Race/Ethnicity and Gender Representation in Hematology and Oncology Editorial Boards: What is the State of Diversity?

The Glass Wall: Gendered Authorship Disparities in CD 19 and BCMA CAR-T Clinical Trials for Lymphoma and Myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Existing literature suggests that women are significantly underrepresented in the field of hematology-oncology. Women make up 35.6% of hematologists and data on females as site investigators for pivotal trials and authors in publications of pivotal trials in hematologic malignancies, specifically in the novel niche of Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T), is sparse.

METHODS

We examined the proportion of women in pivotal trials, screening a total of 2180 studies from PubMed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. 2180 initially searched records were filtered by date (2017-2023) and clinical trial status, yielding 149 records. Following a manual review, we included 15 studies that led to the approval of or anticipated approval of CD19 and BCMA CAR-T therapies in lymphoid and plasma cell malignancies. We examined overall number of female authors, number of lead female authors, and ratio of all authors to female authors in the 15 trials, which were all high impact, cited on average 1314 times.

RESULTS

Of the 436 authors assessed, 132 were female, correlating to 29.5% female authorship. The only study with female authorship >50% was ELIANA, a 2017 pediatric study. 7 of the 15 studies had female lead authors; notably, 6 out of 7 of these studies were published in 2021 or later.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our data suggests gender iniquities for female investigators exist in the field of immune effector cell therapy. We suggest further investigation and strategies to decrease gendered authorship disparities.

Assessment of h-index and associated demographic and academic parameters for academic hematologists in Canada

Introduction

The h-index measures researchers' productivity by assessing simultaneously the number of publications and citations. We aimed to assess the factors that could influence h-index for hematologists practicing in academic institutions in Canada.

Methods

We identified universities with a hematology residency training programs/fellowships using the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) website. We obtained the listing of faculty, sex, and academic ranks by consulting faculty directories or by contacting respective departments/universities, when directories were unavailable or incomplete. For each faculty member, we obtained years since Royal College of Physicians' and Surgeons of Canada certification or equivalent, receipt of Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) grants within the last 5 years, attainment of graduate degrees (M.Sc., Ph.D., other), and the h-index.

Results

The data included information collected from 372 individuals (171 females) across Canada (Atlantic Provinces: 13; Quebec: 89; Ontario: 182; Prairie Provinces: 59; British Columbia: 29). Univariate analysis showed that male sex, practicing in British Columbia, longer duration since specialty certification, completion of an M.Sc. or a Ph.D. degree, attaining a higher academic rank and receiving CIHR funding were associated with higher h-index. The results of the univariate analysis were concordant with the multivariate analysis, except that practicing in Ontario was also associated with higher h-index.

Conclusion

This study provides details on the h-index curve/parameters for academic productivity of hematologists in Canada. Importantly, based on multivariate analysis, higher h-index was associated with male sex, location of practice, years since certification, attainment of M.Sc. or Ph.D. degrees, academic rank, and recent CIHR funding.

A 15-Year Analysis of Supply and Demand for Hematology and Oncology Training in the United States

PURPOSE

There is a paucity of research on the supply of the hematology and oncology workforce despite projected shortages in the United States Over the past 15 years of the hematology and oncology match (HOM), we hypothesized that there would be more growth in the number of training positions relative to applicants, higher match rates for US allopathic graduates relative to non-US allopathic graduates, and fewer applicants matching at their top fellowship choices.

METHODS

This was a national, retrospective cohort study of all applicants in the HOM (2009-2023). Match rates and applicant-to-training position ratios were calculated and compared over time with Pearson tests.

RESULTS

Growth in the number of annual training positions (426-708; 66% increase) exceeded growth in the number of interested applicants (706-945; 34% increase; P < .001). Annual applicant-to-training position ratios decreased from 1.7 to 1.3 (r = -0.813; P < .001). Match rates increased over the study period for both US allopathic graduates (79%-88%; r = 0.761; P = .001) and non-US allopathic graduates (45%-63%; r = 0.801; P < .001). During each year, match rates for US allopathic graduates exceeded those for non-US allopathic graduates (P < .001). From 2018 to 2023, US allopathic graduates (83%) had higher match rates than US osteopathic graduates (60%) and international medical graduates (50%; P < .001). The percentage of applicants that matched at one of their top three fellowship choices increased from 53% to 60% (r = 0.480; P = .070). Fewer available annual training positions went unfilled over the study period (3%-0.3%; r = - 0.870; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Match rates have increased in the HOM but remain competitive especially for non-US allopathic graduates. Future investigation is needed to understand disparities in match outcomes by additional applicant and fellowship program characteristics. Ongoing surveillance of HOM outcomes remains critical given the projected shortages in the US hematology and oncology workforce.

Gender Representation of Editors at Journals Affiliated with Major U.S. Medical Societies

Objectives: To assess the gender composition of upper-level specialty-specific editor positions among United States (U.S.) medical society-affiliated journals and to evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and women physicians. Materials and Methods: The gender composition of upper-level (e.g., editor-in-chief, deputy) specialty-specific editor positions among 39 U.S. medical society-affiliated journals as of January 5, 2023, was analyzed. Editor positions below the level of associate editor were excluded. Parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared with the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty) benchmarks were utilized to determine if women are underrepresented in editor positions. Results: A total of 862 editor positions among 39 journals were assessed. Women held 32.9% (284/862) of positions (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.9%-36.2%), significantly less than expected based on the U.S. population (p < 0.001). Physicians comprised 90.8% (783/862) of positions, of whom 30.4% (238/783) were women physicians (95% CI: 27.3%-33.7%), significantly less than expected (p < 0.001). Thirty-three (84.6%, 95% CI: 70.3%-92.8%) journals were below parity for women overall, whereas 34 (87.2%, 95% CI: 73.3%-94.4%) were below parity for women physicians. Fourteen (35.9%, 95% CI: 22.7%-51.6%) journals were below equity for women physicians. Notably, 13 (33.3%, 95% CI: 20.6%-49.0%) journals were below both parity and equity for women overall and women physicians. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women in editor positions of journals affiliated with U.S. medical societies. Despite the equitable inclusion of women in editorial roles being a remediable issue, approximately one third of journals affiliated with major U.S. medical societies remain inequitable.