Despite global efforts, gender disparities in oncology may persist. Understanding these disparities within the context of major conferences can inform strategies to promote gender inclusiveness in the field. This study evaluates the participation of women and men at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 congress, focusing on chairs, speakers and audience questioners.

Observational study.

152 recorded sessions of the ASCO 2024 annual meeting, one of the largest conferences in the field of oncology, available on the ASCO website.

Individuals serving as chairs, speakers and audience members who asked questions.

In this observational study, gender for chairs, speakers and audience questioners across 152 sessions of the ASCO 2024 congress was assessed by two independent reviewers using audio and video recordings. Speaking times for questions and responses were also evaluated. Statistical analyses, including ² and unpaired t-tests, were conducted to analyse the data.

Women were well represented as chairs (n=124) and speakers (n=402) in 66% and 95% of sessions, respectively. However, only 21% of questions from the audience were posed by women, while 37% of questions were asked by men and 42% online or by chairs/speakers. Women were more likely to pose questions when the sessions were chaired by women (71% vs 53%; p=0.047). There were no statistically significant gender disparities concerning speaking time (questions: p=0.30; responses: 0.53). The response dynamics indicated a pattern of gender homogeneity, with individuals more frequently responding to questions from their own gender.

While the balanced representation of women in leadership roles at the ASCO 2024 congress reflects positive development in gender equality, disparities in active participation persist. These findings underscore the need for strategies that not only promote women in visible roles but also foster an environment that supports their active engagement in scientific discussions.

There are still some controversies regarding the role of nuclear medicine practitioners in delivering imaging findings to the patients as well as content and magnitude of information to be delivered. The aim of the study was to identify the expectations of patients regarding the communication of results from a nuclear imaging examination.

A national survey was conducted among patients who underwent a nuclear imaging examination. In each participating centre, a questionnaire was administered to the patients.

Primary care in France.

The study involved 723 patients from 12 French Nuclear Medicine departments (university hospitals, general hospitals, comprehensive cancer centres and private centres).

The primary endpoint was to determine the proportion of patients expressing a wish to consult a nuclear medicine physician at the end of the imaging session and to assess the rationale underlying this preference.

Our results indicate that a significant majority (73.2%) of patients prefer to meet primarily with the nuclear medicine physician to receive an explanation of the imaging findings. Concerning the disclosure of these results, 66.1% of the patients prefer to receive an explanation from the nuclear medicine physician, either alongside or instead of the requesting physician alone. Furthermore, nearly all patients (96.1%) who wish to meet with the nuclear medicine physician also indicate their willingness to receive the examination results, even if they are unfavourable.

This study underscores the clear preference of patients to interact with nuclear medicine specialists and benefit from their expertise, irrespective of whether the results are positive or negative. This emphasises the critical need for implementing standardised recommendations across countries and ensuring adequate training for nuclear physicians to actually meet this demand. This aspect is likely to distinguish a nuclear medicine physician from a scan interpreter.