Mirza, Mohsin

Background: Evaluate survival outcomes of PN compared to RN in patients with T1-2, N0, M0 cRCC. Methods: Patients with cRCC were identified using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Inclusion criteria included T1-2, N0, M0 disease, treatment with either PN or RN, and a Charleston Deyo co-morbidity score of 0. Patients with missing survival data, advanced staging, or incomplete surgical information were excluded. Propensity score matching was performed to create identical groups with respect to age, sex, and race. Kaplan–Meier survival curves, multinomial logistic regression, and cox proportional hazard models were used for statistical analysis. Results: Of the 476 eligible propensity matched patients, 238 (50.0%) underwent PN and 238 (50.0%) underwent RN. PN was associated with better survival (mean: 186 vs. 170 months, P < 0.05) and lower odds of death (OR = 3.43; 95% CI, 2.05-5.76; P < 0.05). Five- and ten-year survival rates for PN were 95.2% and 91.1%, compared to 87.4% and 76.0% for RN. Patients treated with PN were significantly more likely to come from a higher income quartile and be treated at an academic/research facility. Conclusion: Partial nephrectomy demonstrates superior survival and shorter hospital stays compared to radical nephrectomy in localized cRCC, reinforcing its role as the preferred surgical approach.

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]