Citations

PURPOSE Despite international medical graduates (IMGs) accounting for up to one third of all practicing oncologists in the United States, and nearly half of fellowship trainees, little is known about their contributions to presentations at international oncology meetings. Therefore, we investigated the representation of IMGs in invited faculty roles at the ASCO Annual Meeting as a representative example. METHODS Presentation data from ASCO 2022 and 2023 Annual Meetings were obtained from program guides. We collected presentation-level and speaker-level variables of invited faculty roles and original research. Speakers were categorized as American medical graduate (AMG), IMG, non–US-based, or non-MD (Doctor of Medicine). Univariable and multivariable analyses assessed factors influencing selection for invited faculty roles. RESULTS A total of 2,590 presentations by 2,109 unique speakers were reviewed, including primary research presenters and invited faculty. Among the 1,352 presentations by AMGs, 30% were primary research and 70% were invited faculty roles. For the 374 presentations by IMGs, 41% were primary research and 59% were invited faculty roles. Notably, first-author IMGs were significantly less likely to receive invited faculty roles relative to their primary research output compared with first-author AMGs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.90]; P = .006), even when accounting for academic rank, presumed sex, and year. CONCLUSION Relative to IMGs' original research output, IMGs appear to receive fewer invitations for ASCO Annual Meeting invited faculty roles compared with AMGs. Our findings suggest potential underrepresentation and under-recognition of IMGs in these roles, despite their contributions to the oncology workforce in the United States.

9009 Background: International Medical Graduates (IMGs) are a vital component of the US oncology workforce, representing nearly half of practicing medical oncologists. However, systemic barriers may influence their career trajectories differently. Understanding these challenges is essential for addressing workforce disparities and optimizing cancer care delivery across diverse geographic regions. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 13,497 medical oncologists using the 2024 Dec CMS Provider Dataset linked with the 2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC). Medical oncologists were identified by their self-reported primary specialties, including Hematology/Oncology, Medical Oncology, and Hematopoietic Cell Transplant. Physicians were categorized by graduation origin (based on their self-reported medical school), career stage (early: 0–10 years, mid: 11–30 years, late: >30 years post-medical school graduation). The primary outcomes included practice at Main Campus of NCI Designated Cancer Centers (as an indicator of academic practice) and the geographical location of their practice (Metro, Non-Metro, Mixed). We employed chi-squared tests for statistical comparisons and performed stratified analyses by career stage to evaluate transition patterns over time. Results: 6920 IMGs constituted 48.7% of the oncology workforce, with similar gender distributions between IMG and non-IMG oncologists (37.9% vs 36.5% female, p=0.068). Notably, early career oncologists were less likely to be IMGs (IMG vs non-IMGs: 8.2% vs 12.5%, p<0.001). Compared to Non-IMGs, IMG oncologists are less likely to practice at main campuses of NCI Center (19.9% vs. 27.7%, p<0.001), especially as their career advances (all p<0.01). (Table). IMGs had higher representation in non-metropolitan areas than non-IMGs (11.4% vs 9.1%, p<0.001), particularly in late-career stages (14.7% vs 12.3%, p=0.033), indicating their unique role in serving underserved regions. (Table). Conclusions: Our findings reveal that, IMGs are less likely to practice at main campuses of NCI-Cancer Center than their non-IMG colleagues. Meanwhile, IMG oncologists are disproportionately serving rural communities. Supporting IMG pathways in oncology is critical to ensure a balanced cancer care delivery across the United States. Practice setting distribution and academic affiliation among international medical graduates (IMGs) and US graduates (USGs) by career stage. IMG (N=6,577) Non-IMG (N=6,920) IMG (N=6,577) Non-IMG (N=6,920) NCI Center Other NCI Center Other Metro Non-Metro/Mixed Metro Non-Metro/Mixed Total 19.9% 80.1% 27.7% 72.3% 88.6% 11.4% 90.9% 9.1% Career Stage Early (0-10y) 29.1% 70.9% 36.1% 63.9% 91.1% 8.9% 95.4% 4.6% Mid (11-30y) 21.3% 78.7% 28.8% 71.2% 90.1% 9.9% 91.6% 8.4% Senior (30+y) 15.0% 85.0% 22.0% 78.0% 85.3% 14.7% 87.7% 12.3%

PURPOSE International medical graduates (IMGs) are an essential component of the oncology workforce in the United States, comprising a third of all practicing oncologists and almost half of hematology/oncology fellows. In this article, we discuss the contributions of IMGs in the US oncology workforce, review unique challenges faced by IMGs, and propose potential solutions to overcome these challenges. METHODS ASCO's IMG Community of Practice was established with the mission to connect, mentor, guide, raise awareness, and overcome the challenges unique to IMGs interested in pursuing medical oncology in the United States. The content of this article is based on discussions at the IMG Community of Practice meetings at ASCO's 2023 and 2024 Annual Meetings. RESULTS IMGs bring an inherent diversity of thought and experience to the oncology workforce. They provide high-quality, culture- and language-concordant care to a diverse population of patients with cancer. However, IMGs in oncology face significant hardships throughout their careers, including visa-related restrictions, psychosocial and cultural struggles, as well as differential treatment while applying for residency and fellowship training, and early career positions. Greater awareness of these challenges among the members of the hematology/oncology community, along with institutional and individual efforts to support IMGs, is warranted. CONCLUSION We encourage oncology professionals and institutions to join our efforts in recognizing the unique paths of IMGs and providing support and advocacy to maximize the potential of IMGs in the US oncology workforce.

29 Background: International Medical Graduates (IMGs) comprise over one-third of internal medicine (IM) trainees and practicing oncologists in the United States. We aimed to examine challenges faced by IM IMG residents in pursuing hematology-oncology (HO) fellowship positions. Methods: We conducted a pilot survey using SurveyPluto to assess demographics and evaluate visa related challenges amongst ACGME residents interested in HO. The survey was disseminated through the ASCO IMG Community of Practice (CoP), the Heme-Onc Fellows Mentorship Empowerment (H.O.M.E) group and the IMG Oncologists social media homepage (@IMG_Oncologists). Results: A total of 59 IMG residents completed the survey (20% PGY-1, 36% PGY-2 and 44% PGY-3). The majority of trainees (88%) were from community or university-affiliated community programs. J-1 visa was the most common visa type (67.8%). The visa process was rated as difficult or very difficult by 36% of trainees. Annual visa renewal was required by 51% trainees and 55.9% reported visa related impact on plans for research grant applications (Table). The greatest challenges associated with visa status were disruption of travel plans and inability to unite with family (35.6%); obtaining documentation from home country (33.9%); visa renewal (28.8%) and lack of clarity in visa instructions (27.1%). Among resources that respondents wanted better access to, IMG networking groups (81.4%), legal/financial aids (47.5%), institutional visa seminars (45.8%) and flexibility from their program to visit family overseas (45.8%) were identified as priorities. Conclusions: Visa related barriers pose significant challenges to IMGs interested in HO. Policy changes, advocacy work and additional resources could be beneficial for future IMG oncologists. Challenges associated with visa status for hematology/oncology aspirants. Greatest visa related barriers during training % of respondents (n=59) Documentation from home country 33.9% Disruption in travel plans/ inability to unite with family 35.6% Lack of clarity in renewal instructions/ renewal process post document procurement 55.9% Ability to secure grant affected by visa 22% Non-monetary grant aspects affected by visa 13.6% Did not pursue grants due to visa 20.3% Desired resources during residency Institutional visa seminars 45.8% IMG network groups 81.4% Program flexibility to visit family overseas/ legal and financial aids 45.8%/47.5%

9000 Background: Despite IMGs accounting for up to one-third of all practicing oncologists in the United States, little is known about their contributions to presentations at international oncology meetings, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Therefore, we investigated the representation of IMGs in invited faculty roles at ASCO Annual Meetings. Methods: Speaker presentation details at ASCO 2022 and 2023 Annual Meetings were collected using publicly available program guides. We collected presentation-level variables of invited faculty roles (discussant, moderator, chairmanship, session topic presenter) and original research type (oral abstract, poster discussion, plenary session). Speaker-level variables comprised presumed gender, academic rank, and institution. Speakers were categorized into the following groups - American Medical Graduate (AMG): currently affiliated with a US institution, completed medical school in the US; IMG: affiliated with a US institution, completed medical school outside the US; non-US based speakers: affiliated with an institution outside the US; non-MD speakers. Univariable and multivariable analyses were employed to assess factors associated with the selection of presenters for invited faculty roles. Results: A total of 3337 presentations (1649 from 2022, 1688 from 2023) were included. 71.6% of the speakers were US-based, 56.6% were male and 40.5% were full professors. The highest proportion of podium presentations was by AMGs (48.5%), followed by non-US based (28.3%), IMGs (14.1%), and non-MD (9.1%) speakers. 57% of IMG presentations consisted of original research compared to 48.7% for AMGs (Table). Notably, compared to AMGs, IMGs were significantly less likely to be included in invited faculty roles (odds ratio [OR] 0.72 [95% CI 0.58 – 0.88], p <0.01), a finding that remained significant after accounting for gender and academic rank (adjusted OR 0.75 [0.61 – 0.94], p= 0.01). Conclusions: Relative to IMGs’ original research output, IMGs appear to receive less invitations for ASCO Annual Meeting invited faculty roles compared to AMGs. Our findings suggest potential under-representation and under-recognition of IMGs in these roles, despite their contributions to the oncology workforce in the US. [Table: see text]

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32–1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24–2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70–6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71–5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83–12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63–3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20–2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66–3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89–22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Funding: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Clinical trial number: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701 .

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.

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