Citations

53 Background: Language barriers affect millions in the US, where nearly 8% of individuals (~ 26 million) have limited English proficiency, making it harder to access, understand, and engage with healthcare services. As clinical trials enroll increasingly diverse participants, ensuring the accessibility and clarity of consent forms is critical. Understanding translation costs can improve budgeting and prevent enrollment delays for non-English-speaking participants. This study evaluates the costs of translating consent forms into three of the most widely spoken non-English languages in the U.S. Methods: In February 2025, we queried ClinicalTrials.gov to identify publicly available consent forms for phase 3 interventional trials in lung, breast, GI, & GU cancers from 2013–2024. In total, 18 consent forms were identified. The U.S. News top 20 U.S. cancer centers were contacted to identify commonly used certified translation companies. We obtained quotes from 8 IRB-certified agencies via online portal for Spanish, Simplified Chinese, and Tagalog translations. Results: The 18 informed consent forms were on average 14 pages long (range: 3-29 pages). Across the 8 translation companies, translating documents into Spanish (average price per document [$pD]: 1088.58) was cheaper than Chinese (average $pD: $1253.94, p < 0.001) and Tagalog (average $pD: $1399.07, p < 0.001). Costs varied significantly by company (p < 0.001). Quality assurance measures, including dual translation and proofreading, were included in 87.5% of quotes. The average turnaround time for translating one consent into 3 different languages was 4 business days (range: 2-8 business days). Conclusions: The cost of translating informed consent forms for oncology clinical trials varies significantly by language and translation company, with Spanish translations being the least expensive and Tagalog the most costly. While translation costs represent a small fraction of overall trial expenses, variability in pricing and turnaround times underscores the need for structured budgeting and standardized translation processes. Translations of informed consents should ideally be completed prior to trial initiation to avoid the delayed recruitment or exclusion of non-English speaking patients. Our results are valuable for researchers & sponsors involved in oncology clinical trials, helping them make informed decisions in budgeting regarding language translation services. Company ID Average $pD, Spanish Average $pD, Chinese Average $pD, Tagalog Spanish $pW Chinese $pW Tagalog $pW 1 840.11 1,054.07 1,054.07 0.16 0.20 0.20 2 1,109.63 1,553.49 1,775.41 0.22 0.28 0.32 3 945.00 1,081.50 1,422.33 0.10 0.17 0.12 4 1,880.56 1,880.56 2,131.94 0.30 0.30 0.34 5 875.35 875.35 875.35 0.15 0.15 0.15 6 1,029.98 1,367.56 1,472.93 0.27 0.36 0.39 7 929.72 978.65 1,125.45 0.14 0.15 0.17 8 1,042.39 1,184.50 1,279.22 0.33 0.37 0.41

Abstract Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare, aggressive lung tumor marked by significant molecular heterogeneity. In a study of 590 patients across two independent cohorts, we observed comparable overall survival across treatment regimens (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, immunotherapy) without unexpected adverse events. Genomic analysis identified distinct NSCLC-like (KEAP1, KRAS, STK11 mutations) and SCLC-like (RB1, TP53 mutations) LCNEC subtypes, with 80% aligning with SCLC transcriptional profiles. Serial sampling revealed stable mutational but shifting transcriptomic landscapes over time. NSCLC-like LCNECs showed elevated FGL-1 (a LAG-3 ligand) and SPINK1 expression, while SCLC-like subtypes expressed higher levels of DLL3. Immunofluorescence confirmed FGL-1 in NSCLC-like LCNECs, and H&E slide analyses indicated fewer tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in LCNECs versus other lung cancers. These findings highlight LCNEC’s distinct immunogenomic profile, supporting future investigations into LAG-3, SPINK1, and DLL3-targeted therapies.

PURPOSE Although international medical graduates (IMGs) and Puerto Rican Medical Graduates (PRMGs) comprise an integral part of the health care workforce, these individuals, particularly women, frequently face numerous types of discrimination throughout medical training and independent practice. To our knowledge, we conducted the first cross-sectional study to understand the journeys and consequences of migration faced by IMGs and PRMGs in the US oncology workforce. METHODS We developed a cross-sectional, online survey consisting of 51 multiple choice and open-ended questions that captured demographic information, professional status, period of migration to the United States, location within the United States that participants migrated to, reasons for migration, cultural adaptation, experiences of discrimination during training, and overall professional experiences in the United States. RESULTS The majority of participants cited better education, professional gains, and a lack of opportunities in participants' home country as primary reasons for migration to the United States. However, most participants, particularly women, experienced staunch assimilation to fit the mold of professional American standards; women were also particularly likely to report experiences of racial/ethnic, language, and gender discrimination during oncology training in the United States, which only marginally improved during independent practice. Despite such discrimination, most participants reported excellent professional satisfaction during training and independent practice, although only moderate personal satisfaction. Most participants decided to stay in the United States, citing reasons pertaining to enhanced professional opportunities, whereas those that returned home valued reasons relating to family and quality of life. CONCLUSION Our sobering findings underscore the need for institutional enforcement of an inclusive environment encompassing cultural humility, enactment of programs addressing barriers to socialization, immigration laws, and financial support, creation of IMG-specific support networks, and the sponsorship and promoting of minority women physicians.

9011 Background: 'Gender disparities' is a familiar term in medicine. Only 35.2% of oncologists in the U.S. self-identified as women in 2021. Women in medicine are undercompensated and underpromoted. Little is known of the experiences of non-U.S. female physicians in the U.S. We created the first cross-sectional study to assess gender disparities in IMGs and Puerto Rican medical graduates (PRMGs) in oncology in the U.S. Methods: An anonymous online survey was created and distributed via Survey Monkey. Eligible participants were non-U.S. IMGs and PRMGs who trained and/or practiced independently in the U.S. Participants were recruited through email and social media from Sept-Dec 2023. Bivariate association analyses were performed using the two-sample Wilcoxon test for ordered categorical variables and Fisher’s exact test for nominal categorical variables. Results: 97 IMGs and PRMGs in oncology completed the survey. As shown in the table, women were more likely to move to the U.S. for family (22.4% vs 6.2%, p=0.040), whereas men did more for financial gains (20.8% vs 6.1%, p=0.040). culture, particularly to the traditions (65.3% vs 43.8%;p=0.042) and dress code (44.9% vs 20.8%, p=0.017). Women experienced higher rates of gender discrimination during training (53.2% vs 4.5%, p <0.001) and independent practice (57.6% vs 3.6%, p<0.001) than men. Women were also more likely than men to face ethnic/racial discrimination during training (69.6% vs 38.1%; p=0.005). Despite lack of statistical significance, higher trends of ethnic/racial discrimination during independent practice were reported by women (table). More women reported no plans on returning home (68.8% vs 38.3%), whereas more men planned to return home at some point (38.3% vs 16.7%). 18.8% of men vs 0% of women elected leadership opportunities as the reason for returning to their home country (p=0.001). Conclusions: Our study reveals the unfortunate reality that many IMG and PRMG women face in oncology in the U.S. Despite national efforts to reduce the gap in gender disparities, minority women continue to experience racial/ethnic and gender discrimination at higher rates than men. To overcome inequities and achieve gender equity pay transparency, diversity in selection committees is necessary. Further, efforts should be across all settings, academia, private practice, and industry. The time for gender equity in oncology is now. [Table: see text]

9001 Background: With an increasingly diverse patient population in the U.S., the need for a diverse clinician workforce has been exemplified. In 2021, 28% of the practicing physicians in the U.S. were born/trained outside of the continental U.S. Though strides in promoting diversity among oncologists have been made, continuous longitudinal assessments and improvements are important to ensure goals are met. We conducted the first cross-sectional study to understand the challenges and experiences of IMGs and Puerto Rican (PR) medical graduates in oncology in the U.S. Methods: An anonymous online questionnaire via Survey Monkey was developed. Non-U.S. IMGs and PRMGs who trained and/or practicing independently in the U.S. were eligible to participate. The study launched on Twitter with promotional materials, inviting participants to complete the survey. A list of IMGs and PR medical graduates was also compiled and an email invitation with the survey link was sent to. The enrollment period was from Sept-Dec 2023. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 97 participants from oncology-related fields completed the survey. Most were attendings (62.9%), and women (50.5%). 95.9% were IMGs and 5.2% PRMGs. 79.4% participants migrated after medical school and 90.7% were still living In the U.S. The main reasons for migrating were looking for better training (63.9%), seeking professional gains (57.7%), and lack of opportunities in their home country (49.5%). Most had to adapt to new cuisine (51.5%), community (53.6%), traditions (54.6%), and celebrations (58.8%). Participants expressed the need to change their dress code (33%), tone of voice (39.2%), the way they spoke (51.5%), and conducted themselves (49.5%). Participants faced racial/ethnic (54.5%), gender (29.7%), and language (41.9%) discrimination during training in the U.S. Similarly, they experienced racial/ethnic (46.8%), gender (32.8%), and language (24.6%) discrimination during independent practice in U.S. Most participants reported moderate personal (57%), yet extreme professional (57.4%) satisfaction in the U.S. 10.5% of participants had returned to their home country, 27.4% planned to, and 53.7% did not plan to return. The main reasons for going back home were family (67%), quality of life (28.9%), and feelings of isolation/lack of community (22.7%). Conclusions: Our study reveals that the main reasons physicians migrate to the U.S. is for education and professional opportunities. Yet these could come at a high cost, leading foreign-born physicians to compromise their true identities. Despite increasing representation of IMGs and PRMGs in the medical field in the U.S., they remain victims of discrimination at frequent rates. It is imperative to implement changes beyond diversifying the work field and strive for equity to create a more conducive environment for minority physicians.

8013 Background: For patients (pts) with unresectable locally-advanced NSCLC, standard of care involves durva consolidation after concurrent CRT, although its benefit in ALK+ tumors is unclear. The ALINA trial demonstrated adjuvant efficacy of alectinib in resected ALK+ NSCLC, but the optimal consolidation strategy for unresectable locally-advanced ALK+ NSCLC remains elusive. Methods: This multi-institutional international retrospective analysis included pts with stage III unresectable ALK+ NSCLC who received an ALK TKI, durva, or obs alone after concurrent CRT between 2015-2022. Baseline characteristics of age, sex, smoking history, and PD-L1 status were collected. Clinical outcomes including real-world progression-free survival (rw-PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-related adverse events (trAE) as defined using CTCAE 5.0 were assessed, and multivariate cox regression models were performed. Results: Sixty-four pts across 16 institutions were included. The median age was 57 (IQR 49-66) and 61% were females. The majority had adenocarcinoma (97%) and had never smoked (58%). 15 received ALK TKI (10 alectinib, 3 crizotinib, 1 brigatinib, 1 lorlatinib), 30 received durva, and 19 received obs alone. There was no significant difference in stage of cancer (IIIA, B, or C) or PD-L1 status among groups. After adjusting for stage and age at CRT initiation, median rw-PFS was significantly longer for ALK TKI (rw-PFS not reached [NR], 95% CI 22.7-NR) vs durva (11.3 months (mo), 95% CI 9.2-18.5, p= 0.005, HR = 0.12) or obs (7.4 mo, 95% CI 3.4-12.5, p < 0.0001). Two (13%) pts progressed on ALK TKI. 25 pts (83%) progressed on durva leading to treatment with ALK TKI in 23, and 18 (95%) progressed while under obs leading to treatment with ALK TKI in 15. 3-year OS was 100% for ALK TKI vs 90.5% for durva vs 63.5% for obs. Median OS was NR (95% CI NR-NR) for both ALK TKI and durva vs 70.6 mo (24.9-NR) in the obs group ( p= 0.03 for both ALK TKI and durva compared to obs). Median duration of therapy was 24.7 mo with ALK TKI and 6.5 mo with durva. Grade ≥3 trAE occurred in 27%, 7%, 6% of pts treated with ALK TKI (1 fatigue, 1 diarrhea, 1 hyperbilirubinemia, 1 pneumonitis), durva (1 fatigue, 1 neutropenia), and obs (1 neutropenia) respectively. Treatment discontinuation due to toxicity occurred in 4 (27%) with ALK TKI and in 3 (10%) with durva. Conclusions: In this retrospective study of stage III ALK+ NSCLC, consolidation ALK TKI demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in PFS and OS over durva and obs, while showing a slightly higher rate of trAE over dura and obs. Furthermore, we show a high rate of progression following CRT alone in ALK+ NSCLC. These findings underscore the need for prospective molecularly driven trials to determine the optimal consolidation therapy for unresectable ALK+ NSCLC.

This JAMA Oncology Patient Page describes the geriatric assessment used by clinicians to evaluate the health of older adults 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.

8567 Background: Adjuvant osimertinib (osi) improves disease-free survival (DFS) in patients (pts) with resected, early-stage, EGFR-mutant (EGFRmut) NSCLC, yet the benefit of osi after CRT in pts with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC is unknown. Post-hoc analysis of the PACIFIC trial showed a lack of survival benefit with consolidation durva versus placebo in pts with EGFRmut NSCLC. Comparisons between consolidation durva and EGFR TKIs in unresectable EGFRmut NSCLC following CRT are lacking. Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of pts with stage III unresectable EGFRmut NSCLC (exon19 deletion, exon21 L858R), who received EGFR TKI or durva after ≥ 2 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy plus definitive radiation therapy between 2015-2022. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, smoking history, PD-L1 status, and outcomes on DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety were collected. Multivariable (MVA) cox regression analysis was used for statistical analysis. Treatment-related adverse events (trAE) were defined using CTCAE 5.0. Results: Seventeen pts from 12 institutions received an EGFR TKI (osi, n=15; erlotinib, n=2), and 13 pts received consolidation durva. Median follow-up was 23 months. Median age of all pts was 61 years (IQR:52-72) and 76.7% were female. Most pts in both groups had never-smoked and had adenocarcinoma. All pts received ≥ 60 Gy of radiation with concurrent chemotherapy. PD-L1 expression was ≥ 50% in 1/10 (10%) pts treated with durva vs 6/13 (46.2%) treated with TKI, p=0.09. Median duration on treatment for EGFR TKI and durva was 12.2 months and 4.8 months, respectively. Pts treated with EGFR TKI had significantly longer 24-month DFS versus pts treated with durva after adjusting for stage (3A vs 3B vs 3C) (Table). Any grade tRAE occurred in 58.8% (10/17) of pts treated with EGFR TKI vs 38.5% (5/13) with durva. Grade > 3 tRAE occurred in 15.4% (1 pneumonitis and 1 AST/ALT elevation) of pts treated with durva but in none of pts treated with EGFR TKI. Three pts within each arm came off treatment due to toxicity (EGFR TKI: 1 pneumonitis and 2 dermatitis; durva: 1 of each pneumonitis, Type 1 diabetes, AST/ALT elevation). Conclusions: EGFR TKI therapy after definitive CRT was associated with significantly longer DFS compared to durva in this retrospective study of pts with stage III unresectable EGFRmut NSCLC, without unanticipated safety signals. Follow-up is ongoing and OS outcomes will be evaluated subsequently. Further investigation is warranted to define the optimal therapy for locally advanced EGFRmut NSCLC. [Table: see text]