Ayaz, Ahsan

695 Background: Recent results from COSMIC 313 trial and updated findings from other contemporary trials have added to the existing body of evidence for 1L mRCC. Therefore, we present the most up-to-date results from our living, interactive systematic review (LISR) to facilitate the choice of optimal therapy in 1L mRCC setting. Methods: This LISR and network meta-analysis is maintained using a novel living evidence synthesis (LIvE) framework. The framework facilitates the identification of new or updated studies using an automated ‘living’ search which is followed by screening and extraction in a semi-automated fashion within a machine learning assisted graphical user interface. Relevant data is parsed and analyzed to compute mixed treatment comparisons and certainty of evidence is adjudicated using a rule-based algorithm. Detailed methods have been published before (PMID: 33824031). Results: As of October 1st 2022, this LISR includes 16 clinical trials (30 references). Mixed treatment comparisons showed statistically significant PFS benefit with lenvatinib-pembrolizumab (LenPem; rank 1) when compared to cabozantinib-nivolumab (CabNivo; rank 3; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.93), CaboNivo-ipilimumab (CaboNivoIpi; rank 4; HR: 0.62; 0.43-0.89), avelumab-axitinib (AveAxi; rank 5; HR: 0.56; 0.43-0.75), PemAxi (rank 6; HR: 0.55; 0.42-0.72), atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AteBev; rank 7; HR: 0.46; 0.35-0.59), and NivoIpi (rank 8; HR: 0.45; 0.35-0.59). No significant differences were observed between CaboNivoIpi and other combination therapies for PFS improvement. Similarly, for OS, LenPem (rank 1), PemAxi (rank 2) and CaboNivo (rank 3) were ranked as potentially more efficacious treatment options than other counterparts. However, no statistically significant difference was observed for OS benefit with mixed treatment comparisons. The odds of achieving an ORR were higher with LenPem (rank 1; odds ratio [OR]: 2.44; 1.43-4.17), and CaboNivo (rank 2; OR: 1.77; 1.04-3.03) when compared to CaboNivoIpi (rank 6). NivoIpi (rank 1), LenPem (rank 2), CaboNivoIpi (rank 3) were ranked potentially as more efficacious treatments for achieving a CR. In terms of grade 3 or higher treatment related adverse events, NivoIpi (rank 3) was ranked as potentially the safest option among other combinations while CaboNivoIpi (rank 12), LenPem (rank 11), and CaboNivo (rank 10) were more likely to increase the risk of toxicity compared to most other treatments. Conclusions: Triplet combination of CaboNivoIpi may not provide additional survival benefit compared to other immunotherapy combinations and may increase toxicity. Patient-level considerations such as treatment toxicity, and quality of life should be factored in when opting intensified 1L therapies in mRCC patients.

692 Background: Sarcomatoid mRCC exhibits poor prognosis and limited response to vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibition. Therefore, we assessed the efficacy of ICI combination therapy in this patient population using data from contemporary trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of ICI combinations with sunitinib monotherapy in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC. Patient important outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR). Precomputed hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for survival outcomes and binary outcome data for response rates (expressed as relative risk [RR] were meta-analyzed using a DerSimonian-Lairds random-effects method. Mixed treatment comparisons among different ICI combinations were made using a network-meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) were computed to assess the relative treatment rankings. Results: Six RCTs with a total of 618 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. ICI combination therapy was significantly associated with improved OS (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.43-0.72) and PFS (HR: 0.50; 0.40-0.62), increased ORR (RR: 2.42; 1.92-3.06), and CR (RR: 4.23; 2.00-8.93) when compared to sunitinib in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC (Table). The results were consistent with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. Mixed treatment comparisons using current data revealed no statistically significant differences among different ICI combinations. However, the combination of nivolumab-ipilimumab was consistently ranked higher (rank 2 for OS, ORR, and CR) and may potentially be more efficacious than other counterparts. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests improved survival, delayed disease progression and increased response rates with the use of ICI combination therapy in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC. [Table: see text]

531 Background: Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NAC) is established in the management of MIBC. Pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0N0) and downstaging (<ypT2N0) are associated with long term survival in patients with MIBC. Several trials have evaluated neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NAI) and chemoimmunotherapy (NACI) for MIBC. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of available trials to compare the incidence of pathological response with NAC, NAI and NACI in MIBC patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Methods: Phase II/III clinical trials assessing neoadjuvant systemic therapies (NAC, NAI, or NACI) in patients with MIBC undergoing radical cystectomy were identified through a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Outcomes of interest included pCR and pathological downstaging. A DerSimonian and Laird random-effect meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled incidence of events using the Freeman-Tukey transformation. Clopper-Pearson method was used to estimate the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of the 5357 records initially identified, 28 trials with a total of 2138 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was assessed in 15 trials (1535 patients), NAI in 5 (288 patients), and NACI in 8 (315 patients). The pooled incidence of patients experiencing a pCR was 30.91% (95% CI: 26.54%-35.45%) with NAC, 30.92% (23.22%-39.14%) with NAI, and 42.25% (36.6%-48.0%) with NACI. The difference in pCR among these therapies was statistically significant (p <0.05). Similarly, the pooled incidence of achieving pathological downstaging was 40.91% (34.26%-47.72%) with NAC, 38.84% (26.73%-51.64%) with NAI, and 62.88% (57.22%-68.39%) with NACI. Consistently, there was statistically significant effect modification by the choice of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (p <0.01). The results were consistent across different clinically important subgroups (Table). Conclusions: NACI may achieve better pCR and pathological downstaging than NAC and NAI alone in MIBC patients which may potentially be associated with long-term survival. Definitive data from phase III trials are pending. [Table: see text]

40 Background: Previously we have reported enrollment disparities in PCa clinical trials. Funding source can influence minority representation in clinical trials. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the impact of source of funding on enrollment disparities in PCa clinical trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify phase II/III PCa trials. All relevant trials reporting age by 65 years were considered eligible for inclusion. Trials recruiting from the United States (US) were considered eligible for analysis by race and ethnicity. The trial proportions of age, or racial/ethnic subgroup category and the global incidence in the corresponding 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) were used to compute enrollment incidence ratio (EIR) at each trial. EIRs with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were then meta-analyzed using a random-effects model and stratified by sources of funding (industry, US-government, and others [academic and non-US govt]). A univariate meta-regression was conducted to assess the temporal changes in EIR by each funding category. Results: Of 127 trials recruiting from the US, 89 (70%) reported race, and 35 (27%) reported ethnicity. Among those, 57 (64%), 14 (16%), and 18 (20%) trials reported industry, US-government, and other sources of funding, respectively. Of those reporting ethnicity, 23 (66%), 4 (11%), and 8 (23%) trials reported industry, US-government, and other sources of funding, respectively. Among the 287 eligible trials, 49 trials (17%) reported age by 65 years. Of those, 36 (73%), 6 (12%), and 7 (13%) reported industry, US-government, and other sources of funding, respectively. In terms of racial/ethnic enrollment, Black patients were significantly under-represented in industry funded trials (0.33; 0.27-0.41). No significant disparity was observed in US-government funded trials (0.75: 0.57-1.00). The P-value of interaction was <0.0001. Hispanics were significantly under-represented in industry funded clinical trials (0.56; 0.43-0.74). The number of US-government funded trials reporting Hispanics were small (<10) which precluded any meaningful statistics. No significant disparity was observed in terms of older adults (EIR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.95; 1.05) overall and by funding sources. Black patients’ representation in industry funded PCa trials has significantly decreased over the last three decades. No significant change was observed in US-government funded PCa trials over the last three decades (P:0.004). Conclusions: Black and Hispanic men with PCa are likely to be under-represented in industry sponsored clinical trials. Black patients’ representation in industry sponsored trials has declined over time, thus widening the cancer-care inequities in these patients.

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.