Siddiqi, Rabbia

360 Background: Pembrolizumab has been established as an effective treatment option in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma after the publication of KEYNOTE-564. However, the magnitude of benefit based on different risk categories is not well defined. Methods: We included full-text publications of phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma after a systematic search. The outcomes of interest included disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), all grade or grade ≥3 treatment related, and all cause adverse events. Mixed treatment comparisons were computed through a fixed-effect multivariate meta-regression within the frequent framework. Relative treatment rankings were assessed using P-scores. 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 (CIRs) 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 baseline category. Results: This NMA included six RCTs with a total of 7525 participants and five unique treatment options. Mixed treatment comparisons showed significant DFS and OS benefit with pembrolizumab (rank 1) when compared against sunitinib (DFS HR 0.74 [0.55-0.99]; OS HR 0.51 [0.27-0.94]). However, there were no significant differences with pembrolizumab compared to pazopanib (DFS HR 0.81 [0.60- 1.09]; OS HR 0.54[0.29-1.01]) and axitinib (DFS HR 0.78 [0.54-1.14]; OS HR 0.52 [0.24-1.16]). The safety profiles were comparable. Absolute benefit of TKIs in adjuvant setting was minimal whereas this benefit increased with higher T and N patients in patients treated with pembrolizumab (Table). Similarly, the treatment benefit increased with higher Leibovich’s risk scores at 5, 10 and 15 years of follow up. Conclusions: The current analysis suggests that a risk adapted approach may be useful when considering adjuvant pembrolizumab in RCC patients.[Table: see text]

136 Background: Intensification of initial treatment of in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) with androgen pathway inhibition (API) in addition to docetaxel (DOC) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has shown promise to improve clinical outcomes. Thus, we synthesize the data from modern clinical trials to estimate overall estimates of progression and survival outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) was conducted to include phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating triplet therapy (API+DOC+ADT) against doublet therapy (DOC+ADT) in mCSPC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool precomputed hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) after logarithmic transformation using inverse-variance weighting approach. Cochran’s Q statistical test was used to assess statistically significant heterogeneity not explained by chance, while I2 statistical test was used to quantify the total observed variability, due to between-study heterogeneity. I2 values >50% indicated substantial heterogeneity. A summary of findings table was constructed to translate relative estimates to absolute risks. Results: A total of 1,531 patients in four RCTs with direct comparative data between triplet and doublet therapies, were included in this meta-analysis. PEACE-1 was the only RCT directly assessing this question (AAP+DOC+ADT). ENZA+DOC+ADT was evaluated as a subgroup in two RCTs (ENZAMET; ARCHES), APA+DOC+ADT was evaluated as a subgroup in one (TITAN). To be able to pool studies, the relative efficacy of control arm in ENZAMET (first generation bicalutamide + ADT) was considered equivalent to ADT based on prior literature. A total of 672 rPFS events were observed (34%; 261 events in triplet therapy, 54%; 411 events in doublet therapy). The difference was statistically significant (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.42-0.58; I2: 0%). Similarly, 469 OS events were observed (28%; 217 events in triplet therapy, 33%; 252 events in doublet therapy). The difference was statistically significant (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.67-0.96; I2: 0%). The summary of findings is outlined in the table. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis support an improvement in rPFS and OS in favor of triplet therapy over doublet therapy for mCRPC. However, comparative effectiveness of different triplet regimens may be different and needs further exploration.[Table: see text]

132 Background: Treatment landscape for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is rapidly evolving. Recent updates of relevant trials and presentation of PEACE-1 results warranted mixed treatment comparisons to inform the choice of treatment in mCSPC. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE, along with conference proceedings were searched using a systematic search strategy to identify relevant abstracts and full-text publications of phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options in mCSPC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs). Direct comparisons were made using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Fixed-effect frequentist NMA was conducted to compute network estimates using a multivariate meta-regression approach. Relative treatment rankings were assessed in congruency with direct estimates using P-scores. Secondary NMAs were conducted in several substrata (young, and old; Gleason score < 8 and ≥8; performance status 0 and 1-2, low and high volume of disease). Results: This NMA included nine trials (23 references) with nine unique treatments. rPFS was improved with abiraterone acetate and prednisone-docetaxel-androgen deprivation therapy combination (AAP-D-ADT; rank 1) when compared against most treatment options including AAP-ADT (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44-0.76; rank 5), apalutamide (APA)-ADT (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.87; rank 4), TAK-ADT (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36-0.84; rank 6), and enzalutamide(E)-AAP-ADT (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.97; rank 3), however no significant differences were observed between AAP-D-ADT, and E+ADT (rank 2). Improved OS was observed with AAP-D-ADT (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.59-0.95; rank 2), E-AAP-ADT (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.48-0.97; rank 1), and AAP-ADT (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.96; rank 3) compared to D+ADT (rank 6). However, most of the mixed treatment comparisons were statistically insignificant in terms of OS. Similarly, in patients with high volume of disease, AAP+D+ADT (rank 1) was observed to significantly improve rPFS compared to AAP-ADT, APA-ADT, E-ADT, and D-ADT; however, no significant differences were observed among treatment comparisons with regards to OS improvement. E+ADT (rank 1) improved rPFS compared to other treatment in low volume disease but was not different for OS. No significant differences were observed among different treatment options when compared across prespecified subgroups. Moreover, AAP+D+ADT was ranked as the least safe with significantly increased risk of grade 3 AEs relative to other treatments. Conclusions: Current NMA suggests that triplet therapy options were ranked as most likely to improve rPFS and OS at the cost of increased toxicity. Doublet combinations may still be preferred for older patients with low volume of disease.

6549 Background: Representation and outcomes of women, older adults, and racial minorities in ICI trials has not been previously described. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify ICI RCTs. Data for trial characteristics, proportion of trials reporting race, age and sex as well as the proportion of patients by race, age and sex enrolled in ICI trials was collected. Descriptive statistics were reported for trials reporting minority representation and proportion of included patients by race, age and sex. Disparities in representation were calculated using enrollment incidence disparity (EID) and enrollment incidence ratios (EIR) by comparing trial enrollment against U.S. population-based estimates acquired from the SEER 18 incidence database. The relationship of EID to key trial characteristics were compared using standard parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. Trends in EIR were analyzed using the Joinpoint Regression Analysis software. Results: 108 ICI trials from 2009 to 2020 with 48,360 patients were included in this analysis. All RCTs reported sex (101/101). 78 trials reported race (72%), of which only 41 trials (38%) reported data on all 5 U.S. racial categories (Black, White, Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American). Participation of Black patients was reported in 66 trials (61%), White participants in 78 trials (72%), Asians in 69 trials (64%), Native Americans and Pacific Islanders in 41 trials (38%), and Hispanics in 24 trials (22%). Age categories were inconsistently defined, and 80 trials (74%) reported the proportion of patient by age categories. Subgroup analyses of clinical outcomes by race, age and sex were reported in 17 (22%), 62 (79%) and 57 (73%) trials respectively. Women (trial proportion [TP]: 32%; EIR: 0.77), patients aged ≥ 65 years (TP: 42%; EIR: 0.74), Black participants (TP: 1.8%; EIR: 0.17) and Hispanic participants (TP: 5.9%; EIR: 0.67) were largely underrepresented, and Asians were overrepresented (TP: 15.9%; EIR: 2.64). Black patients were underrepresented across all cancer types. Similarly, women, older adults ( > 65 years of age) and Hispanic patients were consistently underrepresented across cancer types with few exceptions. Representation of older adults increased significantly from 2010-2020 (APC: 2.72), while representation of Black patients decreased significantly from 2009-2020 (APC: -23.37). Black patients were found to be significantly underrepresented in phase III trials (p = 0.0005), trials with OS as the primary endpoint (p = 0.004), and PD1 inhibitor trials (p = 0.002). Hispanics were significantly underrepresented in PD1 inhibitor trials (p = 0.003). Conclusions: There is both suboptimal reporting about participation and underrepresentation of women, racial minorities (particularly Black patients) and older adults in ICI trials as compared to their cancer incidence.

PURPOSE Multiple large clinical trials have investigated adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to reduce the risk of cancer recurrence and progression to metastasis in high-risk renal cell carcinoma. We sought to maintain living and interactive evidence on this topic, until a high level of certainty is reached for key clinical outcomes such that further updates become unnecessary and unlikely to change clinical practice. METHODS We created a living interactive evidence synthesis platform to maintain a continuously updated meta-analysis on TKI monotherapy in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma. We implemented an automated search strategy with weekly updates to identify randomized phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were done in duplicate. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed using Analyzer Module in Living Interactive Evidence platform. For each outcome (overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], and all-cause and treatment-related adverse events), we assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE approach and conducted trial sequential analysis. RESULTS This final update includes five randomized trials including recently updated data from PROTECT trial. Meta-analysis shows that adjuvant TKI monotherapy offers no benefit in OS (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.12, high certainty) or DFS (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.00, high certainty) and significantly increases adverse event risk. Lack of benefit was consistent across subgroups including highest-risk patients (test for subgroup differences: P = .32). Optimal information size criteria were met, and there was high certainty of evidence for lack of DFS and OS benefit for adjuvant TKIs. CONCLUSION There is no guidance on when to stop maintaining a living review. In this example, we used trial sequential analysis and high certainty of evidence (future clinical trials unlikely to change current conclusions) as a benchmark to conclude a living review in view of convincing evidence.

335 Background: Systematic reviews are outdated quickly when the evidence is rapidly evolving as the process is laborious and there is little incentive for primary author team of an index SRMA to update the evidence. Consequently, there is an epidemic of redundant SRMAs performed by different teams—sometimes with conflicted results—for treatment of first line mRCC. Methods: We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR)and network meta-analysis(LINMA) for the treatment of first line mRCC using an Artificial intelligence (AI) assisted framework for evidence synthesis (Living, Interactive evidence synthesis framework) (LIvE) . The framework is implemented in five-layered architecture (application layer, shared module layer, core service layer, middleware layer, and storage layer) which work together to automate the identification of new studies and analysis and semi-automate the screening and data extraction. Dynamic features such as interactive tables, figures and evidence maps are enabled using Python and JavaScript programming languages. Results: We have maintained a living, interactive evidence profile for the first line treatment mRCC since September 2019 ( LIVING WEBSITE) . Living search strategy identifies new studies as they become available. As of October 13, 2020 LISR, includes data 14 clinical trials ( PRISMA ). Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table ( TABLE) . Cabozantinib& Nivolumab (Cabo-Nivo) is the highest ranked drug for improving Overall Response (OR), Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) whereas Ipilimumab in combination with Nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo) is highest ranked drug for achieving complete response (CR). Ipi-Nivo and Atezolizumab & Bevacizumab (Ate-Bev) ranked highest and Cabo-Nivo ranked lowest for treatment related Adverse events (TRAEs). Results of network meta-analysis are summarized as interactive tables and plots ( NMA ), summary of findings tables ( MULTIPLE COMAPRISONS ) and evidence maps ( MAP ). Conclusions: LISRs can potentially reduce redundancy, increase transparency, reproducibility, enable shared-decision making (at a guideline level, or in a patient-clinician dyad) and support living guidelines.

e17539 Background: Chemotherapy with Docetaxel (D) or androgen pathway inhibition (API) with Abiraterone Acetate plus prednisone (AAP), Aplautamide(APA) and Enzalutamide(E) are acceptable, FDA approved treatment options for mCSPC. It is not clear whether the magnitude of benefit varies by the choice of initial agent [chemotherapy vs API] or by volume of disease [High vs Low]. Data is now available from all registration trials by volume status and motivated this analysis to inform initial treatment choice in mCSPC. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE(Ovid), Embase, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials of chemotherapy(D) or APIs (AAP, APA, ENZ) that had available hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) according to patient’s volume of disease. We also reviewed abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings. We calculated the pooled overall survival HR and 95% CI by chemotherapy and APIs and by high volume(HVD) and low volume(LVD) using a random effect model, and tested for heterogeneity to assess the null hypothesis that no difference in the survival advantage exists by choice of initial agent and volume of disease. Results: Of 4456 studies identified in our search, there were 8 eligible randomized controlled trials that were included in the analysis. Both D and APIs significantly improved PFS [HR 0.48; 0.45-0.51] and OS [0.72; 0.64-0.81] when added to ADT, however the latter was associated with significantly higher improvement in PFS( P < 0.01) and OS (P = 0.03). In patients treated with D, patients with HVD derive significantly more benefit as compared to LVD( P = 0.046) and patients treated with APIs both HVD and LVD patients derive similar benefit( P = 0.80) (Table). Conclusions: mCSPC patients derive higher magnitude of survival benefit when treated with APIs as compared to D; however, D may be preferred in HVD patients. [Table: see text]

2054 Background: Systematic reviews that summarize the toxicity of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) become outdated very soon after publication. Therefore, we reported results of a toxicity meta-analysis at 2019 ASCO meeting and informed the intent to create a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs combine human and machine effort and support rapid evidence synthesis and living clinical practice guidelines. Now, we report our experience maintaining a LSR on toxicity of ICIs. Methods: Steps include quarterly literature searches to identify new clinical trials reporting ICI-associated adverse events (AEs), AI-enabled screening of new citations which meet the inclusion criteria, automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform. Standard data formats and protocols were designed for inputting text, tables and graphics. Software was written to interpret these data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot and summary tables. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs and displays the associated output was designed. Results: The LSR is continuously updated incorporating toxicity data from new clinical trials as it becomes available. We have screened 8000 relevant citations and summarized the odds of Grade 3 or higher AEs and AEs of special interest in patient receiving ICIs. The results are updated on quarterly basis and are available online. The results are updated on quarterly basis and will be available on a website at the time of publication. Prototype with dummy data is available at this link . This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables and forest plots by type of cancer, name or mechanism (PD-1 or PD-L1) of ICI agent, single agent or combination, type of control arm, line of treatment and several other clinically relevant filters. For example, a user can instantaneously generate a meta-analysis summarizing the risk of colitis or pneumonitis in metastatic lung cancer trials with pembrolizmuab. Conclusions: This LSR engine can prospectively synthesize toxicity data from ICI trials in an efficient manner providing accurate and timely information for advanced clinical decision support at point-of-care. Efforts are ongoing to improve efficiency of screening, improve AI-enabled processes for automated screening and data abstraction, and test across multiple clinical questions.

709 Background: Several immunotherapy (IMT) combinations either as an IMT doublet or IMT in combination with TKIs are now available for first-line therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, we performed an indirect comparison of frontline treatment options to provide clinical guidance. Methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant trials. Hazard ratios (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for primary outcome of progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary outcome of overall survival (OS) were abstracted. Network meta-analysis was performed using a multivariate, consistency model, random-effects meta-regression. Data on Grade 3 or higher AEs was abstracted and meta-analyzed. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on risk categories (high risk vs low and intermediate vs), history of prior nephrectomy, PD-L1 positivity, age and sex. Risk for bias(RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: Nine studies were included for PFS analysis, and 6 studies for OS analysis. Avelumab-axitinib (AA) (HR 0.69, 0.48-0.96), and Pembrolizumab-Axitinib (PA) (HR 0.89, 0.50-0.96) significantly improved PFS, while there was no significant PFS benefit with atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) (HR 0.83, 0.62-1.13) and nivolumab-ipilimumab (NI) (HR 0.85, 0.63-1.15) as compared to Sunitinib. PA (HR 0.53, 0.38-0.75) and NI (HR 0.63, 0.44-0.90) significantly improved OS, while AB (HR 0.93, 0.75-1.12) showed no significant OS benefit as compared to Sunitinib. NI and AB had significantly fewer grade ≥3 AE than sunitinib. No significant interaction was found by risk group, age, sex or prior nephrectomy. Significant interaction was found by PD-L1 expression(p<0.001), with significant PFS improvement in PD-L1 positive (HR 0.62, 0.53-0.73) but not in PD-L1 negative patients (HR 0.92, 0.81-1.05). Overall, RoB was low amongst included studies. Conclusions: AA improved PFS, NI improved OS, whereas PA improve both PFS and OS as compared to sunitinib monotherapy. However, no IMT combination was superior to other combinations. Cost effectiveness analysis will be reported separately.

708 Background: Patients with high risk non-metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) are at significant risk of recurrence following nephrectomy. Previously, we reported no benefit of adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment in high-risk patients. Since our most recent publication, efficacy results from the multicenter double-blind SORCE trial have become available. We updated our meta-analysis to include these additional data and performed a cumulative meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify relevant RCTs. A generic variance-weighted random effects model was used to derive estimates for efficacy. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic and was quantified using the I2 test. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS), defined as the interval between randomization and the first recurrence, the occurrence of metastasis or a secondary cancer, or death due to any cause. Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3 (Biostat). Results: Five phase 3 trials were identified, enrolling 6531 patients. Two trials compared sunitinib with placebo (S-TRAC and ECOG-ACRIN), two compared sorafenib with placebo (ECOG-ACRIN and SORCE) and one trial each compared pazopanib (PROTECT) and axitinib (ATLAS) vs placebo. Cumulative evidence suggests that adjuvant therapy with TKIs showed no significant improvement in (DFS) hazard ratio [HR] of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85-1.02), compared to placebo. There was no significant heterogeneity among included trials ( I2= 52%, P= .41). Overall, the trials were at low risk of bias. Conclusions: Adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma did not improve DFS as compared to placebo. Improved patient selection using better prognostic biomarkers or scoring systems may identify subsets of patients who can benefit from adjuvant treatments. Toxicity estimates will be updated as data from SORCE trial publication becomes available.