Naqvi, Syed Arsalan Ahmed

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.

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.

e24070 Background: We have maintained a living interactive systematic review (LISR) on the treatment of CAT ( CAT LISR ). Recent publications of CASTA-DIVA and CANVAS trials prompted this report of updated analysis. Methods: The approach to creating LISRs has been previously published and is available on our website. ( LIvE synthesis framework ). Patient important outcomes included venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), net clinical benefit (NCB) and all-cause mortality. Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool treatment effect estimates. A Paul-Mendel random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare DOACs with LMWH. Mixed-treatment comparisons were computed using fixed-effect model within a Bayesian framework owing to a sparse and open network. Effect estimates were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to assess relative treatment rankings. Results: This systematic review currently includes six RCTs with a total of 3690 patients and four unique treatment choices. Apixaban was assessed in two trials (ADAM-VTE, CARAVAGGIO), rivaroxaban in two (SELECT-D, CASTA-DIVA) and edoxaban in one (HOKUSAI-VTE). CANVAS trial reported efficacy of DOACs as a class and hence, was only included in direct comparisons with LMWH. Direct comparisons showed that DOACs as a class significantly decreased the odds of VTE recurrence (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.82) without significantly increasing major bleeding (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.84-1.79) when compared to LMWH. However, higher odds of CRNMB (OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.18-2.31) was observed with DOACs when compared to LMWH. Mortality rates were not different between the two groups (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87-1.21). Mixed treatment comparisons showed decreased VTE recurrences with rivaroxaban (rank 1; OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.23-0.99) and apixaban (rank 2; OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90) relative to LMWH (rank 4). No significant differences were observed between edoxaban (rank 3) and LMWH in terms of VTE risk reduction. Edoxaban (rank 4) increased the risk of major bleeding (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.05-3.15) compared to LMWH (rank 2); there were no significant differences among rivaroxaban (rank 3) apixaban (rank 1), and LMWH. Rivaroxaban (rank 4; OR 3.16; 95% CI: 1.61-6.68) and apixaban (rank 3; OR 1.51, 95% CI: 1.01-2.28) increased the risk of CRNMB compared to LMWH (rank 1). Significant net clinical benefit was observed with apixaban (rank 1; OR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.94) when compared to LMWH (rank 4). No significant differences were observed among other mixed treatment comparisons. Conclusions: Patients treated with DOACs have 31 fewer VTE events per 1000 CAT patients compared to LMWH. Amongst DOACs, apixaban offers the greatest net clinical benefit with 39 fewer VTE and MB events per 1000 patients compared to LMWH.

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.

6589 Background: Real-world utilization and comparative effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment remains largely unexplored. Methods: De-identified administrative claims data (OptumLabs - Data Warehouse) for adult active cancer patients with acute VTE (1/1/2012-9/30/2019) were assessed for utilization patterns, recurrent VTE, and major bleeding differences between DOACs, LMWH, and warfarin. Patients were followed up till the end of treatment. Patients who crossed over to other anti-coagulants within the follow up period were excluded. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess predictors of anticoagulant administration. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the differences in time to medication discontinuation among the three groups. Propensity score (PS) and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to balance baseline differences between groups. Standardized difference (SD) was used to assess the balance of covariates after weighting and SD < 10% was considered acceptable. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression with a robust variance estimator was then used to assess outcomes in PS weighted groups. Results: A total of 5100 patients met the inclusion criteria; 49.3% filled DOACs (n = 2512), 29.2% LMWH (n = 1488), and 28.6% warfarin (n = 1460). Median treatment duration was around 3.2 months for DOACs and warfarin, and 1.8 months for LWMH ( P-value < 0.01). Multinomial regression analysis showed that younger patients were more likely to be prescribed LMWH (OR 0.97 95% CI: 0.97-0.98) as compared to DOACs. Patients with lung (OR 2.07 95% CI: 1.12-3.65; OR 1.87 95% CI: 1.04-3.37), urological (OR: 1.94 95% CI:1.08-3.49; OR: 2.04 95% CI: 1.12-3.73), gynecological (OR 4.25, 95% CI: 2.31-7.82; OR 2.31 95% CI: 1.22-4.39) and colorectal cancer (OR 2.26 95% CI: 1.20-4.32; OR 2.51; 95% CI: 1.32-4.79) were more likely to be prescribed LMWH or warfarin respectively, compared to DOACs. VTE recurrences were more frequent for patients receiving LMWH (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.14-1.90) or warfarin (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.13-1.87) compared to DOACs. LMWH, but not warfarin, was associated with greater major bleeding rates compared to DOACs (HR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.62-3.20). All-cause mortality rates were also significantly higher for patients receiving LMWH, but not warfarin compared to DOACs (HR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.15-2.25). Conclusions: Patients with cancer associated VTE remain on anti-coagulation for a remarkably short duration in real-world clinical practice. DOACs and warfarin may offer better compliance than LMWH. Patients receiving DOACs have a lower risk of VTE recurrence, less major bleeding, and improved mortality. Warfarin may still be considered for patients with contraindications to DOACs and non-compliant to LMWH.

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.

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]