Tareen, Haseeb

e24088 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) significantly affects treatment tolerance and quality of life. ASCO guidelines recommend a NK-1 receptor antagonist with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine has emerged as an alternative antiemetic, with evidence suggesting noninferiority in triple regimens. Given its favorable cost profile, we performed a pooled analysis comparing olanzapine- versus aprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimens for CINV prevention. Methods: This PRISMA-compliant review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261284983). Five databases were systematically searched to identify studies comparing olanzapine (OLZ) versus aprepitant (APR) based triple antiemetic regimens. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult patients receiving HEC. Statistical analyses were performed in R (version 2025.05.0+496; Posit). Results: 13 studies were included in the final synthesis, comprising 1,557 patients (OLZ: n = 779; APR: n = 788). CR was comparable between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95–1.09; I² = 55.8%). Exclusion of Mehta et al. (2017) reduced heterogeneity to zero (I² = 0%). In the acute phase ( < 24 h), CR was also similar between OLZ and APR (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98–1.20; I² = 82.7%); however, OLZ demonstrated superior CR in the 10-mg dose subgroup (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03–1.14; I² = 74%). For delayed-phase CR (24-120 h), the pooled effect estimate was RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.98–1.27; I² = 84.3%). Control of nausea was significantly improved in the OLZ group compared with APR (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01–1.40; I² = 72.8%), particularly in anthracycline–cyclophosphamide–based regimens (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09–1.54; I² = 62.9%) and the 10-mg OLZ dose subgroup (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01–1.49; I² = 75.2%). Nausea control was also superior in both the acute phase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01–1.27; I² = 76.5%) and the delayed phase (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05–1.65; I² = 93.3%). Control of vomiting was comparable between OLZ and APR (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92–1.07; I² = 0%), with no significant differences observed in the acute ( < 24 h) phase (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97–1.10; I² = 49%) or the delayed (24–120 h) phase (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.04; I² = 0%). Conclusions: OLZ-based triple antiemetic regimens provide comparable CR and vomiting control to APR, with superior nausea control, particularly in anthracycline–cyclophosphamide regimens and at the 10-mg dose.

e20139 Background: Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) frequently presents with brain metastases, affecting approximately 20% of the patients at diagnosis. The prognostic impact of baseline brain metastases on survival outcomes in patients treated with contemporary chemo-immunotherapy remains unclear, creating uncertainty in first-line treatment selection for this high-risk population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of baseline brain metastases on treatment outcomes in ES-SCLC. Methods: This PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from database inception through January 2026 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating PD-1/PD-L1-based chemo-immunotherapy versus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in adults with ES-SCLC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled separately for patients with baseline brain metastases (BM+) and without brain metastases (BM−) using random-effects models with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. Analyses were performed using R. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted based on follow-up duration and immunotherapy regimen. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials were included. Among patients with baseline brain metastases (BM+), pooled OS from seven studies did not show a significant survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66–1.08, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.145), nor did pooled PFS from five studies (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.60–1.79, I² = 0.0%). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant heterogeneity. In contrast, among patients without baseline brain metastases (BM−), pooled OS from nine studies demonstrated a significant survival benefit (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.69–0.76, I² = 0.0%, P < 0.001), with corresponding improvement in PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60–0.82, I² = 0.0%). These findings indicate a differential treatment effect according to baseline brain metastasis status. Conclusions: First-line chemo-immunotherapy does not apprear to confer a significant survival benefit in ES-SCLC patients with baseline brain metastases, reflecting a differential treatment effect by brain metastasis status. These findings suggest that baseline brain metastases should be considered in treatment selection and future clinical trial design and highlight the need for optimized systemic strategies for this high-risk population.

e13121 Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) lacks reliable prognostic biomarkers beyond standard clinical staging, limiting individualized risk stratification and treatment planning. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a readily available marker of systemic inflammation, has been proposed as a prognostic indicator in TNBC; however, existing evidence remains inconsistent. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic value of pretreatment NLR in the contemporary treatment era. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from database inception through January 1, 2026, for randomized and observational studies reporting associations between pretreatment NLR and survival outcomes in TNBC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I tool. Prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed based on NLR cut-off values, follow-up duration, geographic region, and risk of bias. Results: Twenty-three retrospective studies comprising 4,731 patients with TNBC were included. On multivariate analysis, elevated pretreatment NLR was independently associated with poorer OS (HR 2.21, 95% CI: 1.56–3.13) and DFS (HR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.65–2.37. Similar associations were observed on univariate analysis (OS: HR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.07–2.72; DFS: HR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.14–2.98). No statistically significant or consistent association was observed between NLR and PFS. Associations between high NLR and adverse OS and DFS remained robust across prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses, representing the largest contemporary synthesis of multivariable-adjusted outcomes in TNBC. Key pooled outcome associations are summarized in Table 1. Conclusions: Elevated pretreatment NLR is independently associated with worse OS and DFS in patients with TNBC, supporting its potential role as a low-cost tool for clinical risk stratification and treatment planning. Given its availability from routine blood tests, NLR may assist in identifying high-risk patients who could benefit from intensified surveillance or therapeutic strategies. Prospective validation in the modern chemo-immunotherapy era is warranted. Summary of pooled associations between pretreatment NLR and survival outcomes in TNBC. Outcome Studies (n) Interpretation Overall survival 14 Worse survival Disease-free survival 15 Worse survival Progression-free survival 3 Inconclusive