Khalid, Atiqa

6557 Background: Trials that inadequately include underrepresented minority (URM) populations widen inequities in cancer care. We assessed reporting patterns, representation, and trends of URM representation in breast cancer (BC) trials. Methods: We analyzed all phase 2/3 trials for age disparity and trials recruiting from the US for racial/ethnic disparity amongst BC RCTs (1990-2021). Enrollment-incidence ratios (EIR), which compare trial proportions (TP) from age subgroups against global estimates of incidence in the corresponding age group (from Global Burden of Disease) and racial/ethnic subgroups against US-population-based incidence in the corresponding racial/ethnic group (from SEER 22), were calculated. Individual-trial EIRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. EIRs of <0.80 indicated meaningful underrepresentation, while EIRs >1.20 indicated meaningful overrepresentation. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between key trial characteristics and EIR, and trends in EIR over the last three decades. Results: Of 842 global trials with 490,657 participants, 232 (27.6%) reported the number of participants in specific age strata and 144 (17.1%) reported outcomes by age. Only 60 trials recruited exclusively from the US. Of these, 41 (68.3%) reported race and 24 (40.0%) reported ethnicity, and 2 (3.3%) analyzed outcomes by race. Older adults aged ≥65 years (TP: 24.3%; EIR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.47-0.60]) and Hispanic women (TP: 5.3%; 0.54; 0.40-0.75) were underrepresented across global trials and US-only trials respectively. Black women were significantly underrepresented in trials that led to FDA approval (0.38; 0.25-0.58) but not in US-only trials. Stratified analysis by BC subtype (with subtype-specific population incidence) showed underrepresentation of Black women in US-only trials for HER2+ BC (0.66; 0.47-0.93), Hispanic women in ER+ BC (0.42; 0.20-0.90), Asians in triple-negative BC (0.24; 0.11-0.53), and older women in HER2+ BC (0.35; 0.31-0.40) and triple-negative BC (0.36; 0.29-0.45). From 1990-2021, the representation of older women declined significantly (meta-regression coefficient for EIR: -0.4 per 10 years), while Black and Hispanic representation showed no significant change. Black (p = 0.02) and Hispanic representation (p = 0.05) worsened significantly in larger trials. Conclusions: Published reports of BC trials do not consistently report the inclusion of URM. Older and Hispanic women were consistently underrepresented, whereas Black women were underrepresented in large, practice-changing trials. [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.