Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Over the past 2 decades, enormous advances have been made in the management of CAT. The growing evidence base informing practice has led to the publication of a number of guidelines and guidance documents on the diagnosis and treatment of CAT. The goal of this review is to examine the latest versions of evidence-based guidelines, highlighting the differences and similarities in their methodology, their disease-specific content, and recommendations for management. Our analysis shows that for most clinical topics, the different guidelines provide roughly similar management advice. However, there are a number of important clinical topics in CAT that are not currently covered by the existing guidelines. We think inclusion of these topics in future versions of the guidelines will facilitate ongoing efforts to optimize the care of patients with CAT. The Oncologist 2021;26:e24-e40Implications for Practice: Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in patients with cancer. This review examines the differences and similarities of the current CAT guidelines methods and recommendations. Current guidelines largely agree on many aspects of CAT management. However, there are a number of topics in CAT that are not currently included in guidelines where evidence-based guidance would be very helpful for clinicians. Coverage of these topics in future guidelines is encouraged to optimize clinical practice.

Objective. Health comorbidities, particularly cardiovascular risk factors, are well known to pose risks for cognitive decline in older adults. To date, little attention has focused on the impact of these comorbidities on Parkinson's disease (PD). This study examined the prevalence and contribution of comorbidities on cognitive status in PD patients, above and beyond the effects of disease severity. Methods. A cross sectional design was used, including neuropsychological data on 341 PD patients without severe cognitive decline. Comorbidity data were collected via medical chart review. Data were analyzed using a series of multiple hierarchical regressions, controlling for PD-related disease variables. Results. Overall sample characteristics are 69% male, disease duration 9.7 years, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale 26.4, and age 64.7 years. Hypercholesterolemia (41.6%), hypertension (38.1%), and hypotension (30.2%) were the most reported comorbidities. The presence of hypertension significantly contributed to domains of executive function and verbal memory. The cooccurrence of orthostatic hypotension moderated the relationship between hypertension and executive function. Conclusions. This study on a large cohort of PD patients provides evidence for a detrimental influence of health comorbidities, particularly hypertension, on cognitive domains that have traditionally been conceptualized as being frontally and/or temporally mediated.

PURPOSE In a professional setting, the introduction of female speakers without their professional title may have an impact on the public’s perception of the female speaker. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the ASCO Annual Meeting. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO Annual Meetings. A “professional address” was defined as the professional title followed by the speaker’s full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. RESULTS Of 2,511 videos reviewed, 781 met inclusion criteria. Female speakers were addressed less often by their professional title compared with male speakers (62% v 81%; P < .001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared with females when introducing male speakers (53% v 80%; P < .01). When women performed speaker introductions, no gender differences in professional address were observed (75% v 82%; P = .13). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% v 3%; P < .001). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared with female introducers (24% v 7%; P < .01). In a multivariable regression including gender, degree, academic rank, and geographic location of the speaker’s institution, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared with female speakers (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.71 to 3.47; P < .01). CONCLUSION When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared with their male peers.

10503 Background: Gender bias can be reinforced through the use of gender-subordinating language and differences in the forms of address. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. Methods: A retrospective observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO annual meetings was conducted. Data were extracted by mixed-gender coders. Professional address was defined as professional title followed by full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. Results: 2511 videos were reviewed and 812 met inclusion criteria. Regarding speakers’ characteristics, 530 (65%) were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 743 (92%) held a MD or MD-PhD degree, and 484 (60%) were an associate or full professor. Female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address compared to male speakers (61% vs. 81%, p < 0.001). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared to male speakers (53% vs. 80%, p < 0.01). No gender differences in professional address were observed for female introducers (p = 0.13). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared to female introducers (24% vs. 7%, p < 0.01). In a multivariable regression including gender, race, degree, and academic rank, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared to female speakers (OR: 2.67, 95%CI: 1.81-3.94, p < 0.01). Black speakers of both genders were less likely to receive a professional address compared to NHW (OR: 0.10, 95%CI: 0.01-0.53, p < 0.01). Female gender was a predictor for a non-professional form of address (first name only) (OR: 9.50, 95%CI: 4.38-20.62, p < 0.01). Conclusions: When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared to male speakers. Selective use of forms of address may strengthen gender bias; more research is needed to explore the causes of this disparity and its influence.

No abstract