Xu, Wenxin Vincent

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

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.

694 Background: The treatment landscape of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rapidly evolving. Recent trials have demonstrated contrasting efficacy with adjuvant immunotherapy. Therefore, we sought to assess the mixed treatment comparisons among different adjuvant treatment options using updated data from trials and quantified the absolute effect with these treatments stratified by risk categories. Methods: This living network meta-analysis was conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. We used stratified baseline risks of disease progression from observational data and at 5, 10, 15 years from the Leibovich risk stratification system (based on risk scores ranging from 0 to ≥15). Corresponding intervention risks were then approximated using relative effect estimates (from NMA) and baseline risks. The difference between CIRs and baseline risks were calculated to present absolute risk differences in each risk category. Results: This NMA included eight RCTs with 8480 participants and seven unique treatment options. Pembrolizumab (pembro; rank 1) was associated with improved disease-free survival (DFS) when compared to atezolizumab (atezo; rank 6; hazard ratio: 0.68; 0.49;0.93), and nivolumab-ipilimumab (nivoipi; rank 5; 0.68; 0.48-0.97). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between pembro and atezo for overall survival (0.53; 0.28-1.01). Survival data for nivoIpi was not reported. No new statistically significant differences were observed since last update. The absolute benefit of atezo and nivoipi was minimal with higher T and N patients (Table). The results were similar with increasing Leibovich risk scores. Conclusions: Current evidence favors the use of a risk adapted approach when offering adjuvant immunotherapy. Adjuvant pembrolizumab remains a preferred treatment in patients with RCC who underwent nephrectomy. [Table: see text]

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

518 Background: Cisplatin (C) based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been the mainstay treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, the optimal choice of NAC is not well-established. We therefore conducted a network-meta-analysis (NMA) to assess comparative efficacy of different treatment options. Methods: Several electronic databases (MEDLINE, and EMBASE) and conference proceedings were systematically used to identify randomized trials evaluating first-line treatments in neoadjuvant MIBC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and pathologic complete response (pCR). DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was used to compute direct comparisons between NAC and local therapy (LT) only. Fixed effect NMA was conducted within the frequentist framework for mixed treatment comparisons. P-scores were used to assess relative treatment rankings. All statistical analyses were conducted in R (v 4.1.1). Results: This systematic review included 23 trials (25 references) with a total of 5313 patients with 10 unique treatments. Direct comparisons showed significant benefit in PFS (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94), and in OS (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.92) with NAC when compared to LT only. However, the likelihood of achieving an objective response (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.72-1.95: I2: 85%) or CR (RR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.87-2.61; I2: 79%) was not different between the two arms. Data available in 15 trials contributed to the network for PFS outcome while only eight trials contributed to OS outcome. Mixed treatment comparisons showed significantly improved PFS with nintedanib-gemcitabine-cisplatin (NinGC; HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20-0.87) and dose-dense-methotrexate-vinblastine-doxorubicin-cisplatin (ddMVAC; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43-0.88) compared to LT only. Consistent benefit was observed when NinGC (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.24-0.97) and ddMVAC (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96) were compared to GC only. However, no significant differences were observed between NinGC (rank 1) and ddMVAC (rank 2) or among other mixed treatment comparisons. Similarly, OS was significantly improved with NinGC (rank 1) relative to MVAC (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.97), MVC (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.88), MC (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.16-0.92), AC (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15-0.91), and GC (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17-0.90). While similar results were observed with ddMVAC (rank 2) when compared to MVC (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42-0.94), MC (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.98), and GC (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.47-0.92), no significant differences were observed with ddMVAC when compared to MVAC (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.38-1.01) and NinGC (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 0.69-4.19). Conclusions: Current evidence shows improved PFS and OS with the use of neoadjuvant ddMVAC and Nin-GC in patients with MIBC relative to other treatment options.

360 Background: Pembrolizumab has been established as an effective treatment option in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma after the publication of KEYNOTE-564. However, the magnitude of benefit based on different risk categories is not well defined. Methods: We included full-text publications of phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma after a systematic search. The outcomes of interest included disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), all grade or grade ≥3 treatment related, and all cause adverse events. Mixed treatment comparisons were computed through a fixed-effect multivariate meta-regression within the frequent framework. Relative treatment rankings were assessed using P-scores. We used stratified baseline risks of disease progression from observational data and at 5, 10, 15 years from the Leibovich risk stratification system (based on risk scores ranging from 0 to ≥15). Corresponding intervention risks (CIRs) were then approximated using relative effect estimates (from NMA) and baseline risks. The difference between CIRs and baseline risks were calculated to present absolute risk differences in each baseline category. Results: This NMA included six RCTs with a total of 7525 participants and five unique treatment options. Mixed treatment comparisons showed significant DFS and OS benefit with pembrolizumab (rank 1) when compared against sunitinib (DFS HR 0.74 [0.55-0.99]; OS HR 0.51 [0.27-0.94]). However, there were no significant differences with pembrolizumab compared to pazopanib (DFS HR 0.81 [0.60- 1.09]; OS HR 0.54[0.29-1.01]) and axitinib (DFS HR 0.78 [0.54-1.14]; OS HR 0.52 [0.24-1.16]). The safety profiles were comparable. Absolute benefit of TKIs in adjuvant setting was minimal whereas this benefit increased with higher T and N patients in patients treated with pembrolizumab (Table). Similarly, the treatment benefit increased with higher Leibovich’s risk scores at 5, 10 and 15 years of follow up. Conclusions: The current analysis suggests that a risk adapted approach may be useful when considering adjuvant pembrolizumab in RCC patients.[Table: see text]