From Guidelines to Accountability: Examining Adherence to ASCO Language of Respect in Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Abstracts.

396 Background: ASCO Language of Respect Guidelines were developed in advance of the 2020 ASCO Annual Meeting to promote use of patient-respectful language in abstracts and presentations and to ensure that speakers received equitable treatment at the podium. Herein, we aimed to assess adherence to these guidelines among RCC abstracts presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. Methods: In this observational study, six researchers reviewed all RCC abstracts accepted for the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting and collected adherence data pertinent to the Language of Respect Guidelines. Collected statements were reviewed by two independent researchers and standardized into three major categories in accordance with the guidelines: (1) Do not blame patient, (2) Respects the role of the patient, and (3) Do not dehumanize patients. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of the abstracts and authors, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with odds of including at least one statement against the language of respect guidelines. Results: A total of 184 abstracts were evaluated. The majority were accepted as poster presentation (64.1%) followed by online publication only (23.4%). 75.5% of the abstracts had a first author institutional affiliation where English is the native language. Authors from institutions in a single county constituted 65.8% of the abstracts whereas 34.2% of the abstracts were products of multi-country collaborations. 55.1% of the abstracts contained at least one statement that deviated from the guidelines. Proportions of abstracts with at least one statement violating “Do not dehumanize the patient”, “Do not blame”, and “Respect the role of the patient” clauses were 42.4%, 18.5% and 2.2%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed higher odds of violating guidelines among abstracts originating from author groups in a single-country and those with a first author in a non-Native English-speaking country (OR 1.97 [95% CI 1.06-3.65], p=0.032 and OR 2.79 [95% CI 1.33-5.85], p=0.007). In multivariate analysis, the presence of a first author from an institution in a non-Native English-speaking country was associated with greater odds for including a statement violating guidelines (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.29-6.10, p=.009). Conclusions: A significant proportion of RCC abstracts were found to contain language inconsistent with the ASCO Language of Respect guidelines. Our results underscore the importance of disseminating the guidelines in a culturally sensitive multi-lingual format. As we recognize people living with cancer as partners in research and clinical care, we implore the scientific community to cultivate greater awareness and adherence to patient-respectful language and for conference sponsors to promote accountability with these best practices.