improve the quality of evidence, reduce human effort and support living and dynamic guidelines to facilitate truly informed shared decision making.