Jayakrishnan, Thejus

e14591 Background: Combined immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPI) have revolutionized treatment of solid tumors. Their use can lead to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) resulting in hospital admissions, treatment discontinuation and increased morbidity. We aim to evaluate gastrointestinal (GI) TRAEs of different combination ICPI. Methods: A comprehensive search of multiple databases from inception to October 2021 was performed. Phase 2 and 3 trials assessing safety and efficacy of combined ICPI in solid tumors were included. Trials reporting concurrent use of chemotherapy, immunosuppressants, targeted therapy, or sequential ICPI therapy were excluded. Primary outcome was pooled luminal, hepatic and pancreatic TRAEs. A meta-analysis of proportions was done for outcomes using a random-effects model. I2 % was used to assess heterogeneity. Results: Out of 3696 citations screened, 53 trials reporting TRAEs in 6186 patients were included. Data from 41 study arms of 35 trials in nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I), 15 study arms of 15 trials in durvalumab plus tremelimumab (D+T), 4 study arms of 3 trials in pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab (P+I). The most common indications for combined ICPI were melanoma (26.4%) and lung cancer (24.5%). Pooled GI TRAE rates from the D+T, P+I and two different dosing combinations of N+I are shown in the table. Conclusions: Our study provides pooled data of TRAEs from different combination ICPI use in solid tumors and demonstrates high incidence of all grades and ≥ 3 GI TRAEs. Combined ICPI related TRAEs should be recognized early, as it may require treatment discontinuation. Further studies are required to assess overall impact of TRAEs on treatment course and outcomes.[Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Concern exists that the clinical trial populations differ from respective cancer populations in terms of their age distribution affecting the generalizability of the results, especially the underrepresented minorities. We hypothesized that the clinical trials that do not report race are likely to suffer from a higher degree of age disparity as well and the issue should be addressed in conjunction with each other. Methods: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals from 7/2007-6/2019 were reviewed to identify oncology approvals, and trials with age details were selected. The primary outcome was the weighted mean difference in age between the clinical trial population and realworld population for various cancers. The secondary outcomes were the prevalence of race reporting and association of age and race reporting with each other. Group comparisons for proportions were performed using the χ2 test while continuous variables were compared using multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) test or students t-test as appropriate. P values < .05 were considered significant. Results: Of the 261 trials, the race was reported in 223 (85.4%) of the trials while 38 trials (14.6%) had no mention of race. Race reporting improved minimally over time – 29 (85.3%) in 2007-2010 vs. 49 (80.3%) in 2011-2014 vs. 145 (85.4%) during 2015-2019 (p-value=0.41). No significant association between type of cancer and race reporting was noted – 147 (86.5%) of solid cancer trials vs. 76 (83.5%) of hematological cancer trials reported race (p-value=0.52). Age discrepancy between the clinical trial population and the real-world population was present for several cancer types. The discrepancy was higher for studies that did not report race, mean difference - 8.8 years 4 (95% CI -12.6 to -5.0 years) vs. studies that did report the race, mean difference -5.1 years, (95% CI -6.4 to -3.7 years), p-value=0.04. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a significant number of clinical trials leading to cancer drug approvals suffer from racial and age disparity when compared to real-world populations and that the two factors may be interrelated. We recommend continued efforts to recruit diverse populations. In the meantime, reporting these characteristics for these crucial trials should be mandated. Citation Format: Thejus Jayakrishnan, Sonikpreet Aulakh, Mizba Baksh, Kianna Nguyen, Meghna Ailawadhi, Ayesha Samreen, Ricardo Parrondo, Taimur Sher, Vivek Roy, Rami Manochakian, Aneel Paulus, Asher Chanan-Khan, Sikander Ailawadhi. Disparity in race and age reporting in landmark cancer clinical trials: Underrepresentation of the traditionally underserved U.S. population [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-104.

Background: Concern exists that the clinical trial populations differ from respective cancer populations in terms of their age distribution affecting the generalizability of the results, especially in underrepresented minorities. We hypothesized that the clinical trials that do not report race are likely to suffer from a higher degree of age disparity. Methods: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals from July 2007 to June 2019 were reviewed to identify oncology approvals, and trials with age details were selected. The outcomes studied were the weighted mean difference in age between the clinical trial population and real-world population for various cancers, the prevalence of race reporting and association of age and race reporting with each other. Results: Of the 261 trials, race was reported in 223 (85.4%) of the trials, while 38 trials (14.6%) had no mention of race. Race reporting improved minimally over time: 29 (85.3%) in 2007–2010 vs. 49 (80.3%) in 2011–2014 vs. 145 (85.4%) during the period 2015–2019 (p-value = 0.41). Age discrepancy between the clinical trial population and the real-world population was higher for studies that did not report race (mean difference −8.8 years (95% CI −12.6 to −5.0 years)) vs. studies that did report it (mean difference −5.1 years, (95% CI −6.4 to −3.7 years), p-value = 0.04). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a significant number of clinical trials leading to cancer drug approvals suffer from racial and age disparity when compared to real-world populations, and that the two factors may be interrelated. We recommend continued efforts to recruit diverse populations.