Hussain, Syed A.

Background High‐risk non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) has a variable prognosis, managed predominantly by local surgical resection and intravesical Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG), or radical cystectomy (RC). Current treatments are poorly tolerated, have supply limitations and often fail to control the disease. Treatments overcoming these limitations are needed to improve HRNMIBC outcomes. Many novel agents have been approved in recent years (including systemic pembrolizumab, nogapendekin alfa inbakicept‐pmln, N‐803), but long‐term efficacy is unknown. Given advanced bladder cancer findings, we believe direct intravesical administration of atezolizumab may aid with managing HRNMIBC or muscle‐invasive bladder cancer in patients who are ineligible for cisplatin‐based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Study design The INtraVESical immunoTherapy (INVEST) trial is a UK‐based, open‐label, non‐randomised, single‐centre, Phase Ib dose escalation, window of opportunity study exploring atezolizumab administration via intravesical routes (passive instillation and direct injection [sub‐urothelial]) in patients with bladder cancer with all stages undergoing RC. For both routes, an initial dose confirmation stage will determine toxicity and recommended atezolizumab dosage, followed by a dose expansion stage to further evaluate safety and toxicity at the recommended dose. Endpoints We aim to investigate safety (primary) and preliminary activity (secondary) of intravesical atezolizumab delivered by passive instillation and direct injection into the tumour/bladder wall in patients with bladder urothelial cell carcinoma prior to RC. Primary endpoints include dose limiting toxicities and adverse events. Secondary endpoints include progression‐free survival, pathological complete response rate and treatment compliance. Exploratory endpoints include pharmacokinetic profile (assessed by serum and urine concentrations at prespecified timepoints), spatial analysis of atezolizumab distribution within RC tissue by imaging mass spectrometry and overall survival. Patients and Methods Atezolizumab will be administered intravesically by either passive instillation or direct injection into the tumour/bladder wall. Cohorts will receive either 600 mg or 1200 mg doses administered as a single dose or as multiple doses (weekly for 3–6 weeks). Trial Registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN15842444 , registered 2 December 2022.

773 Background: BCG-unresponsive High-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) tumours have an ominous prognosis and require effective, tolerable treatments. Uptake remains low for FDA approved agents (including systemic pembrolizumab, nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln or N-803) due to toxicity concerns. We hypothesize direct intravesical administration of a PDL1 inhibitor could be effective with less systemic toxicity. However, it is unknown whether antibodies delivered via this route can reach tumor vasculature. INVEST is a phase Ib window of opportunity study investigating the safety and preliminary activity of passive instillation and direct injection of intravesical atezolizumab into the tumour/bladder wall. Methods: Eligible participants (ECOG performance status 0-2) are awaiting radical cystectomy (RC) for any stage urothelial cell carcinoma. Participants with muscle invasive bladder cancer, must be ineligible for/ refuse cisplatin based neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Atezolizumab (600mg or 1200mg) is administered via direct injection into the tumour/bladder or by instillation into the bladder. The 3+3 design is utilised in the dose confirmation stages where participants receive either Single or Multiple (between 3 and 6) dose(s) of treatment before RC. Efficacy signals are derived from pathological complete response at RC and progression-free survival at 2 years. Primary endpoint, Dose confirmation stage: The number of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed from first dose of trial treatment to RC. Results: Enrolment began in May 2023. 13 participants were recruited to the single dose cohorts: 11 male, and 2 female. Age (Range; 43-86); median 70y, 9 NMIBC, 4 MIBC. 7 for direct injection (4 at 600mg and 3 at 1200mg dose) and 6 for passive instillation (3 at 600mg and 3 at 1200mg). Due to technical issues (syringe size) the first direct injection participant did not receive the full 600mg and were replaced. 12 participants received trial treatment as planned. There were no DLTs; 5 participants experienced non-trial treatment related SAEs (4 infections, 2 ileus, 2 renal impairment; 7/8 events occurred post-RC and all SAEs resolved). All participants underwent planned RC within the protocol stipulated timeline. Median time from last treatment to RC was18 days. 5 of 13 participants had downstaging of tumour in cystectomy specimen. Following independent Safety Review Committee review, recruitment is now open for the dose confirmation phase (Multiple 1200mg dose) in both treatment routes. Conclusions: Single dose atezolizumab treatment at a dose of 600mg and 1200mg in passive instillation and direct injection cohorts was well tolerated. Early efficacy data is encouraging. Multiple weekly doses of 1200mg in each treatment route are now being investigated within the INVEST trial. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN15842444 .

184 Background: We update evidence on mHSPC when new evidence becomes available (PMID: 36862387). ARANOTE trial prompted us to assess the comparative efficacy of darolutamide (DARO) with other ARPi agents in mHSPC using the living network meta-analysis (LNMA). Methods: This LNMA is conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Phase III trials assessing systemic treatments in mHSPC are included. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using a frequentist network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings with higher values indicating potentially better efficacy. Results: This report of LNMA includes a total 11 trials (12628 patients; 12 unique treatment options) as of October 1 st , 2024. Overall results were consistent with prior updates. Analysis limited to the ARPi trials showed that inhigh volume, abiraterone acetate (AAP)+androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.40-0.53; rank 1), apalutamide (APA)+ADT (0.53; 0.41-0.68; rank 3), DARO+ADT (0.60; 0.44-0.81; rank 4) and enzalutamide (E)+ADT (0.48; 0.41-0.56; rank 2) significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) compared to ADT alone. No statistically significant differences were observed with DARO+ADT compared to AAP+ADT (1.30; 0.94-1.82), APA+ADT (1.14; 0.77-1.67) and E+ADT (1.24; 0.89-1.79). Inlow volume, AAP+ADT (0.48; 0.37-0.63; rank 4), APA+ADT (0.36; 0.22-0.58; rank 3), DARO+ADT (0.30; 0.15-0.60; rank 1) and E+ADT (0.32; 0.25-0.41; rank 2) significantly improved rPFS compared to ADT. E+ADT significantly improved rPFS compared to AAP+ADT (0.67; 0.47-0.96) in low volume. No statistically significant differences were observed with DARO+ADT compared to AAP+ADT (0.62; 0.30-1.30), APA+ADT (0.83; 0.36-1.92) and E+ADT (0.93; 0.45-1.94). In synchronous disease, AAP+ADT (0.58; 0.51-0.67; rank 4), APA+ADT (0.49; 0.39-0.62; rank 2), DARO+ADT (0.59; 0.44-0.79; rank 3) and E+ADT (0.42; 0.36-0.50; rank 1) significantly improved rPFS compared to ADT. E+ADT significantly improved rPFS compared to AAP+ADT (0.73; 0.59-0.89) in synchronous disease. In metachronous disease, DARO+ADT (0.34; 0.17-0.67; rank 1), APA+ADT (0.41; 0.22-0.77; rank 2) and E+ADT (0.44; 0.35-0.57; rank 3) significantly improved rPFS compared to ADT. No statistically significant differences were observed with DARO+ADT compared to APA+ADT (0.83; 0.33-2.08) and E+ADT (0.76; 0.37-1.57) in metachronous disease. The results were consistent for overall survival. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests no significant differences for darolutamide as compared to other ARPi agents. Enzalutamide may be preferred over AAP in low-volume or synchronous disease. Given similar efficacy, choice of ARPi requires careful consideration of patient-specific factors including cost, accessibility and toxicity.

4591 Background: EV-302 and CheckMate 901 demonstrated significant survival benefit with enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab (EVPembro) and gemcitabine-cisplatin-nivolumab (GemCisNivo) as 1L therapy, respectively, in patients (pts) with la/mUC. However, whether these treatments are cost-effective or not remains unclear. Methods: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progression and death) was developed. State utilities were derived from published literature. State transition probabilities were informed from point-probabilities and hazard ratios for OS and PFS obtained from the latest follow-up of eligible trials. Average sales price (2024 USD) for individual treatments (excluding ancillary charges) were obtained from the center of medicare and medicaid services (US payer’s perspective). Treatment strategies were modeled in accordance with the dose/schedule reported in the eligible trials. Pts who received GemCis or Gem-carboplatin (GemCarbo) and did not progress were modeled to receive Avelumab maintenance. Half-cycle corrected costs and utilities were accrued over a 10-year lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 100,000$ per QALY was used. Results: In cisplatin-eligible pts, GemCisNivo demonstrated a 0.8 QALY gain over GemCis at an ICER of 21,127 ($/QALY). GemCisNivo was also associated with an incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of 63,099$ relative to GemCis. EVPembro demonstrated a 2.4 QALY gain over GemCis at an ICER of 915,283 and a 1.6 QALY gain over GemCisNivo at an ICER of 1,406,308. In cisplatin-ineligible pts, EVPembro demonstrated a 2.4 QALY gain over Gem-carboplatin (GemCarbo) at an ICER of 934,761. Price threshold analyses demonstrated that EVPembro is likely to be cost-effective at a cost of 12,344$ for cisplatin-eligible and 13,374$ per cycle for cisplatin-ineligible pts (original cost: 35,665.60$ per cycle). Sensitivity analysis using a total of 12 cycles for EVPembro showed cost-effectiveness at an ICER of 69,594 relative to GemCisNivo in cisplatin-eligible pts, and at an ICER of 53,099 relative to GemCarbo in cisplatin-ineligible pts. Conclusions: In terms of US payer’s perspective, GemCisNivo is most likely to be cost-effective in cisplatin-eligible pts at the WTP of 100,000 $/QALY. Limiting the number of cycles for EVPembro may render it as a cost-effective 1L treatment in la/mUC pts regardless of cisplatin-eligibility status.

e16619 Background: Should patients (pts) with MIBC receive aIO given the DFS benefit seen in AMBASSADOR and CheckMate 274 trials is an important clinical question. Thus, we aimed to quantify the magnitude of absolute benefit across different subgroups to aid clinicians in shared decision-making with their patients. Methods: Phase III trials evaluating aIO as compared to observation or placebo (obs/plac) in pts with MIBC were considered eligible. Outcomes of interest included DFS and OS. Pre-specified subgroups included disease location, PDL1 status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) receipt, and tumor and nodal (TN) staging. Pairwise comparisons were made using a DerSimonian-Lairds (DL) random-effects meta-analysis. Stratified baseline risks (obtained from clinical trials) and relative effect estimates were used to estimate corresponding intervention risks (CIRs). The difference in CIRs and baseline risk was calculated to present absolute risk differences (ARDs) in each subgroup category. Results: Analysis included three trials with 2220 pts (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab assessed in each). No significant difference was observed in OS with aIO compared to obs/plac (hazard ratio: 0.91; 0.76-1.09). However, aIO significantly improved DFS compared to obs/plac (0.76; 0.64-0.91) in the overall population. In pts with bladder/lower tract disease, aIO improved DFS compared to obs/plac (0.72; 0.56-0.92); however, no significant difference was observed in DFS in pts with upper tract disease. There was a statistically significant effect modification by disease location (p: 0.01). Adjuvant IO significantly improved DFS in PDL1- (0.78; 0.64-0.94) but not in PDL1+ pts (0.75; 0.52-1.08). Likewise, aIO significantly improved DFS in pts who received NAC (0.69; 0.53-0.90) but not in pts who did not receive NAC (0.89; 0.75-1.05). In terms of TN staging, aIO improved DFS in T2-3N0 (0.73; 0.57-0.94), T4N0 (0.76; 0.61-0.95), and in T2-4N1 patients (0.75; 0.59-0.95). No statistically significant modifications were observed among these subgroups. Stratified ARDs for DFS by each subgroup are outlined (Table). Conclusions: When delayed disease progression is a vital consideration, a risk-adapted strategy for the optimal patient selection to receive aIO should be considered. Disease location (lower tract/bladder), node positivity, and receipt of NAC emerged as groups likely to derive greater benefit with aIO. [Table: see text]

5088 Background: Previous evidence suggests that there may be no additional benefit of triplet therapy in low volume disease based on limited data. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of triplet therapy as compared to docetaxel (D) and androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets by volume of disease using the most up to date results from the ARASENS trial. Methods: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment intensification with API, and/or D in patients with mCSPC were included. Precomputed hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for OS were pooled using an inverse-variance approach. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of triplet therapy compared to D doublet therapy. P-value of interaction was computed to assess difference between high (HV) and low volume (LV) disease subgroups (Pint <0.1 - statistical significance). Additionally mixed treatment comparisons were computed using network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative effectiveness of triplet therapy compared to API doublets by volume of disease. Results: Pairwise meta-analysis included a total of 3 RCTs (ARASENS, PEACE-1, ENZAMET) with 2518 patients (HV: 1820; LV: 698) as shown. In patients with HV disease, 385 (43%) and 484 (53%) deaths were observed with triplet therapy, and D doublet, respectively. Triplet therapy significantly improved OS as compared to D doublet in HV (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64-0.84). In patients with LV disease, 73 (20%) and 94 (28%) deaths were observed with triplet therapy, and D doublet, respectively. Triplet therapy significantly improved OS as compared to D doublet in LV (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52-0.97). There was no statistically significant interaction by volume of disease for triplet therapy vs. D doublet (Pint: 0.86). NMA including 10 clinical trials and over 11500 patients updated as of 13th Feb 2023 showed that in HV mCSPC, triplet therapy was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment option and may improve OS compared to API doublet therapy (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.66-1.03). In LV mCSPC, API doublet therapy was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment followed by triplet therapy. There was no significant difference between triplet therapy and API doublet therapy (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.74-1.12). Conclusions: These results underscore that triplet therapy may be preferred in mCSPC patients with HV disease whereas API doublet therapy may be preferred in LV disease. [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]

193 Background: We maintain a network meta-analysis for the treatment of mCSPC using a living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Recently, the STAMPEDE trial presented evidence regarding a new triplet regimen (enzalutamide-abiraterone-androgen deprivation therapy [E+AAP+ADT]). Hence, in this report we provide the most-up-to-date evidence to inform the choice of optimal therapy in mCSPC patients. Methods: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment intensification with androgen pathway inhibitors (API), docetaxel (D), or both in patients with mCSPC were included. Mixed treatment comparisons for overall-survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were made across randomized comparisons using a frequentist network-meta-analysis. Additionally, subgroup data from three trials (ENZAMET, TITAN, ARCHES) by the receipt of docetaxel were abstracted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different triplet regimens. Treatment effects were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Relative treatment rankings were evaluated using P-scores and assessed in congruency with the pairwise estimates. Results: This report includes 10 clinical trials (30 references) and over 11500 patients updated as of 1st October 2022. Using randomized data in overall patient population, AAP+D+ADT (rank 1; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) and E+AAP+ADT (rank 4; HR: 0.76; 0.62-0.93) significantly improved PFS compared to D+ADT (rank 7) but not when compared to E+ADT (rank 2) and APA+ADT (rank 3). Similarly, darolutamide (DARO)+D+ADT (rank 1; HR: 0.68; 0.57-0.81), AAP+D+ADT (rank 2; HR: 0.75; 0.59-0.95) significantly improved OS when compared to D+ADT (rank 7). Efficacy by volume of disease and timing of metastatic presentation was consistent with prior update. Using subgroup data by the receipt of docetaxel, a total of five triplet regimens (DARO+D+ADT, AAP+D+ADT, E+D+ADT, apalutamide (APA)+D+ADT, and E+AAP+ADT) were evaluable for comparisons. E+D+ADT (rank 3) improved PFS compared to D+ADT (rank 9; HR: 0.52; 0.41-0.66) and E+AAP+ADT (rank 6; HR: 0.70; 0.52-0.94). Compared to AAP+ADT (rank 7), E+D+ADT (HR: 0.64; 0.49-0.84) and AAP+D+ADT (rank 2; 0.62; 0.42-0.91) significant improved PFS. However, no significant differences were observed among E+D+ADT, AAP+D+ADT, and APA+D+ADT. Similarly, DARO+D+ADT (rank 1) improved OS compared to APA+D+ADT (HR: 0.47; 0.24-0.93). Conclusions: Current evidence favors the use of emerging triplet regimens over docetaxel doublet but not API doublets in overall population. Among different triplets, E+AAP+ADT may not delay progression compared to docetaxel triplets. Hence, access to treatment, toxicity, disease volume and timing of metastases should be carefully considered in mCSPC patients.

Importance The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown. Objective To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups. Data Sources For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database’s inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a “living” auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available. Study Selection Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Results This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT. Conclusions and Relevance The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

ImportanceProstate cancer (PCa) is marked by disparities in clinical outcomes by race, ethnicity, and age. Equitable enrollment in clinical trials is fundamental to promoting health equity.ObjectiveTo evaluate disparities in the inclusion of racial and ethnic minority groups and older adults across PCa clinical trials.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify primary trial reports from each database's inception through February 2021. Global incidence in age subgroups and US population-based incidence in racial and ethnic subgroups were acquired from the Global Burden of Disease and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 21 incidence databases respectively.Study SelectionAll phase 2/3 randomized PCa clinical trials were eligible for age disparity analyses. Trials recruiting exclusively from the US were eligible for primary racial and ethnic disparity analyses.Data Extraction and SynthesisThis study was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.Main Outcomes and MeasuresEnrollment incidence ratios (EIRs), trial proportions (TPs) of participants 65 years or older or members of a racial and ethnic subgroup divided by global incidence in the corresponding age group, or US population–based incidence in the corresponding racial and ethnic subgroup, were calculated. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between trial characteristics and EIRs and trends in EIRs during the past 3 decades.ResultsOf 9552 participants among trials reporting race, 954 (10.8%) were African American/Black, 80 (1.5%) were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8518 (78.5) were White. Of 65 US trials, 45 (69.2%) reported race and only 9 (13.8%) reported data on all 5 US racial categories. Of 286 global trials, 75 (26.2%) reported the enrollment proportion of older adults. Outcomes by race and age were reported in 2 (3.1%) and 41 (15.0%) trials, respectively. Black (EIR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) and Hispanic (EIR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) patients were significantly underrepresented in US trials. There was no disparity in older adult representation (TP, 21 143 [71.1%]; EIR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05). The representation of Black patients was lower in larger trials (meta-regression coefficient, −0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.02; P = .002).Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that Black and Hispanic men are underrepresented in trials compared with their share of PCa incidence. The representation of Black patients has consistently remained low during the past 2 decades.