Gynecologic Oncology, Gender And Relevant Leadership In Academic Medicine.

e19056 Background: Within academic medicine, there has been increasing attention to diversity and inclusion. We sought to characterize gynecologic oncologist (GO) faculty inclusion, with attention to gender in relevant academic leadership roles. Methods: Using the American Association of Medical Colleges list of accredited schools of medicine academic institutions were identified. Observational data was obtained through institutional websites in 2019. Results: Of 154 accredited medical schools, 144 contain a department of obstetrics and gynecology (OBG) with a chair; 103 a GO division with a director; 98 a clinical cancer center with a director. GO divisions included an average of 3.1 faculty. 55% of GO faculty were women, compared to 66% of OBG faculty (p < 0.01). 38% of the GO division directors were women which was an under-representation (p < 0.01). GOs made up 10% of OBG faculty and 15.4% of OBG chairs (NS). Women GOs made up 7.9% of women OBG faculty and 8 (5.6%) women GOs were OBG chairs (NS). 9.9% of GO faculty (11.6% of women GO faculty) report to women GOs at the chair level. OBG departments with a GO chair were more likely to have a woman GO division director (68.4 vs 31.7%, p < 0.01), and GO fellowship (59.1 vs 32%, p < 0.01). The majority (59%) of cancer centers directors were medical oncologists (see Table). 2 (2%) of cancer center directors were GOs; 1 at an NCI designated cancer center. Neither GO directors were women. Incidence to leadership and mortality to leadership ratios were calculated compared to expected rates by SEER 2019. By these measures GOs were underrepresented in cancer center leadership (p < 0.01, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Despite representative leadership of GO and women GO within in OBG leadership, most GOs report to non-oncologists at the department chair level. Potential benefits of GO leadership within OBG departments were identified. The practice of gynecologic oncology includes complex medical and surgical cancer care making these physicians uniquely qualified for cancer center, but representation of GOs in cancer center leadership is low and women GO were absent from cancer center director positions. Without inclusion of GO in cancer center leadership, existing inequities in clinical care, research and funding for gynecologic malignancies may be amplified. [Table: see text]