Islam, Mahnoor

Abstract Background Despite the lack of proven therapies for recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG), only 8%–11% of patients with glioblastoma participate in clinical trials, partly due to stringent eligibility criteria. Prior bevacizumab treatment is a frequent exclusion criterion, due to difficulty with response assessment and concerns for rebound edema following antiangiogenic discontinuation. There are no standardized trial eligibility rules related to prior antiangiogenic use. Methods We reviewed ClinicalTrials.gov listings for glioma studies starting between May 2009 and July 2022 for eligibility rules related to antiangiogenics. We also reviewed the literature pertaining to bevacizumab withdrawal. Results Two hundred and ninety-seven studies for patients with recurrent glioma were reviewed. Most were phase 1 (n = 145, 49%), non-randomized (n = 257, 87%), evaluated a drug-only intervention (n = 223, 75%), and had a safety and tolerability primary objective (n = 181, 61%). Fifty-one (17%) excluded participants who received any antiangiogenic, one (0.3%) excluded participants who received any non-temozolomide systemic therapy. Fifty-nine (20%) outlined washout rules for bevacizumab (range 2–24 weeks, 4-week washout n = 35, 12% most common). Seventy-eight required a systemic therapy washout (range 1–6 weeks, 4-week washout n = 34, 11% most common). Nine permitted prior bevacizumab use with limitations, 18 (6%) permitted any prior bevacizumab, 5 (2%) were for bevacizumab-refractory disease, and 76 (26%) had no rules regarding antiangiogenic use. A literature review is then presented to define standardized eligibility criteria with a 6-week washout period proposed for future trial design. Conclusions Interventional clinical trials for patients with HGG have substantial heterogeneity regarding eligibility criteria pertaining to bevacizumab use, demonstrating a need for standardizing clinical trial design.

6559 Background: Recent findings that Black and Hispanic patients were significantly underrepresented in industry-sponsored prostate cancer trials warrant a detailed investigation across cancer types to assess the association between funding source and enrollment disparities. Methods: Phase II/III clinical trials in prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancers reporting age, gender, race/ethnicity, and reporting NIH or industry as the funding source were considered eligible for inclusion. For age, and gender analysis, all trials were considered eligible. For race/ethnicity analysis, trials recruiting from the United States (US) were considered eligible. Enrollment-incidence ratios (EIR) comparing trial proportion from age/gender or racial/ethnic subgroups against global cancer incidence in the corresponding group (from Global Burden of Disease) or US-population-based incidence in the corresponding racial/ethnic subgroup (from SEER 22), were computed. Trial-level EIRs were pooled using a random-effects model and subsequently stratified by funding source. A univariate meta-regression was conducted to assess the temporal changes in EIR by each funding category. Results: Of 42,390 studies initially identified, 2234 trials (1989-2021) met the eligibility criteria. Regarding age, 361 (16%) trials reported age categories by 65 years threshold. Of 698 trials recruiting from the US, 498 (71%) reported race, and 198 (28%) reported ethnicity. Regarding representation, older adults were under-represented (EIR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.62-0.70) in the industry but not in NIH-sponsored clinical trials (0.79; 0.62-1.00). Regarding gender, no significant disparity was observed regarding the enrollment of men and women in colorectal and lung cancer clinical trials. In terms of race, there was a greater under-representation of Black patients in industry sponsored trials (0.29; 0.26-0.32) as compared to NIH-sponsored clinical trials (0.65; 0.57-0.74) [Pint <0.01]. Asian patients were significantly overrepresented in industry sponsored trials (3.17; 2.69-3.74) but not in NIH sponsored clinical trials (1.43; 0.85-2.41) [Pint <0.01]. Hispanic patients were significantly under-represented in both, industry (0.27; 0.22-0.34) and NIH-sponsored clinical trials (0.35; 0.22-0.55) [Pint 0.32]. Secondary analyses including trials recruiting exclusively from the US, and analyses by specific cancer types showed consistent results. Recruitment of older adults, men, and Black patients is decreasing over time. Conclusions: There is a consistent under-representation of older adults in industry-sponsored, and of Black and Hispanic patients in both industry-sponsored and NIH-sponsored clinical trials. The under-representation of Black patients is likely to be greater in industry-sponsored trials, which has worsened over the last three decades.

6557 Background: Trials that inadequately include underrepresented minority (URM) populations widen inequities in cancer care. We assessed reporting patterns, representation, and trends of URM representation in breast cancer (BC) trials. Methods: We analyzed all phase 2/3 trials for age disparity and trials recruiting from the US for racial/ethnic disparity amongst BC RCTs (1990-2021). Enrollment-incidence ratios (EIR), which compare trial proportions (TP) from age subgroups against global estimates of incidence in the corresponding age group (from Global Burden of Disease) and racial/ethnic subgroups against US-population-based incidence in the corresponding racial/ethnic group (from SEER 22), were calculated. Individual-trial EIRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. EIRs of <0.80 indicated meaningful underrepresentation, while EIRs >1.20 indicated meaningful overrepresentation. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between key trial characteristics and EIR, and trends in EIR over the last three decades. Results: Of 842 global trials with 490,657 participants, 232 (27.6%) reported the number of participants in specific age strata and 144 (17.1%) reported outcomes by age. Only 60 trials recruited exclusively from the US. Of these, 41 (68.3%) reported race and 24 (40.0%) reported ethnicity, and 2 (3.3%) analyzed outcomes by race. Older adults aged ≥65 years (TP: 24.3%; EIR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.47-0.60]) and Hispanic women (TP: 5.3%; 0.54; 0.40-0.75) were underrepresented across global trials and US-only trials respectively. Black women were significantly underrepresented in trials that led to FDA approval (0.38; 0.25-0.58) but not in US-only trials. Stratified analysis by BC subtype (with subtype-specific population incidence) showed underrepresentation of Black women in US-only trials for HER2+ BC (0.66; 0.47-0.93), Hispanic women in ER+ BC (0.42; 0.20-0.90), Asians in triple-negative BC (0.24; 0.11-0.53), and older women in HER2+ BC (0.35; 0.31-0.40) and triple-negative BC (0.36; 0.29-0.45). From 1990-2021, the representation of older women declined significantly (meta-regression coefficient for EIR: -0.4 per 10 years), while Black and Hispanic representation showed no significant change. Black (p = 0.02) and Hispanic representation (p = 0.05) worsened significantly in larger trials. Conclusions: Published reports of BC trials do not consistently report the inclusion of URM. Older and Hispanic women were consistently underrepresented, whereas Black women were underrepresented in large, practice-changing trials. [Table: see text]

694 Background: The treatment landscape of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rapidly evolving. Recent trials have demonstrated contrasting efficacy with adjuvant immunotherapy. Therefore, we sought to assess the mixed treatment comparisons among different adjuvant treatment options using updated data from trials and quantified the absolute effect with these treatments stratified by risk categories. Methods: This living network meta-analysis was conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. We used stratified baseline risks of disease progression from observational data and at 5, 10, 15 years from the Leibovich risk stratification system (based on risk scores ranging from 0 to ≥15). Corresponding intervention risks were then approximated using relative effect estimates (from NMA) and baseline risks. The difference between CIRs and baseline risks were calculated to present absolute risk differences in each risk category. Results: This NMA included eight RCTs with 8480 participants and seven unique treatment options. Pembrolizumab (pembro; rank 1) was associated with improved disease-free survival (DFS) when compared to atezolizumab (atezo; rank 6; hazard ratio: 0.68; 0.49;0.93), and nivolumab-ipilimumab (nivoipi; rank 5; 0.68; 0.48-0.97). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between pembro and atezo for overall survival (0.53; 0.28-1.01). Survival data for nivoIpi was not reported. No new statistically significant differences were observed since last update. The absolute benefit of atezo and nivoipi was minimal with higher T and N patients (Table). The results were similar with increasing Leibovich risk scores. Conclusions: Current evidence favors the use of a risk adapted approach when offering adjuvant immunotherapy. Adjuvant pembrolizumab remains a preferred treatment in patients with RCC who underwent nephrectomy. [Table: see text]

40 Background: Previously we have reported enrollment disparities in PCa clinical trials. Funding source can influence minority representation in clinical trials. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the impact of source of funding on enrollment disparities in PCa clinical trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify phase II/III PCa trials. All relevant trials reporting age by 65 years were considered eligible for inclusion. Trials recruiting from the United States (US) were considered eligible for analysis by race and ethnicity. The trial proportions of age, or racial/ethnic subgroup category and the global incidence in the corresponding age subgroup (from the global burden of disease database), or the US-population-based incidence in the corresponding racial/ethnic subgroup (from SEER 21 database) were used to compute enrollment incidence ratio (EIR) at each trial. EIRs with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were then meta-analyzed using a random-effects model and stratified by sources of funding (industry, US-government, and others [academic and non-US govt]). A univariate meta-regression was conducted to assess the temporal changes in EIR by each funding category. Results: Of 127 trials recruiting from the US, 89 (70%) reported race, and 35 (27%) reported ethnicity. Among those, 57 (64%), 14 (16%), and 18 (20%) trials reported industry, US-government, and other sources of funding, respectively. Of those reporting ethnicity, 23 (66%), 4 (11%), and 8 (23%) trials reported industry, US-government, and other sources of funding, respectively. Among the 287 eligible trials, 49 trials (17%) reported age by 65 years. Of those, 36 (73%), 6 (12%), and 7 (13%) reported industry, US-government, and other sources of funding, respectively. In terms of racial/ethnic enrollment, Black patients were significantly under-represented in industry funded trials (0.33; 0.27-0.41). No significant disparity was observed in US-government funded trials (0.75: 0.57-1.00). The P-value of interaction was <0.0001. Hispanics were significantly under-represented in industry funded clinical trials (0.56; 0.43-0.74). The number of US-government funded trials reporting Hispanics were small (<10) which precluded any meaningful statistics. No significant disparity was observed in terms of older adults (EIR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.95; 1.05) overall and by funding sources. Black patients’ representation in industry funded PCa trials has significantly decreased over the last three decades. No significant change was observed in US-government funded PCa trials over the last three decades (P:0.004). Conclusions: Black and Hispanic men with PCa are likely to be under-represented in industry sponsored clinical trials. Black patients’ representation in industry sponsored trials has declined over time, thus widening the cancer-care inequities in these patients.

116 Background: The impact of socioeconomic status on genitourinary (GU) cancer mortality in the United States (US) is unclear. Hence, we evaluated the association of the socioeconomic status with GU cancer mortality across the US counties. Methods: County-level age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) per 100,000 person-years (PY) for populations diagnosed with GU cancers were abstracted from the wide-ranging online data for epidemiological research (WONDER) database. The agency for toxic substances and disease registry (ATSDR) was queried to obtain county-level social vulnerability indices from 2014-2018. Percentile ranking scores (PRS: ranging from 0-1) were computed for each US county and further categorized into quartiles (Q: 1st: 0-0.25 [least vulnerable]; 4th: 0.75-1.00 [most vulnerable]). AAMRs were then linked with quartile rankings. A population-weighted, Poisson regression analysis was conducted to compute rate ratios (RR) of AAMRs between 4th and 1st Q with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total 3142 US counties were included in this analysis. The AAMR for GU cancers was 22.6 overall deaths (OD) and 4.20 premature deaths (PD; defined as death at age <65 years) per 100,000 PY. GU cancer-related mortality increased in a stepwise fashion from the 1st Q to the 4th Q (OD: 21.6 vs 24.1; PD: 3.48 vs 5.19). In terms of OD by specific GU cancers, significantly higher AAMRs were observed in the 4th Q compared to the 1st Q for patients with prostate cancer (RR; 1.19 [95% CI;1.14-1.24]), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC; 1.12 [1.04-1.21]) but not for those with lower urothelial tract cancers (0.92 [0.87-0.96]). Among subgroups, non-Hispanic Blacks (1.19 [1.07-1.33]), and Hispanics (1.28 [1.08-1.51]) with prostate cancer and men with RCC (1.11; 1.03-1.19) in the 4th Q experienced significantly higher overall mortality when compared to those in the 1st Q. With regards to PD, significantly higher AAMRs were observed in the 4th Q vs 1st Q for patients with prostate cancer (1.54 [1.34-1.77]), and RCC (1.28 [1.12-1.45]). Consistently, men with RCC in the 4th Q also experienced higher premature mortality when compared to the 1st Q. Sparsity of mortality data among different ethnic/racial subgroups across the US counties precluded any formal assessment of disparity by specific GU cancers. A sensitivity analysis, conducted using the weighted linear regression approach, showed consistent results. Conclusions: Population level data suggest that socially vulnerable populations, especially Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic men with prostate cancer, and men with renal cell carcinoma may be at an increased risk of cancer-related mortality. Hence, there is a dire need to address this mortality gap across different socioeconomic subgroups to ensure health-care equity. Investigations at the patient level are required to further ascertain these findings.

499 Background: The impact of socioeconomic status on gastrointestinal (GI) cancer mortality in the United States (US) is not well-established. We hypothesized that socially vulnerable populations have disproportionately higher mortality rates. Hence, we assessed the association of the social vulnerability index (SVI) with GI cancer mortality across US counties. Methods: Social vulnerability indices were obtained from the agency for toxic substances and disease registry (ATSDR) from 2014-2018 to compute percentile ranking scores (PRS: ranging from 0-1) for each US county. PRS were further categorized into quartiles (Q: 1st: 0-0.25 [least vulnerable]; 4th:0.75-1.00 [most vulnerable]). The wide-ranging online data for epidemiological research (WONDER) database was queried to abstract county-level age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) per 100,000 person-years (PY) for populations diagnosed with GI cancers. AAMRs were then linked with quartile rankings. Rate ratios (RR) of AAMRs between 4th and 1st Q were subsequently estimated with 95% confidence intervals using population-weighted, Poisson regression. Results: A total of 3142 counties were included in this analysis. The AAMR for overall deaths (OD) and premature deaths (PD; defined as death at age <65) in the GI cancer population was 53.8 and 17.7 per 100,000 PY. A gradient increase in GI cancer-related mortality was observed from 1st Q to 4th Q (OD: 49.2 vs 59.3; PD: 14.1 vs 21.3). This stepwise increase in AAMR over the quartiles was consistent across gender, different racial/ethnic subgroups, and rural/urban categories of counties. The AAMRs for OD were significantly higher in the 4th Q as compared to the 1st Q for gastric (RR: 1.67 [95% CI, 1.51-1.86]), hepatocellular including intrahepatic biliary (1.52 [1.45-1.61]), colorectal (1.21 [1.16-1.26]) and biliary (1.17 [1.06-1.28]) cancer. Similarly, significantly higher AAMRs for PD were observed in 4th Q vs1st Q for gastric (1.81 [1.60-2.05]), hepatocellular including intrahepatic biliary (1.78 [1.58-2.00]), biliary (1.64 [1.35-1.99]), colorectal (1.29 [1.21-1.39]) and pancreatic (1.16 [1.07-1.25]) cancer. However, no significant differences were observed for esophageal and small intestinal cancers. Men with gastric (1.58 [1.41-1.78]) and hepatocellular cancer (1.54 [1.43-1.66]), non-Hispanic Black population (1.54 [1.31-1.80]) with hepatocellular cancer, and Hispanic population with colorectal cancer (1.50 [1.31-1.72]) were observed to have higher overall mortality in the 4th Q compared to the 1st Q. The findings were similar for premature mortality. Conclusions: Population-level data suggests that the US counties with higher socio-economic adversities may be at an increased risk of GI cancer-related mortality. Investigations using patient-level data are required to probe the impact of socioeconomic vulnerabilities on cancer-related mortality.

23 Background: Identification of factors associated with enrollment disparities in clinical trials can narrow cancer care inequities. Funding source can influence minority representation in clinical trials. Therefore, we aimed to assess the impact of funding sources on enrollment disparities in colorectal (CRC) clinical trials. Methods: CRC phase II/III randomized controlled trial (RCTs) identified through MEDLINE and EMBASE from each database’s inception through 2022 were considered eligible. Trial level enrollment incidence ratios (EIR) were computed; defined as the ratio of trial proportions of a gender, age, or racial/ethnic subgroup category and the global incidence in the corresponding gender/age subgroup (from the global burden of disease database), or the US-population-based incidence in the corresponding racial/ethnic subgroup (from SEER 21 database). EIRs were then meta-analyzed using a random-effects model for each funding source category (US- government, industry, others). Temporal trends were analyzed using a univariate meta-regression. Results: Using data from 287 RCTs, women were significantly under-represented in the industry sponsored trials (EIR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.83 - 0.88]) but not in US-government sponsored trials (0.92 [0.84-1.00]). A total of 87 RCTs reported age proportions; older adults (above 65 years) were significantly under-represented in the industry sponsored (0.84 [0.74-0.96]) and as well as in US-government sponsored CRC trials (0.52 [0.44-0.61]). Only 56 and 15 trials reported race and ethnicity, respectively. Limited data on racial/ethnic enrollment revealed significant under-representation of Black (0.45 [0.36 -0.57]) and Hispanic (0.45 [0.31-0.66]) patients across industry sponsored CRC trials. In contrast, no significant disparity was observed in the inclusion of Asian race in the industry sponsored trials. The number of US-government sponsored trials reporting racial/ethnic subgroups were small ( < 10) which precluded any meaningful statistics. Trends show that the representation of women has improved ( P: 0.02) while the representation of Black ( P: 0.007) and Hispanic patients ( P: 0.04) has worsened over the last three decades in industry sponsored CRC trials. Conclusions: The reporting of race/ethnicity is suboptimal in CRC trials especially in those sponsored by US government. Older adults may be under-represented regardless of funding source. Women, Blacks and Hispanics may be under-represented in industry sponsored CRC clinical trials. While representation of women appears to be improving, representation of Black and Hispanic patients has worsened in industry sponsored CRC clinical trials over the last three decades.

ImportanceProstate cancer (PCa) is marked by disparities in clinical outcomes by race, ethnicity, and age. Equitable enrollment in clinical trials is fundamental to promoting health equity.ObjectiveTo evaluate disparities in the inclusion of racial and ethnic minority groups and older adults across PCa clinical trials.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify primary trial reports from each database's inception through February 2021. Global incidence in age subgroups and US population-based incidence in racial and ethnic subgroups were acquired from the Global Burden of Disease and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 21 incidence databases respectively.Study SelectionAll phase 2/3 randomized PCa clinical trials were eligible for age disparity analyses. Trials recruiting exclusively from the US were eligible for primary racial and ethnic disparity analyses.Data Extraction and SynthesisThis study was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.Main Outcomes and MeasuresEnrollment incidence ratios (EIRs), trial proportions (TPs) of participants 65 years or older or members of a racial and ethnic subgroup divided by global incidence in the corresponding age group, or US population–based incidence in the corresponding racial and ethnic subgroup, were calculated. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between trial characteristics and EIRs and trends in EIRs during the past 3 decades.ResultsOf 9552 participants among trials reporting race, 954 (10.8%) were African American/Black, 80 (1.5%) were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8518 (78.5) were White. Of 65 US trials, 45 (69.2%) reported race and only 9 (13.8%) reported data on all 5 US racial categories. Of 286 global trials, 75 (26.2%) reported the enrollment proportion of older adults. Outcomes by race and age were reported in 2 (3.1%) and 41 (15.0%) trials, respectively. Black (EIR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) and Hispanic (EIR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) patients were significantly underrepresented in US trials. There was no disparity in older adult representation (TP, 21 143 [71.1%]; EIR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05). The representation of Black patients was lower in larger trials (meta-regression coefficient, −0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.02; P = .002).Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that Black and Hispanic men are underrepresented in trials compared with their share of PCa incidence. The representation of Black patients has consistently remained low during the past 2 decades.

5083 Background: ARASENS and PEACE-1 trials suggests treatment intensification with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel (DOC) provides survival benefit as compared to DOC+ADT in patients with metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). However, the performance of triplet therapy as compared to NHT+ADT remains unexplored. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and recent conference proceedings were searched to include phase III trials evaluating triplet therapy in patients with mCSPC and reporting treatment effects in subgroup of patients with and without docetaxel. Outcomes included overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression free survival (rPFS). Precomputed hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) from non-randomized subgroup comparisons were pooled after logarithmic transformation using inverse-variance weighting approach. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was then performed to assess subgroup differences. Interaction between subgroups was assessed using P-value of heterogeneity. Mixed treatment comparisons were computed using a fixed-effect model within the frequentist framework using subgroup effect estimates from eligible trials. Results: This meta-analysis included five clinical trials (ARASENS, PEACE-1, ENZAMET, ARCHES and TITAN) with a total of 5804 patients (docetaxel: 2836; no docetaxel: 2836). Subgroup analysis showed statistically significant difference between treatment effects in patients who received docetaxel (NHT + DOC + ADT; HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.84; I2: 0%) and those who did not (NHT + ADT; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.53-0.70; I2: 0%) for OS (p-value of interaction: 0.04). However, no statistically significant interaction was observed in terms of rPFS (p-value: 0.46). Mixed treatment comparisons showed improved OS with NHT + DOC + ADT (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.84) as compared to DOC + ADT, but not when compared to NHT + ADT (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.78-1.20). NHT + ADT significantly improved OS compared to DOC + ADT (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92). Consistently, significant rPFS improvement was observed with NHT + DOC + ADT when compared DOC + ADT (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.42-0.57) but not when compared to NHT + ADT (HR: 0.82; 0.65-1.04). NHT + ADT was observed to improve rPFS compared to DOC + ADT (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.50-0.72). Conclusions: This exploratory and hypothesis generating analysis suggests that addition of docetaxel (triplet therapy) may not delay progression or prolong survival compared to NHT-based doublets. These findings provide direction for future clinical trials in this space and suggest an equipoise to the question of how triplet regimens compare with NHT-doublets. The results should be interpreted with caution as this analysis does not account for potential confounding relationships such as volume of disease.