69 Adherence to the ASCO Language of Respect guidelines in renal cell carcinoma abstracts in an international oncology meeting
Authors: Goud Jaya , Dizman Nazli , Barragan-Carrillo Regina , Li Xiaochen , Li Yu Jun , Mercier Benjamin , Wong Megan H , Chan Ethan , Dukkipati Akasha , Paul Teebro , Faridi Amber , Patel Jalen , Paul Trishita , Zugman Miguel , Ebrahimi Hedyeh , Hsu JoAnn , Jaime-Casas Salvador , Chehrazi-Raffle Alexander , Dorff Tanya , Prowell Tatiana , Florez Narjust , Pal Sumanta , Castro Daniela V 
Published: August 2024

Background

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Language of Respect (LoR) guidelines were developed to promote the use of patient-centered language in all communications in 2020. The Language of Respect guidelines provide a directive to encourage the highest level of respect in addressing patients with cancer. In this study, we aimed to analyze the adherence to these guidelines in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) abstracts presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting, the largest international meeting of oncologists.

Methods

All RCC abstracts published in the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting were evaluated. Statements from the abstracts were collected and stratified into the three categories of the LoR guidelines: (1) “Do not blame patients”, (2) “Respect the role of patients”, and (3) “Do not dehumanize patients”. Abstract and author data were summarized using descriptive statistics, and univariable and multivariable analyses were utilized to identify factors associated with odds of noncompliance with the guidelines.

Results

In total, 101 RCC abstracts were assessed. Most abstracts were published as poster presentations (51.5%) followed by online publication only (44.6%) and oral abstracts (4.0%). First authors affiliated with institutions in native English-speaking countries constituted 69.3% of the abstracts. Authors affiliated with institutions from a single country comprised 67.3% of the abstracts, whereas 32.7% of the abstracts were affiliated with authors from multiple countries. 40.6% of abstracts received no funding, 36.6% of abstracts received funding from a pharmaceutical company, and 22.8% received funding from non-profit organizations, institutions, or grants. There were 34 (33.7%) abstracts associated with clinical trials versus 67 (66.3%) associated with non-clinical trials. 51.5% of abstracts remained within 5% of the character count limit. Overall, 60.4% of the abstracts contained at least one statement that violated the guidelines. Abstracts with at least one statement violating “Do not dehumanize patients”, “Do not blame patients”, and “Respect the role of patients” directives were found in 46.5%, 21.8%, and 1.0% of abstracts, respectively. Abstracts within 5% of the character count limit were associated with increased odds of guideline noncompliance in the univariable analysis (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.14-0.75], p=0.008). By multivariable analysis, abstracts within 5% of the character count limit were also associated with higher odds of violating the guidelines (OR 0.31 [95% CI 0.13-0.71], p=0.006).

Conclusions

A significant portion of RCC abstracts were found to violate the LoR guidelines. Our results highlight the importance of considering the expansion of the character count limit for abstract submissions to increase adherence to the LoR guidelines. With the incorporation of LoR guidelines in all forms of communication, the scientific community can promote increased use of respectful language in addressing patients, families, and colleagues.