Asghar, Noureen

Introduction The optimal maintenance regimen by prognostic categories remains unclear in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative effectiveness of novel agents by different prognostic groups. Methods A comprehensive systematically structured literature search was conducted to identify phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating maintenance therapies in post-transplant NDMM patients and reporting data by subgroups including but not limited to international staging system (ISS), and cytogenetic risk. High cytogenetic risk (HCR) and standard cytogenetic risk (SCR) were defined in accordance with the eligible trials. Main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Precomputed hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI were pooled using an inverse variance approach. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted. P-score (PS) were used to assess relative rankings of the treatments and were interpreted in congruency with pairwise estimates. Higher ranks indicated better efficacy. Results This NMA included six RCTs with 4119 participants and six unique treatment arms. In patients with SCR, the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) improved PFS when compared to lenalidomide (Len; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.24-0.81), daratumumab (Dara; 0.27; 0.13-0.55), ixazomib (Ixa; 0.26; 0.13-0.53), and no maintenance therapy (0.17; 0.09-0.32). Similarly, KR improved PFS compared to lenalidomide (Len; 0.56; 0.33-0.96), daratumumab (Dara; 0.34; 0.18-0.65), ixazomib (Ixa; 0.33; 0.17-0.63), and no maintenance therapy (0.21; 0.12-0.38). There was no statistically significant difference between KRd and KR. KRd was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment (rank 1) followed by KR (rank 2), Len (rank 3), Dara (rank 4), and Ixa (rank 5) for improving PFS in SCR. In patients with HCR, KRd (0.35; 0.14-0.92), KR (0.32; 0.15-0.67), Dara (0.43; 0.25-0.73), and Len (0.48; 0.35-0.64) improved PFS when compared to no maintenance therapy. No other significant differences were observed in HCR patients. KR was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment followed by KRd (rank 2), Dara (rank 3), Len (rank 5), and Ixa (rank 5) for PFS in HCR patients. In patients with ISS-I/II, KRd and KR improved PFS when compared to Dara (KRd vs. Dara - 0.32; 0.16-0.65, KR vs Dara - 0.50; 0.26-0.94), and Ixa (KRd vs. Ixa - 0.22; 0.11-0.45, KR vs Ixa - 0.35; 0.18-0.65). KRd, not KR, improved PFS when compared to Len (0.41; 0.22-0.76). Rankings were consistent with those observed in SCR patients. No significant differences were observed among mixed treatment comparisons for ISS-III patients. Limited number of trials reporting OS precluded formal assessment. Conclusions The current data suggest that KRd and KR may delay disease progression regardless of risk category. Overall survival data is still emerging and, if consistent, may influence clinical practice. We maintain a living meta-analysis to incorporate new evidence constantly.

6636 Background: Equitable regional enrollment in clinical trials is critical to addressing global inequities in health care outcomes. Therefore, we quantified disparities in regional recruitment in global cancer trials. Methods: Phase II/III clinical trials in prostate (PC), breast (BC), colorectal (CRC) and lung cancer (LC), and reporting regional recruitment were identified from Medline. Global regions were defined as North-(NA) and South- America (SA), Europe (EU), Africa (AF), Asia (AS), and Australia (AU). For multi-regional trials, enrollment incidence ratios (EIR) which compare region-wise trial enrollment against global estimates of region-wise specific cancer incidence obtained from Global Burden of Disease 2019 database. Trial-level EIRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. A pooled EIR of < 1.0 indicates underrepresentation of a particular region in clinical trial enrollment compared to the actual burden of the specific cancer in that region. Statistical analyses were conducted in R v4.1.2. Results: Of the total 2125 trials identified, 1681 (79.1%) trials with 691,800 participants reported information regarding regional recruitment. Among those, only 1400 (65.9%) trials reported proportions of patients from pre-defined regions. A total of 1231 (57.9%) trials were single-regional recruiting patients from EU (589; 47.8%), NA (329; 26.7%), AS (295; 23.9%), AU (10; 0.8%), AF (4; 0.3%), and SA (4; 0.3%). There was significant underrepresentation of patients from AS (EIR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.41-0.54) in cancer clinical trials. This was consistent across different cancers: PC (0.49; 0.35-0.71), BC (0.63; 0.43-0.94), CRC (0.63; 0.43-0.94), LC (0.39; 0.30-0.50). Similarly, there is a trend of under-representation of patients from AF (0.67; 0.43-1.04). Consistently, patients from were under-represented in PC (0.43; 0.24-0.77) and LC (0.26; 0.09-0.79) trials. Patients from NA (1.27; 1.08-1.51), EU (1.64; 1.57-1.72), and AU (5.41; 3.90-7.51) were significantly over-represented in multi-regional cancer clinical trials. The results are provided in table. Conclusions: There is suboptimal reporting of region-wise enrollment in cancer clinical trials. Representation of Africa and Asia in cancer clinical trials appears to be less than their expected share based on their burden of cancer incidence. [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]

193 Background: We maintain a network meta-analysis for the treatment of mCSPC using a living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Recently, the STAMPEDE trial presented evidence regarding a new triplet regimen (enzalutamide-abiraterone-androgen deprivation therapy [E+AAP+ADT]). Hence, in this report we provide the most-up-to-date evidence to inform the choice of optimal therapy in mCSPC patients. Methods: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment intensification with androgen pathway inhibitors (API), docetaxel (D), or both in patients with mCSPC were included. Mixed treatment comparisons for overall-survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were made across randomized comparisons using a frequentist network-meta-analysis. Additionally, subgroup data from three trials (ENZAMET, TITAN, ARCHES) by the receipt of docetaxel were abstracted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different triplet regimens. Treatment effects were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Relative treatment rankings were evaluated using P-scores and assessed in congruency with the pairwise estimates. Results: This report includes 10 clinical trials (30 references) and over 11500 patients updated as of 1st October 2022. Using randomized data in overall patient population, AAP+D+ADT (rank 1; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) and E+AAP+ADT (rank 4; HR: 0.76; 0.62-0.93) significantly improved PFS compared to D+ADT (rank 7) but not when compared to E+ADT (rank 2) and APA+ADT (rank 3). Similarly, darolutamide (DARO)+D+ADT (rank 1; HR: 0.68; 0.57-0.81), AAP+D+ADT (rank 2; HR: 0.75; 0.59-0.95) significantly improved OS when compared to D+ADT (rank 7). Efficacy by volume of disease and timing of metastatic presentation was consistent with prior update. Using subgroup data by the receipt of docetaxel, a total of five triplet regimens (DARO+D+ADT, AAP+D+ADT, E+D+ADT, apalutamide (APA)+D+ADT, and E+AAP+ADT) were evaluable for comparisons. E+D+ADT (rank 3) improved PFS compared to D+ADT (rank 9; HR: 0.52; 0.41-0.66) and E+AAP+ADT (rank 6; HR: 0.70; 0.52-0.94). Compared to AAP+ADT (rank 7), E+D+ADT (HR: 0.64; 0.49-0.84) and AAP+D+ADT (rank 2; 0.62; 0.42-0.91) significant improved PFS. However, no significant differences were observed among E+D+ADT, AAP+D+ADT, and APA+D+ADT. Similarly, DARO+D+ADT (rank 1) improved OS compared to APA+D+ADT (HR: 0.47; 0.24-0.93). Conclusions: Current evidence favors the use of emerging triplet regimens over docetaxel doublet but not API doublets in overall population. Among different triplets, E+AAP+ADT may not delay progression compared to docetaxel triplets. Hence, access to treatment, toxicity, disease volume and timing of metastases should be carefully considered in mCSPC patients.

Importance The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown. Objective To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups. Data Sources For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database’s inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a “living” auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available. Study Selection Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Results This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT. Conclusions and Relevance The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

e19502 Background: Inconsistent results observed in recent trials (ZUMA-7, TRANSFORM, BELINDA) assessing chimeric antigenic receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) prompted a meta-analysis to assess the available evidence and to compare the effectiveness of different CAR-T products. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify full-text or abstract publications of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing CAR-T in patients with R/R DLBCL compared to standard of care (SOC). Efficacy outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR). CR rates were also compared between CAR-T and patients in SOC arm who received autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). Safety outcomes included grade > 3 any adverse events (AE), cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity (NT). A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool effect estimates. Freeman-Tukey transformation method was used to estimate pooled proportion (PP) of safety events specific to CAR-T. Mixed treatment comparisons were computed using a frequentist network meta-analysis approach. Results: Of 1803 studies identified, three RCTs with 865 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed significant improvement in EFS (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27-0.97; I2: 92%), PFS (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.37-0.60; I2: 0%) with CAR-T compared to SOC. OS was not significantly different between the two groups (HR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.03; I2: 29%). Higher objective response (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.13-1.97; I2: 81%), and CR rates (RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.07-2.24; I2: 79%) were observed with CAR-T compared to SOC. However, CAR-T was associated with lower CR when compared to patients who underwent ASCT (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90; I2: 89%). The safety profile was not different between CAR-T and SOC. The incidences of grade ≥3 CRS (PP: 4.19; 95% CI: 1.60-7.80; I2: 57%) and grade ≥3 NT (PP: 7.57; 95% CI: 0.20-22.6; I2: 95%) were low. Mixed treatment comparisons showed significant EFS benefit with liso-cel (rank 1: HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22-0.61) and axi-cel (rank 2: HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.29-0.61) compared to tisa-cel (rank 3). No significant differences were observed among different CAR-T products for PFS or OS improvement. The safety profile of CAR-T products was comparable with tisa-cel (rank 1) being the safest. Conclusions: CAR-T therapy, as a second line treatment, appears to be effective in achieving higher response rates and delaying the disease progression compared to SOC in R/R DLBCL. However, given lack of OS benefit coupled with lower response rates when compared to patients who received ASCT, we should exercise caution in adopting CAR-T as second line therapy for all patients with R/R DLBCL.

4594 Background: Cisplatin based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by definitive therapy improves survival in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, the clinical benefit of NAC might vary with the choice of definitive therapy. Therefore, we assessed the absolute benefit of NAC followed by radical cystectomy or radical radiotherapy separately using the totality of evidence. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify randomized trials assessing cisplatin based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by either radical cystectomy or definitive radiotherapy in patients with MIBC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Treatment effects were expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Incidence rate ratios were calculated to estimate time to event outcomes for trials not reporting HR. A random-effects DerSimonian-Laird meta-analysis was conducted. Absolute effects were then obtained using baseline risks from the control arm of RCTs. Results: Of 4887 studies identified, 13 trials with 2529 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Most trials included patients with T2-4 and N0 patients and only 3 trials included patients with node positive disease. Total of 180 (47%) DFS events were observed with NAC+RC compared to 213 (56%) events in RC alone (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59-0.89) and 346 (58%) OS events were observed with NAC+ RC compared to 385 (52%) events in RC alone (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.92). Total of 186 (70%) DFS events were observed with NAC + radiotherapy compared to 205 (71%) events in radiotherapy alone (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.74-1.12) and 263 (58%) OS events were observed with NAC+ radiotherapy compared to 294 (61%) events in radiotherapy alone (HR:0.93; 95% CI: 0.79-1.08). Conclusions: The choice of definitive therapy after cisplatin-based NAC impacts survival in patients with MIBC. RC after NAC improved DFS (114 fewer events per 1000 events) and OS (76 fewer per 1000 events) whereas radiotherapy after NAC showed no survival benefit. [Table: see text]

BackgroundDespite routine evaluation of cytogenetics in myeloma, little is known regarding the impact of high‐dose therapy (HDT) consolidation on overall survival (OS) or progression‐free survival (PFS) in patients who have high‐risk cytogenetics. The authors performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the heterogeneity of HDT efficacy according to cytogenetic risk.MethodsAll RCTs in patients who had newly diagnosed myeloma from 2000 to 2021 that compared upfront HDT versus standard‐dose therapy (SDT) consolidation were included. The primary objective was to assess the difference in HDT efficacy between standard‐risk and high‐risk cytogenetics in terms of the OS or PFS log(hazard ratio) (HR). The pooled OS and PFS HR was calculated according to cytogenetic‐risk subgroup using a random‐effects model, and heterogeneity (I2) (the percentage of total observed variability explained by between‐study differences) was assessed using an interaction test.ResultsAfter screening 3307 citations, 6 RCTs were included for PFS analysis, and 4 were included for OS analysis. The median follow‐up ranged from 3.1 to 7.8 years. The pooled OS HR for HDT versus SDT consolidation in patients with standard‐risk and high‐risk cytogenetics was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70‐1.17; I2 = 0%) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.45‐0.97; I2 = 0%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of OS between standard‐risk and high‐risk patients was statistically significant in favor of the high‐risk group (P for interaction = .03). The pooled PFS HR for HDT versus SDT was 0.65 (95% CI 0.56‐0.76; I2 = 0%) versus 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33‐0.83; I2 = 55%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of PFS between standard‐risk and high‐risk patients was not significant (P for interaction = .25).ConclusionsThe magnitude of OS benefit with upfront HDT is cytogenetics‐dependent. Patients with high‐risk cytogenetics should preferably receive upfront rather than delayed HDT consolidation.Lay Summary Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation improves overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma harboring high‐risk cytogenetics.

518 Background: Cisplatin (C) based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been the mainstay treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, the optimal choice of NAC is not well-established. We therefore conducted a network-meta-analysis (NMA) to assess comparative efficacy of different treatment options. Methods: Several electronic databases (MEDLINE, and EMBASE) and conference proceedings were systematically used to identify randomized trials evaluating first-line treatments in neoadjuvant MIBC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and pathologic complete response (pCR). DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was used to compute direct comparisons between NAC and local therapy (LT) only. Fixed effect NMA was conducted within the frequentist framework for mixed treatment comparisons. P-scores were used to assess relative treatment rankings. All statistical analyses were conducted in R (v 4.1.1). Results: This systematic review included 23 trials (25 references) with a total of 5313 patients with 10 unique treatments. Direct comparisons showed significant benefit in PFS (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94), and in OS (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.92) with NAC when compared to LT only. However, the likelihood of achieving an objective response (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.72-1.95: I2: 85%) or CR (RR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.87-2.61; I2: 79%) was not different between the two arms. Data available in 15 trials contributed to the network for PFS outcome while only eight trials contributed to OS outcome. Mixed treatment comparisons showed significantly improved PFS with nintedanib-gemcitabine-cisplatin (NinGC; HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20-0.87) and dose-dense-methotrexate-vinblastine-doxorubicin-cisplatin (ddMVAC; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43-0.88) compared to LT only. Consistent benefit was observed when NinGC (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.24-0.97) and ddMVAC (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96) were compared to GC only. However, no significant differences were observed between NinGC (rank 1) and ddMVAC (rank 2) or among other mixed treatment comparisons. Similarly, OS was significantly improved with NinGC (rank 1) relative to MVAC (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.97), MVC (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.88), MC (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.16-0.92), AC (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15-0.91), and GC (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17-0.90). While similar results were observed with ddMVAC (rank 2) when compared to MVC (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42-0.94), MC (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.98), and GC (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.47-0.92), no significant differences were observed with ddMVAC when compared to MVAC (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.38-1.01) and NinGC (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 0.69-4.19). Conclusions: Current evidence shows improved PFS and OS with the use of neoadjuvant ddMVAC and Nin-GC in patients with MIBC relative to other treatment options.