Khakwani, Kaneez Zahra Rubab

e16579 Background: Recent results from EV 302 and CheckMate 901 have transformed the treatment landscape of untreated locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (Ia/mUC). Here, we present the most up-to-date evidence of comparative efficacy and safety of first line (1L) treatment options in Ia/mUC with emphasis on Enfortumab vedotin (EV)-pembrolizumab (P) and gemcitabine (Gem)-cisplatin (Cis)-nivolumab (N). Methods: This living systematic review used the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Full-text and abstract publications of phase II/III randomized clinical trials comparing 1L immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy (IO+C) or immunotherapy alone (IO) regimens with platinum-based chemotherapy (Plat) in Ia/mUC were included. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment-related grade 3 or greater adverse events (≥G3 TRAE). Mixed treatment comparisons were made using network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings. Results: A total of 5 trials (8 references) with 4,749 patients and 9 unique treatments were included. EV-P and Gem-Cis-N were ranked first and second in terms of OS and PFS improvement. EV-P improved OS compared to Gem-Cis-N (HR: 0.60; 0.45-0.81), Gem-Plat-atezolizumab(A) (0.55; 0.42-0.72), durvalumab(D)- tremelimumab(T) (0.55; 0.42-0.72), Gem-Plat-P (0.55; 0.42-0.72), P (0.51; 0.39-0.68), D (0.47; 0.36-0.63), A (0.48; 0.36-0.63) and Gem-Plat (0.47; 0.38-0.58). EV-P also improved PFS compared to Gem-Cis-N (0.63; 0.48-0.82), Gem-Plat-A (0.55; 0.43-0.69), D-T (0.42; 0.33-0.53), Gem-Plat-P (0.58; 0.45-0.74), P (0.34; 0.26-0.44), D (0.35; 0.27-0.44) and Gem-Plat (0.45; 0.38- 0.54). For ≥G3 TRAE, A was ranked first with the lowest adverse events compared to others. EV-P (rank 5) had significantly fewer events compared to Gem-Plat, Gem-Plat-A, Gem-Cis-N and Gem-Plat-P. Gem-Cis-N was ranked last with significantly greater events compared to A, P, D, D-T, Gem-Plat, EV-P, and Gem-Plat-A (Table with ranks [p-scores]). Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that patients with untreated la/mUC experience improved survival and slower disease progression with EV-P when compared to other contemporary options. Gem-Cis-N may be a reasonable alternative in patients who are cisplatin-eligible. Cost and access to these treatments are crucial and should be considered to facilitate shared decision making. [Table: see text]

93 Background: The treatment paradigm for mCSPC patients has rapidly evolved over the last few years with the emergence of triplet therapy and prognostication by volume of disease. However, the health economic implications of triplet therapy by disease volume remain unclear. Methods: A Markov model where patients transitioned between the progression-free, progression and death states was developed. State utilities were derived from the LATITUDE trial. Point probabilities for overall survival, progression-free survival, grade ≥ 3 and 5 toxicities were obtained from the eligible mCSPC phase III clinical trials. Medicare Advantage and commercial total paid amounts (2022 US$) of treatments were obtained from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Costs and disutilities of adverse events were derived from published literature. Half-cycle corrected costs and utilities were accrued monthly over a 20-year lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000 was used. Results: In terms of Medicare Advantage payer’s perspective (Table), docetaxel (D)+ADT was observed to provide additional 0.068 QALYs compared to ADT at an ICER of US$16,544 per QALY in high volume disease. Compared to D+ADT, abiraterone (AAP) triplet provided additional 1.03 QALYs at US$56,641 per QALY. Compared to AAP triplet, apalutamide (APA)+ADT provided additional 0.048 QALYs at US$5,846,248 per QALY in high volume disease. In low volume disease, D+ADT provided 0.45 more QALYs at US$20,690 per QALY compared to ADT alone. Compared to D+ADT, AAP triplet provided an additional 1.51 QALYS at US$44,267 per QALY. In terms of total paid commercial costs, AAP triplet provided an additional 1.19 QALYs compared to ADT at US$91,952 per QALY in high volume disease. In low volume, D+ADT provided additional 0.38 QALYs at US$22,058 per QALY compared to ADT. Compared to D+ADT, AAP triplet provided a 0.97 QALY gain at US$105,958 per QALY. Compared to AAP triplet, darolutamide (DARO) triplet provided a 0.47 QALY at US$689,196 per QALY. Compared to DARO triplet, APA+ADT provided an additional 0.49 QALYs at an ICER of US$971,389 per QALY. All other treatments (not reported here) were dominated. Conclusions: At the selected WTP of US$100,000 per QALY, AAP triplet therapy was most likely the cost-effective strategy in overall mCSPC population particularly in patients with high volume disease. However, these results should be interpreted with careful accounting for timing of metastases. [Table: see text]

412 Background: Previously we have reported comparative effectiveness data regarding survival of first line (1L) treatment options in mRCC. However, it is not known how the life-prolonging frontline combinations compare to patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Electronic databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from each database’s inception through July 1st 2023. Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing 1L immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies for mRCC and reporting HrQoL were included. Small sample size adjusted standardized mean differences (SMD; Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for global, physical, functional, and emotional QoL. Positive SMD indicated an improvement. A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the comparative HrQoL across different treatment options. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings. Results: Of 5770 citations identified, five trials (nine references) were included in this analysis. Patient-reported outcomes have not been reported in the JAVELIN Renal 101 or COSMIC-313 trials yet. Global QoL was significantly improved with cabozantinib-nivolumab (CaboNivo) as compared to Nivo-ipilimumab (SMD 2.74, 95% CI 2.54; 2.93), lenvatinib-pembrolizumab (LenPem; 2.79, 2.53; 3.06), sunitinib (2.87, 2.72; 3.03), Pem-axitinib (PemAxi; 3.09, 2.89; 3.30) and atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AteBev; 3.24, 3.04; 3.45). Global QoL improvement was also observed with NivoIpi compared to sunitinib (0.14, 0.02; 0.25), PemAxi (0.36, 0.18; 0.54) and AteBev (0.51, 0.33; 0.68). Physical QoL improvement were consistent with CaboNivo. Likewise, LenPem significantly improved QoL compared to sunitinib (0.26, 0.04; 0.47), PemAxi (0.38, 0.13; 0.64) and NivoIpi (0.51, 0.27; 0.76). Significant functional QoL benefits were only observed with CaboNivo (0.32, 0.17; 0.48) and NivoIpi (0.19, 0.08; 0.31) compared to sunitinib. No significant mixed treatment comparisons were observed for emotional QoL, however, currently available data suggests that LenPem (rank 1) may potentially improve QoL (Table). Conclusions: CaboNivo and NivoIpi as 1L therapy may offer an improved overall HrQoL compared to other contemporary treatment options in mRCC. [Table: see text]

230 Background: Elevated suicide risk is established in cancer patients compared with the general population. We aim to investigate the risk of SRD among individuals diagnosed with mGU cancers. Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2020) was queried to obtain data on suicide death in adults (>20 years of age) diagnosed with mGU cancers including bladder cancer (BC), kidney cancer (KC), and prostate cancer (PC). Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed overall and by latency period of <1, 1-5, and >5 years (y) after the initial diagnosis of mGU cancers. SMR >1 indicated increased while <1 indicated decreased SRD. Stratification was done by age (<50y, 50-70y, >70y), race (White, Black, Asian, Native American), ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic), chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and marital. Results: This analysis included 87,357 mGU patients. In overall population, the risk of suicide-related deaths was highest <1y after diagnosis (SMR: 3.29, 95% CI: 2.47-4.29) followed by 1-5y (2.61, 2.0-3.35) and >5y (1.27, 0.61-2.34) after diagnosis. With respect to race, SRD was significantly higher in Whites (3.31, 2.46-4.36) but not in Blacks (2.58, 0.31-9.33), and Asians (2.03 (0.05-11.3). In ethnic subgroups, non-Hispanics were observed to have increased SRD (3.71, 2.77-4.86) but not Hispanics (0.83, 0.1-3.0). Patients who received chemotherapy (3.74, 2.10-6.18) or those who did not receive radiotherapy (3.66, 2.68-4.89) were more likely to die from suicide. In terms of marital status, single patients had a higher SRD (4.39, 2.94-6.30) compared to those who were married (2.54, 1.65-3.76). Detailed results are outlined in the Table. Conclusions: Patients with GU malignancies are at increased risk of SRD. Targeted and timely interventions in highest risk subgroups such as Non-Hispanic patients with a recent cancer diagnosis with no partner support, may reduce the risk of SRD in patients diagnosed with mGU cancers. [Table: see text]

229 Background: We aim to investigate non-cancer cause of death in adults within 2 years after initial diagnosis of mGU cancers including bladder cancer (BC), kidney cancer (KC), and prostate cancer (PC). Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2020) was searched to obtain data on death caused by cardiovascular diseases (CVD), kidney diseases (KD), respiratory diseases (RD), liver diseases (LD), diabetes mellitus (DM), and sepsis in adults (>20y of age) diagnosed with mGU cancers. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated within 2y of initial diagnosis. SMR was defined as the observed deaths from each category divided by the expected number of deaths in the age-matched US population for the same period. SMR >1 indicated increased while <1 indicated decreased mortality. Stratification factors included age (<50y, 50-70y, >70y), race (White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander), ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic), chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Results: This study including 77,246 mGU cancer patients showed that the greatest risk of early death was observed to be caused by sepsis (SMR: 4.21, 95% CI: 3.64-4.84) followed by CVD (1.70, 1.62-1.80), KD (1.58, 1.31-1.90), LD (1.58, 1.16-2.09), DM (1.56, 1.32-1.82), and RD (1.38, 1.22-1.56). Patients aged <50y observed the highest risk of mortality caused by sepsis (61.76, 30.83-110.5) followed by KD (28.06, 9.11-65.48) and CVD (5.63, 3.60- 8.84). However, patients aged 50-70y were more likely to die by RD (2.47, 1.94-3.09) and LD (2.01, 1.38-2.82). The results were consistent for Black patients; sepsis (6.59, 5.04-8.46) followed by RD (2.01, 1.41-2.78) and KD (1.64, 1.04-2.46). Asian/Pacific Islanders were more likely to die from CVD (2.52, 2.13- 3.00) and DM (2.21, 1.21-3.71). Hispanics were more likely to die from LD (3.11, 1.66-5.32) and non-Hispanics from sepsis (4.28, 3.68-4.96). This risk of death due to sepsis was increased with chemotherapy (7.06, 5.22-9.33) and radiotherapy (4.92, 3.58-6.61). Detailed results are available in Table. Conclusions: Sepsis remained the leading cause of early non-cancer-deaths in mGU cancers consistently across all subgroups. Younger adults were more likely to die from CVD and KD, Black patients from RD, and Hispanics from LD. [Table: see text]

173 Background: The data for combining PARPi and ARPi in mCRPC have shown conflicting results. Here, we report a quantitative summary of benefits by clinically meaningful subgroups (HRR mutation status, BRCA mutation status) to guide the use of PARPi and ARPi combination in mCRPC setting. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched from each database’s inception through September 7, 2023. Phase III studies comparing PARPi + ARPi with ARPi + placebo in mCRPC were included. Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) in patient subgroups based on HRR and BRCA mutation status were assessed. Hazard ratios for rPFS and OS with 95% CI were collected at the level of each trial, and a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using an inverse variance approach. Subgroup differences were assessed and p-value of interaction <0.1 was considered statistically significant. Results: The literature search identified 4976 studies from which 3 trials (11 references) – TALAPRO2, PROpel and MAGNITUDE met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2254 participants were eligible for analysis. PARPi + ARPi prolonged rPFS in patients with HRR mutations (HR: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.38-0.78) as well as in patients without HRR mutations (HR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.63-0.88). There is no evidence of treatment interaction by HRR mutation status (p = 0.14). In patients harboring HRR mutations, improved rPFS was observed in those with BRCA mutations (HR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.13-0.62) as well as those without BRCA mutations (HR: 0.72, 95%CI: 0.59-0.87). However, there is evidence that patients with BRCA mutations derived greater rPFS benefit as compared to patients without BRCA mutations (p =0.02). PARPi + ARPi showed no significant improvement in overall survival either in patients with HRR mutations (HR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.59-1.05) or in patients without HRR mutations (HR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.74-1.14). Conclusions: Genomic testing for HRR genes is mandatory to guide clinical decision making in mCRPC patients. Patients harboring BRCA mutations are most likely to derive clinically meaningful benefit from combination PARPi + ARPi treatment. [Table: see text]

171 Background: Treatment effects vary by volume of disease and timing of metastatic presentation in patients with mCSPC. Therefore, we updated the existing body of evidence to assess the comparative efficacy of systemic therapy in mCSPC by prognostic subgroups to inform clinical practice guidelines. Methods: This living systematic review was conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Phase III clinical trials assessing contemporary systemic therapy in mCSPC and reporting overall survival (OS) by four prognostic subgroups were included. Prognostic subgroups included synchronous high volume (SHV), synchronous low volume (SLV), metachronous high volume (MHV), and metachronous low volume (MLV) disease. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using a network-meta-analytic approach in each subgroup. P-scores were used to assess relative treatment rankings in congruency with pairwise estimates. Higher scores indicated better efficacy. Results: This study included a total of nine trials with eight unique treatment options. In patients with SHV disease, darolutamide+docetaxel+ADT (DARO+D+ADT) significantly improved OS when compared to D+ADT (HR: 0.69; 0.57-0.85), enzalutamide (E)+ADT (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46-0.99), and apalutamide (APA)+ADT (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.96). In patients with SLV disease, E+ADT (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.91) and AAP+ADT (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.49-0.89) significantly improved OS when compared to ADT. Although E+D+ADT trended toward improvement compared to other treatments, the results were not statistically significant. In patients withMHV disease, no statistically significant differences were observed among mixed treatment comparisons. However, OS with DARO+D+ADT trended toward improvement when compared to D+ADT (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.39-1.23), APA+ADT (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.23-2.33), E+ADT (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.24-1.86), and E+D+ADT (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.26-1.34). In patients with MLV disease, E+ADT significantly improved OS compared to ADT (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32-0.79), and D+ADT (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27-0.85). APA+ADT significant improved OS compared to ADT (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09-0.54), and D+ADT (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08-0.55). No other statistically significant differences were observed among mixed treatment comparisons. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that triplet systemic therapy may be preferred in SHV, E systemic triplet and E hormonal doublet in SLV, DARO systemic triplet and APA hormonal doublet in MHV, and APA or E hormonal doublets in MLV mCSPC. [Table: see text]

111 Background: Comparative evidence of quality of life (QoL) outcomes regarding life-prolonging treatments for the management of first-line treatment of metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is not known. Methods: This systematic review uses the living interactive evidence synthesis framework (PMID: 36862387). Phase III randomized controlled trials assessing contemporary systemic treatments in mCSPC were included. Small sample size adjusted standardized mean differences (SMD; Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for global QoL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo. Positive SMD indicated better health-related QoL, with zero indicating a null effect. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using a network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed; a higher score indicated better QoL. Results: Of 10 clinical trials initially included, eight trials (15 references) reported QoL. At 3mo global QoL was improved with abiraterone (AAP)+ADT compared to D+ADT (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.13-0.39), enzalutamide (E)+ADT (0.18; 0.03-0.33), and ADT (0.14; 0.02-0.27). At 6mo, AAP+ADT significantly improved global QoL compared to D+ADT (0.74; 0.62-0.87), E+ADT (1.74; 1.56-1.92), and ADT (1.79; 1.65-1.93). D+ADT also improved global QoL at 6mo compared to ADT (1.05; 0.93-1.16) but not when compared to E+ADT. At 12mo, AAP+ADT improved global QoL compared to E+ADT (0.20; 0.05-0.34) and ADT (0.19; 0.07-0.31) but not compared to D+ADT (0.05; -0.07-0.17). D+ADT also improved global QoL at 12mo compared to ADT (0.14; 0.03-0.24) (Table). Global QoL has not been reported for ARASENS trial at this time. These results are available on the Living interactive website. Conclusions: The totality of evidence suggests improved global QoL with androgen-pathway inhibitors (API) doublet therapy. D+ADT may offer better QoL at longer 6 and 12 months of follow-up. QoL data for triplet therapy is still emerging and will be incorporated in the living review as soon as it becomes available. [Table: see text]

Background Janus kinase inhibitors are actively investigated for treating various hematological, rheumatological, gastrointestinal and dermatological indications. Thus, we have initiated a living systematic review to define the toxicity profile of JAKi agents. Here, we report an up-to-date assessment of toxicity profile of JAKi in patients with myelofibrosis. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from each database's inception through June 13, 2023, to identify phase I/II/III clinical trials assessing JAKi in myelofibrosis reporting adverse events. The main outcomes of interest included incidence rates of all-cause and treatment-related grade ≥ 3, grade 5 and all-grade AEs of interest (infections, hematological, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular adverse events). Incidence rates (incidence per 100-person-years) for AEs of interest were calculated at the level of each trial. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the incidence rates of AEs using an inverse-variance approach. Results The literature search identified 2044 studies from which 28 clinical trials (33 references) met the inclusion criteria - 4 (14%) trials were phase I, 4 (14%) trials were phase I/II, 13 (46%) trials were phase II, and 7 (25%) trials were phase III. A total of 4505 participants received JAKi and were eligible for analysis. All-cause and treatment-related hematological toxicities were reported in 28 (100%) and 18 (64%) trials, all-cause and treatment-related gastrointestinal toxicities were reported in 28 (100%) and 18 (64%) trials, all-cause and treatment-related cardiovascular toxicities were reported in 20 (71%) and 12 (43%) trials whereas all-cause and treatment-related infections were reported in 26 (93%) and 14 (50%) trials, respectively. The incidence rate per 100-person years for all-cause and treatment related adverse events of interest are summarized in Table 1a and 1b respectively. For treatment-related AEs, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhea with JAKi is 8.50 (95% CI: 5.34-13.53) events per 100-person years. The incidence of treatment-related grade ≥ 3 anemia and thrombocytopenia is 39.40 (95% CI: 25.57-60.71) and 29.25 (95% CI: 20.12-42.51) events per 100-person years respectively. The incidence of treatment-related grade 5 diarrhea with JAKi is 2.15 (95% CI: 1.07-4.29) events per 100-person years whereas the incidence of treatment-related grade 5 anemia and thrombocytopenia is 2.03 (95% CI: 1.04-3.97) and 2.01 (95% CI: 1.02-3.93) events per 100-person years respectively. For all-cause AEs, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 nausea, vomiting and diarrhea with JAKi is 1.72 (95% CI: 0.97-3.05), 3.56 (95% CI: 1.92-6.61) and 5.29 (95% CI: 3.48-8.04) events per 100-person years respectively. The incidence of all-cause grade ≥ 3 infections with JAKi is 4.38 (95% CI: 1.95-9.83) events per 100-person years whereas the incidence of all-cause grade ≥ 3 respiratory tract infections with JAKi is 4.21 (95% CI: 2.41-7.36) events per 100-person years. The incidence of all-cause grade ≥ 3 anemia, neutrophil decrease and thrombocytopenia is 46.83 (95% CI: 32.68-67.11), 29.11 (95% CI: 14.86-57.02) and 34.39 (95% CI: 23.82-49.64) events per 100-person years respectively. Moreover, the incidence of all-cause grade 5 nausea, vomiting and diarrhea with JAKi is 1.25 (95% CI: 0.72-2.18), 2.01 (95% CI: 1.08-3.74) and 1.60 (95% CI: 0.94-2.72) events per 100-person years respectively. In addition, the incidence of all-cause grade 5 infections and infestations is 3.71 (95% CI: 1.96-7.04) events per 100-person years with the incidence of grade 5 respiratory tract infections being 1.66 (95%CI: 0.89-3.10) events per 100-person years. Furthermore, the incidence of all-cause grade 5 anemia, neutrophil decrease and thrombocytopenia is 2.10 (95% CI: 1.26-3.52), 3.00 (95% CI: 1.25-7.21) and 1.95 (95% CI: 1.15-3.33) events per 100-person years respectively. Conclusions This report of living systematic review provides the best current evidence on toxicity profile of JAKi in patients with myelofibrosis. Current evidence suggests an overall higher incidence of all grade and grade ≥ 3 treatment related gastrointestinal adverse events in patients receiving JAKi. This living review will be updated as soon as new data becomes available.

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]