Citations

9524 Background: Unresectable melanoma in-transit metastases (ITM) can pose a significant clinical challenge. Our recently published data comparing first-line treatments for ITM, isolated limb infusion or perfusion (ILI/ILP), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC), found superior outcomes with TVEC. However, TVEC was used more often in patients with lower disease burden and earlier stage (IIIB vs. IIIC/D). Therefore, we sought to better investigate these differences with a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Methods: A multi-institutional, international IRB- approved retrospective analysis was conducted for unresectable melanoma ITM from 2016-2022. PSM analysis comparing first-line ILI/ILP, ICI, and TVEC for was performed. Patients were matched for stage, number of ITM, anatomical site, CLND status, gender and age. Kaplan-Meier curves (OS, PFS, DMFS) and Cumulative incidence function (MSS) were used to visualize time-to-event outcomes in the PSM cohort, though both methods do not account for the matched structure. Results: 274 patients were identified, 120 female/154 male; 96 treated with ILI/ILP, 111 with ICI, and 67 with TVEC. Median follow-up was 40 months (range, 1-80). PSM was performed and identified 36 TVEC–ICI pairs and 27 TVEC–ILI pairs. These were combined resulting in a final cohort of 108 observations (45 TVEC, 36 ICI and 27 ILI). The groups were well balanced. No statistical difference was found for metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS) between treatment modalities. TVEC was associated with significant improvement in local PFS (median was 2.2 years (y) for ILI/ILP, 1.5y for ICI and not reached for TVEC, p=0.048). While not statistically significant, a clinical benefit was seen in PFS being longer for TVEC (2.1y for TVEC vs. 1.2y for ILI/ILP and 1.1y for ICI; p=0.2) and OS (not reached vs 2.9y for ILI/ILP and 5.2y for ICI; p=0.2). On mixed effect Cox regression proportional hazard model using the matched data set, there were no significant differences in any of the survival and recurrence outcomes. Conclusions: When patients are propensity-matched, there were no significant differences in first-line treatment modalities for unresectable melanoma ITM. Treatment with TVEC did result in clinically meaningful improved overall and local PFS and OS. This supports that selection of ITM therapy should incorporate an individualized approach, incorporating disease distribution, stage, burden, treatment side effects and patient priorities.

9523 Background: Primary Central Nervous System (CNS) Melanoma is a rare and aggressive malignancy, comprising 1% of melanoma cases and 0.07% of brain tumors. Due to its rarity, its natural history, molecular features and optimal management remain poorly defined. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients at our institution between January 1998 and October 2025 with primary CNS melanoma or melanocytoma with melanoma transformation. Clinical characteristics, molecular profiling, treatments and survival outcomes were collected. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: Nineteen patients were identified, including eight (42%) with melanocytoma to melanoma transformation. Median time of transformation was 34.4 months. Thirteen (68%) patients were female with a median age at diagnosis of 59.3 years. Common presenting symptoms were sensory disturbances (58%), pain (53%), motor deficits (37%) and nausea or vomiting (32%). At diagnosis, location of disease was spinal (n=12), intracranial (n=6) and multifocal (n=1). Thirteen patients had leptomeningeal involvement. Molecular profiling was performed in 15 patients, revealing mutations in GNAQ (n=7), GNA11 (n=3), CKIT (n=2), BAP1 (n=1), EIF1AX (n=1), and BRAF v600 (n=1). Thirteen (68%) patients underwent subtotal resection (STR), five (26%) gross total resection (GTR) and one radiation only. Median resected tumor size was 1.7 cm. Seventeen (94%) patients had recurrence at a median of 9.1 months, and four patients underwent repeat surgery. Fourteen (74%) patients received adjuvant radiation and 14 (74%) received immunotherapy, most commonly ipilimumab with nivolumab (71%). Nine patients received chemotherapy: temozolomide (n=5), bevacizumab (n=2) and one each of intrathecal IL-2, tebentafusp, imatinib and encorafenib with binimetininb. Four patients received chemotherapy before immunotherapy. Median OS from diagnosis of CNS melanocytoma or melanoma was 50.9 months (13.4 – 80). Median OS from time of transformation to melanoma or CNS melanoma diagnosis was 24.0 months (11.9 – NA). One-, three- and five-year OS rates were 73%, 53% and 40% respectively. GTR was associated with increased median OS compared to STR (80.0 vs 19.7 months, p= 0.02). Age at diagnosis, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, STR with or without radiation, disease location, leptomeningeal involvement, tumor size >3cm and presence of GNAQ mutation were not associated with survival. Median PFS was 3 months with chemotherapy and 5.7 months with immunotherapy. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest single center study of primary CNS melanoma. Outcomes remain poor, with survival primarily associated with GTR. The predominance of GNAQ and GNA11 alterations with rare BRAF v600 mutations highlight the distinct biology of primary CNS melanoma and need for novel targeted therapies.

9510 Background: Although acute toxicities associated with adoptive cellular therapy using lifileucel are well described and largely occur within the first 2 weeks of treatment, adverse events beyond this early window remain incompletely characterized. We sought to characterize treatment-related adverse events (AEs) with emphasis on those starting or persisting ≥2 weeks after lifileucel infusion. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study across three centers (Moffitt Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Mayo Clinic). Patients with advanced melanoma treated with lifileucel were included. The primary endpoint was incidence and characterization of AEs occurring or persisting ≥2 weeks after standard of care lifileucel infusion. Results: Among 79 patients (median follow-up 11 months [95% CI, 9.6–15]), median age was 63 years (range 30–79), 59% were male (n = 47), 41% were female (n = 32), and ECOG PS was 0–1 in 98%. Patients received a median of 5 IL-2 doses (range 0–6). Of 79 patients, 78 experienced treatment-related adverse events that either persisted or occurred >2 weeks after cell infusion. A total of 308 delayed treatment-related adverse events were identified; 96 were new events (31%) and 212 (69%) were continued toxicities that started < 2 weeks after cell infusion. Lymphopenia was the most common delayed or persistent toxicity, occurring in a majority of patients (n = 68/79, 86%). Treatment-associated anemia (n = 59/79, 75%), fatigue (n = 56/79, 71%) and thrombocytopenia (n = 24/79, 30%) were also common. Viral infections occurred in 9.0% (n = 7), including CMV/EBV viremia (n = 1) and respiratory or gastrointestinal viral infections (metapneumovirus, parainfluenza, SARS-CoV-2, and norovirus). Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) occurred in 2 patients (n = 2/79, 3%) and was fatal in both cases. No other toxicity related deaths were noted. Autoimmune toxicities directly attributable to TIL included vitiligo in 9% (n = 7; median onset 41 days), uveitis in 5% (n = 4; median onset 26 days), and sensorineural hearing loss in 1% (n = 1; onset 28 days). All patients underwent TIL infusion in the inpatient setting; a total of 14 of 79 patients (18%) were re-admitted after discharge due to treatment-related toxicity (median time from infusion 19 days). Conclusions: In this multicenter real-world cohort, toxicities persisting beyond two weeks were largely driven by lymphodepleting chemotherapy–associated immunosuppression and cytopenias. These findings highlight the importance of structured post-discharge monitoring and support ongoing efforts to de-intensify lymphodepleting chemotherapy to improve safety while maintaining clinical benefit.

9525 Background: Melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) is a novel target for radiopharmaceutical therapy and is highly expressed on melanoma tumor cells. VMT01 is an MC1R-targeted peptide. 203 Pb is used for patient selection via SPECT imaging. Peptide radiolabeling with 212 Pb delivers alpha-particle therapy. Here, we present data on the treatment of adult patients with MC1R-positive metastatic melanoma receiving [ 212 Pb]VMT01 either as a monotherapy or in combination with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab. Methods: This is an ongoing phase I/IIa, first-in-human, prospective, multicenter, open-label, radioactive dose-finding and dose-expansion trial. The objectives are to investigate safety, pharmacokinetics, dosimetry, and efficacy. Participants receive up to 3 treatment cycles with either [ 212 Pb]VMT01 3 mCi, 5 mCi, or 1.5 mCi monotherapy, or combination therapy with [ 212 Pb]VMT01 (1.5 mCi) + nivolumab (480 mg, Q4W) or [ 212 Pb]VMT01 (3 mCi) + nivolumab. Participants are evaluated for any DLTs for the first 6 weeks after cycle 1. Efficacy is assessed by RECIST v1.1 criteria by the investigator. Results: As of 24 December 2025, 26 participants (53.8% male; median age: 68 years [range: 27-81]) with MC1R-positive metastatic melanoma were enrolled. The median prior systemic therapies was 4. All 26 enrolled participants received ≥1 dose of [²¹²Pb]VMT01. No DLTs were reported. All SAEs (including one grade 5 SAE) were attributed to disease progression. Most TEAEs were grade 1 (19.2%) and grade 2 (34.6%). Grade 3 TEAEs occurred in 8 participants (30.8%), 5 on monotherapy and 3 on combination therapy (3 mCi + nivolumab). Of the 22 evaluable participants, 1 PR, 9 SD, and 12 PD were reported. Four participants had progression-free survival of ≥6 months. Conclusions: [ 212 Pb]VMT01 as a monotherapy and in combination with nivolumab was generally safe and well-tolerated in 26 enrolled participants, with antitumor activity observed at the 3 mCi dose level. These data may be supplemented with a more complete follow-up at the time of the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT05655312 .

9535 Background: MUM carries a poor prognosis with few effective treatments, especially for HLA-A*02:01-negative pts. While a subset of MUM pts responds to immune checkpoint inhibitors, the comparative efficacy of IPI+PD1 versus PD1 monotherapy is unclear. This study compares objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety between these regimens in MUM. Methods: MUM pts treated with PD1 or IPI+PD1 at 15 major melanoma centres (from Australia, Europe, United States and Israel) were included. Demographics, patient and disease characteristics, and clinical outcomes were examined. Univariate and multivariate (MVA) analyses were performed to identify clinical predictors of response and survival. Results: Of 412 MUM pts treated, 150 (36%) had PD1 and 262 (64%) received PD1+IPI. Compared to the PD1 group, PD1+IPI-treated pts were younger (64 vs. 70 years; p<0.001), had higher rate of elevated LDH (44% vs. 31%; p=0.037), and more frequently had prior treatment with tebentafusp (6.5% vs. 1.3%; p=0.031). Median follow-up from commencement of PD1+/-IPI was 4.9 years (95% CI 4.7 – 6.1). ORR was higher in IPI+PD1 group (18%) vs. PD1 (9%) (p=0.008), particularly in males (p=0.009), patients with liver metastases (p=0.018) and with lung metastases (p=0.011), with elevated LDH (p=0.047) and with no prior treatment with tebentafusp (p=0.007). PFS and OS at 1 and 2 years were numerically higher with IPI+PD1 (1- and 2-year PFS: 23% and 15%; 1- and 2-year OS: 63% and 39%) vs. PD1 (1- and 2-year PFS: 17% and 11%; 1- and 2-year OS: 54% and 36%), but these differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). On MVA, adjusting for predefined variables (age, gender, ECOG PS, LDH, presence/absence of liver/lung metastases, prior treatment with tebentafusp), IPI+PD1 was associated with higher ORR (OR 2.71, 1.30 – 6.05; p=0.01) but not with PFS or OS compared to PD1. Presence of liver metastases (ORR [OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.13 - 0.64], PFS [HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.11 - 2.34], OS [HR 2.02; 95% CI 1.32 - 3.10]), ECOG PS≥2 (PFS [HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.07 - 3.10], OS [HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.25-4.01]), elevated LDH (PFS [HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.30 - 2.11], OS [HR 2.39; 95% CI 1.84-3.10]) and prior tebentafusp treatment (OS [HR 2.36; 95% CI 1.21-4.59]) were also independent predictors of response and/or survival. A higher percentage of pts experienced grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in the IPI+PD1 group compared to the PD1 group (34% vs 13%, p<0.0001). Most pts ceased treatment due to progression (234, 57%), and more pts stopped due to toxicity in the IPI+PD1 vs. PD1 group (25% vs. 9%, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In pts with MUM, IPI+PD1 demonstrated a higher ORR but did not improve survival compared with PD1 alone. IPI+PD1 was more toxic, leading to early treatment discontinuation in one-quarter of pts. These findings may help guide treatment selection in MUM.

9551 Background: Lymphodepleting (LD) chemotherapy is required prior to tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy, yet the depth, kinetics, and completeness of peripheral T-cell recovery in practice remain poorly defined. Using a pooled, multi-institution cohort, we characterized longitudinal CD4 and CD8 T-cell reconstitution and the prevalence of CD4 lymphopenia following TIL therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study across Mayo Clinic, Moffitt Cancer Center, and Massachusetts General Hospital of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with TIL (N = 41, median follow-up 7.6 months). Absolute CD4 and CD8 T-cell counts and CD4:CD8 ratios were assessed at baseline (pre-LD), week 4, month 3, and month 6 post-TIL. Clinically significant CD4 lymphopenia was defined as CD4 < 200 cells/µL. All patients received Pneumocystis jirovecii and antiviral prophylaxis, with antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis administered per institutional protocols. Post-TIL infections were recorded. Paired changes from baseline were evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank testing. Results: Median age was 65 years (range 35-79), and 68% were male. At baseline, 16 patients (39%) had CD4 counts below the institutional lower limit of normal prior to LD. Eighteen patients (44%) received bridging therapy prior to TIL and had lower baseline CD4 and CD8 counts compared with those who did not ( p < 0.05 for both); however, post-TIL CD4 and CD8 recovery trajectories did not differ between groups. CD4 counts declined sharply following LD and demonstrated incomplete and heterogeneous recovery. Median CD4 decreased from 490 cells/µL at baseline to 250 at week 4, 290 at month 3, and 220 at month 6, remaining significantly below baseline at all post-TIL timepoints ( p < 0.05). Clinically significant CD4 lymphopenia was observed in 45% (10/22) of evaluable patients at month 3 and in 50% (44%, 7/16) at month 6. In contrast, CD8 counts increased early after TIL (median 240 to 590 cells/µL at week 4; p = 0.004) and remained higher than baseline at month 6. The CD4:CD8 ratio inverted from a median of 2.02 at baseline to 0.46 at week 4 and remained below 1.0 through month 6, reflecting sustained CD4 suppression despite CD8 recovery. Post-TIL infections occurred despite widespread prophylaxis, including bacterial (13%), viral (10%), and fungal (4.9%) infections. Conclusions: In a multi-institution cohort, LD chemotherapy preceding TIL is associated with profound and prolonged CD4 T-cell suppression, persistent CD4:CD8 inversion, and a high prevalence of CD4 < 200 cells/µL through 6 months. These findings identify delayed immune reconstitution as a common and clinically relevant consequence of TIL therapy and support prospective optimization of antimicrobial prophylaxis duration, vaccination timing, and immune monitoring strategies.

9030 Background: AI use is ubiquitous among HOT and healthcare workers, but with variable base knowledge and comfort level. Its indiscriminate use may be problematic. To address this educational gap, we developed a WS for HOT to assess their use of AI and educate them on how to employ it in MedEd and patient-centered CP based on LSP. Methods: A faculty member developed a WS on how to use AI in MedEd and CP based on LSP of analogy, contrasting cases, elaboration, generation, and question driven learning. The WS was for HOT, but faculty could join. It had 3 sections: introduction to basic concepts of AI; principles of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and protected health information; AI in MedEd; and AI in CP. Sections had real use case examples of AI, for participants to interact, ask questions, and share their personal use cases. HOT were invited to compare and generate examples during the WS, based on their educational and clinical experience and needs. Participants’ AI use and self-perceived and objective knowledge about it were assessed in a pre activity survey, a post WS survey, and a post 8 week survey to evaluate long term learning. Results: A 2 hour WS with 9 HOT and 2 faculty was completed successfully. 10 participants completed the pre WS survey, and 11 completed the post WS and the post 8 week surveys. 100% of them used generative AI tools before the WS, while 10% had prior training in AI. 90% used AI in personal life and MedEd, 70% used it in CP, and 30% in academic research. Table 1 shows participants’ self-assessed knowledge of AI, comfort level in using AI for MedEd and CP, self-assessed preparedness to implement AI in MedEd and CP, and objective knowledge. 8 weeks post WS, 91% of participants reported increased AI use in CP, leading anywhere from slight to significant decreases in time spent on documentation tasks for 91% of them. In MedEd, 73% reported increased AI use, and 82% described slight to significant improvement in the quality of time dedicated to it. 82% described the WS as extremely relevant to their daily responsibilities, and 91% reported confidence navigating ethical and privacy risks of AI in HemOnc. All participants were interested in having a similar WS in the future. Conclusions: An LSP based WS about AI increased the self-perceived and objective knowledge of HOT about using this tool in MedEd and CP. It also increased HOT comfort level, preparedness, and efficiency using AI. With the ubiquitous use of AI by HOT, ongoing education about it focused on supporting high-quality patient care should be a part of fellowship curriculum. Pre WS % Post WS % Post 8 week % Moderately/Very knowledgeable about AI 50 91 100 Comfortable using AI in MedEd 60 82 82 Prepared to implement AI in MedEd 30 91 73 Comfortable using AI in CP 40 73 82 Prepared to implement AI in CP 0 91 73 Correct answers on objective assessment 53 68 71

9007 Background: Since transition to virtual interviews, application and interview inflation have increased the work burden of GME recruitment. In 2021, AAMC ERAS implemented a process that allows applicants to assign signals to top programs of interest. There is a paucity of guidance on optimal use of ERAS signals (ES), resulting in apprehension and uncertainty amongst applicants and program directors (PD). For the 2026 ERAS cycle, Hematology/Oncology programs (HOP) had the option to participate in ES, in which applicants are provided 5 gold (G) signals and 15 silver (S) signals. First-hand knowledge on how ES was utilized by HOP, as well as PD perceptions about ES, may guide best practices on ES. Methods: During the ASCO Oncology Training Program Leadership Retreat in November 2025, an anonymous survey, assessing HOP utilization and perception of ES, and the impact of ES on recruitment practices, was launched. One PD from each HOP was invited to complete the survey while onsite. Results: 88 HOP (46% of ACGME HOP) are represented. 97% (n=85) utilized ES. Of HOP who used ES, 74% are academic. 32% are small (1-9 fellows), 43% medium (10-19 fellows), and 25% large (20+ fellows). 79% received 400+ applications. 69% reviewed applications without signals but gave higher consideration to signaled applicants. 25% only reviewed applications with signals. 28% used ES when creating rank list; 45% think ES utilization is appropriate during ranking. 85% reported ES did not alter their approach to applicants requiring visa sponsorship. 78% felt ES made the interview selection process easier. 66% were more satisfied with this year’s recruitment process compared to years without ES. The most requested change to ES was reduction of allowed signals, especially silver. 98% will use ES next year. Conclusions: Despite limited knowledge on ES impact on recruitment, nearly all surveyed HOP participated in ES this past year and will continue. Most HOP view ES positively though many desire changes, particularly with the number of signals. Most HOP consider all applications regardless of ES. However, some HOP with larger applicant pool are using ES as inclusion criteria for interview consideration. Signals are a strong predictor for interview invitation when internal selection criteria are met. The “borderline” applicant may be the greatest benefactor from ES, viewed similarly to the non-signaled applicant who meets internal selection criteria. Sharing PD perspectives and real-life data from this year’s ES process breeds opportunities for further improvement and increased confidence with ES. Likelihood HOP offer interview invitation based on quality of application and signals (%, n=85). Internal Selection Criteria Signal Extremely Likely Likely Neutral Unlikely Extremely Unlikely Met G 73 22 5 0 0 S 42 47 8 2 1 None 8 27 24 22 19 Nearly met G 4 35 39 19 3 S 0 9 52 28 11 Not met G 0 2 12 41 45 S 1 1 6 30 62

9021 Background: An escape room is a team-based activity in which participants collaborate to solve puzzles within a fixed time limit and escape. Prior studies demonstrate high learner satisfaction and improved teamwork and communication with medical education escape rooms. To date, no published reports describe an escape room designed specifically for hematology/oncology (hem/onc) fellows. As part of Hem/Onc Curriculum, we designed and implemented a hem/onc-focused escape room and evaluated learner satisfaction and perceived learning impact. Methods: The escape room was designed using evidence-based learning science principles (Table 1). Teams worked to solve sequential puzzles, centered on a patient case, addressing key hem/onc concepts, including transfusion medicine, peripheral blood smears, lymphoma classification, and coagulation disorders. Each solved puzzle revealed additional patient laboratory and pathology data. Successful completion required teams to diagnose the patient and select appropriate treatment. Following the activity, teams participated in a facilitator-led debrief focused on team dynamics, communication, and problem solving. Teams observed each other and shared feedback. A larger group debrief co-led by chief fellows and faculty reviewed learning objectives and key takeaways. Learner outcomes were assessed using a post-activity survey evaluating satisfaction, engagement, and impact on learning. Results: Eighteen learners participated, including 14 hem/onc fellows, 1 APP hem/onc fellow, and 3 internal medicine residents. Three of four teams escaped within 1 hour (mean completion time, 52 minutes). All participants provided positive verbal feedback. Fifteen learners completed the post-activity survey, and all respondents reported satisfaction with the activity and would recommend it for future fellows. One-word descriptors included “engaging,” “fun,” and “challenging.” Most respondents (93.3%) agreed that the activity reinforced key hem/onc concepts and improved confidence in clinical problem-solving. All learners felt the activity supported learning, and 93.3% reported that collaboration enhanced the learning experience. Participants identified team-based problem solving, clinical application, and interactive puzzles as the most effective components. Conclusions: A hem/onc escape room resulted in high learner satisfaction and reinforced hem/onc knowledge and clinical problem-solving. This feasible, fun, and innovative activity complements traditional fellowship education by leveraging adult learning principles through gamified, team-based learning and should be incorporated into training programs’ curriculum. Learning science principles applied in a hem/onc escape room. Active Learning Belonging Contrasting Cases Debriefing Deliberate Practice Elaboration Generation Listening and Sharing Reward Worked Examples

9010 Background: BO among oncology professionals is prevalent and may have changed following the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a meta-analysis of MENA studies to evaluate temporal trends in overall burnout and subdomains, identify contributing predictors, and assess the screening performance of thought of quitting oncology (TQ). Methods: Ten cross-sectional studies (N = 2,486) reporting Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) outcomes were included: six pre-COVID and four post-COVID. Pooled prevalence estimates were generated for emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), personal accomplishment (PA), and overall BO. Study-level meta-regression evaluated the effects of time period (pre- vs post-COVID), demographics, specialty, and their interaction on observed trends. Performance of TQ was assessed as a screening tool with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Results: The pooled prevalence of BO was 57.1% (95% CI, 40.6–72.8), increased from 48.2% in the pre-COVID period to 77.2% post-COVID (Δ +29.0 percentage points). High EE increased from 41.3% pre-COVID to 70.9% post-COVID (Δ +29.6 percentage points). DP increased from 36.8% to 55.8% (Δ +19.0 percentage points). Low PA showed minimal change (35.4% pre-COVID vs 35.1% post-COVID; Δ −0.3 percentage points). The heterogeneity estimate was high due to inter-study differences related to time period, setting, and baseline burnout prevalence, which were statistically adjusted for. TQ screening demonstrated reasonable sensitivity (82.4%) and PPV (79.9%), but low specificity (46.5%) and NPV (50.5%). Table 1 shows study-level factors contributing to BO prevalence trends. Conclusions: BO among oncology professionals increased post-COVID in the MENA region. The rise was driven by age-dependent effects plus time period. EE increased uniformly, while DP and low PA showed more complex patterns. A single-item question assessing TQ demonstrated strong rule-in screening utility for identifying clinicians at risk. Meta-regression analysis of study-level moderators of BO prevalence. Outcome Best Predictor(s) R² Pattern EE Period + Age + Med Onc. % 86.2% Additive effects: Post-COVID, younger, more Med Onc. independently increase EE DP None significant 0.0% PA Period × Age 50.4% Moderation: Age moderates pandemic effect on PA Overall Burnout Period × Age 55.3% Moderation: Age moderates pandemic effect on BO