11005 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new challenges for medical education. In particular, student assessment posed some of the most urging questions. How do we evaluate practical skills when our universities are on lockdown and our hospitals are working on a shortage of personnel? Is it possible to evaluate these skills via online means, mitigating the effects in students’ career development? This paper presents an online evaluation experience implemented at Instituto Oncológico Henry Moore-Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires in the postgraduate program of Clinical Oncology. The Virtual Observational Standard Clinical Examination (V-OSCE) is a technology-based adaptation of the Observational Standard Clinical Examination (OSCE) (JCO 34 (15), Abstract e18150, 2017) implemented in previous years. Methods: The V-OSCE took place in November 14, 2020 and consisted on a half-day evaluation during which students rotated through 8 stations (Table). The exam ran on three platforms: Blackboard Collaborate for the interactive elements of all stations; University online campus (Moodle platform) for student questionnaires, and Google Forms for the evaluators’ assessment of each student. Students and evaluators participated in various training sessions, and were given a month to practice before the exam. All interactions were recorded and an anonymous survey on students’ experience and opinions was conducted after the exam. Results: A total of 25 postgraduate Oncology students participated in the V-OSCE. 24 students (96%) completed all stations on time with minimum or no network connection issues. Student opinions: 24 students completed the exam experience anonymous survey; 23 found the exam tech-friendly and valued the practice time provided. When asked to score the exam in a scale of 1 to 10: 80% of the students ranked the exam with 9 or 10; and 20%, with 7 or 8. Conclusions: A) It is feasible to design new ways to assess medical students via online means. B) The experience of an OSCE can be translated to an online environment with minimum technological requirements. C) The COVID-19 pandemic effects are extensive, with serious implications in medical education. However, it has proved to be an opportunity to rethink our educational practices, design innovative formative experiences, and assess new skills that will remain significant even long after the pandemic has ended.[Table: see text]

e13563 Background: In Argentina, half of the media content reaches viewers through streaming platforms. This papers studies the frequency of smoking in fifty of the most watched programs on Netflix Argentina, and the average exposure to this habit in one hour of viewing. Methods: Between October 1, 2019, and January 10, 2020, we observed fifty of the most watched series on Netflix Argentina, set in the twentieth century or afterwards. The programs were grouped by Netflix Maturity Rating to analyze the frequency of smoking in shows available to different age groups. We established if smoking was present in the show and randomly selected one episode of each to time the amount of smoking. All times were standardized to 60 minutes to compare episodes of different duration. Results: Table shows the frequency of smoking in each of the Netflix Maturity Rating categories. The average exposure time to smoking is 2.5 minutes (r = 0-8 min) every 60 minutes. Conclusions: 1) Viewers are exposed to smoking in 64% of the most watched series on Netflix Argentina, for an equivalent of time to at least three tobacco advertisements per hour. 2) Smoking takes place in 50% to 73% of the series available to teenage viewers (rated 13+ or 16+). 3) Netflix has publicly committed to eradicate smoking from its series. We must ensure this commitment is fulfilled and extended to other streaming platforms and production companies. [Table: see text]

e21677 Background: Young patients with lung cancer are unusual. This paper focuses on our experience with Young Patients (<45 yo) with Lung Adenocarcinoma (YPLA), treated at Instituto Oncológico Henry Moore (IOHM). Methods: Out of all lung cancer patients, we selected YPLA admitted between September 2012 and September 2019. We analyzed their medical history forms, electronic clinical records, treatments and outcomes. Results: We included 31 out of 1,119 Pt (3%) patients. Median Age: 39 (24-44). Sex F/M: 15/16. The table shows the clinical characteristics of population and outcomes. Conclusions: 1) Young patients with lung adenocarcinoma presented aggressive tumors, as evidenced by: advanced stages, poor performance status and CNS compromise. 2) In our series, smoking is a predominant etiological factor. 3) Further research will analyze genomic profiles of these tumors. 4) Screening for CNS metastasis should be mandatory in this population. [Table: see text]

e23009 Background: Systematic reviews show that second opinion consultations in Oncology are frequent (1 – 35%) and differ from initial recommendations by up to 50% (BMJ Open 2021;11:e044033). This study evaluates the variability of second opinions of Oncology Fellows in a Virtual Observational Standard Clinical Examination (V-OSCE 2021) (J Clin Oncol 39, 2021, suppl 15; abstr 11005). Methods: One of the stations of the V-OSCE 2021 included a simulated patient’s relative requesting a second opinion. The patient was a 62-year-old male with advanced lung adenocarcinoma (Mts in lymph nodes, bone and liver) PDL1 3%. All other markers (EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and Her2) were negative. The tumor progressed at first line with standard chemoimmunotherapy (Carboplatin + Pemetrexed + Pembrolizumab). At the time of consultation, the patient had PS2, depression, hepatic progression without evidence of CNS lesions and all laboratory results were normal. Docetaxel had been recommended as a second line of treatment. The case was sent to each Fellow before the examination, and the evaluation consisted of ten standardized prognostic and therapeutic questions. Results: A total of 16 Oncology Fellows were evaluated. Sex Female/Male (11/5) Age: Mean 33 years (r= 30-35). We analyzed the answers to ten standardized questions (Table). Conclusions: A) The Oncology Fellows agreed on only two out of ten answers to the standardized questions (incurability and mental health referral); and in the remaining eight, disagreement is evident. B) Within the first seven questions, all Fellows differed among themselves in at least one answer. C) These findings coincide with our daily practice: It is highly likely that if a patient gets a second opinion, they will get divergent and even contradictory answers about their case. D) Are these findings a product of differing knowledge or physicians’ noises and biases? Further research could address how medical education and professional development can help with reflecting upon these issues.[Table: see text]

e13616 Background: COVID-19 posed new challenges in patient care and led to an increase in teleoncology. This paper analyzes telemedicine communication skills of millennial medical students of the postgraduate program of Clinical Oncology at Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires. Methods: Student assessment was based on a video call interaction with simulated patients in two stations (30 minutes each) of the Virtual Observational Standard Clinical Examination (V-OSCE), implemented in November 2020. Students received virtual communication guidelines and participated in training sessions to use the video call platform. All interactions were recorded. Assessment items (Table). Results: A total of 25 students were evaluated: 1 (4%) was ineligible due to network connection issues; 24 (96%) participated in both interactions. We analyzed 48 interactions in total. Opening: 6/48 interactions completed all five required items. Most recurring problems: not checking for patient’s previous experience with teleoncology (37/48) and not providing an alternative communication channel in case of technical difficulties (40/48). Middle: the results were similar to in-person interaction observed in previous exams, 35/48 interactions completed all required items. End: 16/48 interactions completed both items. In 32/48 the student did not check for patient understanding of the information provided. Only 3/48 interactions completed all 12 items. Conclusions: A) The V-OSCE is a useful tool to practice and evaluate teleoncology communication skills. B) The Middle Moment of the interactions was similar to an in-person interaction. However, the Opening and End of the interview were more challenging. The most critical struggles being: checking for patient’s previous experience in teleoncology, providing an alternative communication channel in case of technical difficulties and checking for patient understanding. C) COVID-19 established new forms of communication that are likely to remain even after the pandemic has ended. It is important to address this demand for online communication skills in medical education curricula.[Table: see text]