Riaz, Irbaz Bin

e19502 Background: Inconsistent results observed in recent trials (ZUMA-7, TRANSFORM, BELINDA) assessing chimeric antigenic receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) prompted a meta-analysis to assess the available evidence and to compare the effectiveness of different CAR-T products. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify full-text or abstract publications of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing CAR-T in patients with R/R DLBCL compared to standard of care (SOC). Efficacy outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR). CR rates were also compared between CAR-T and patients in SOC arm who received autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). Safety outcomes included grade > 3 any adverse events (AE), cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity (NT). A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool effect estimates. Freeman-Tukey transformation method was used to estimate pooled proportion (PP) of safety events specific to CAR-T. Mixed treatment comparisons were computed using a frequentist network meta-analysis approach. Results: Of 1803 studies identified, three RCTs with 865 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed significant improvement in EFS (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27-0.97; I2: 92%), PFS (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.37-0.60; I2: 0%) with CAR-T compared to SOC. OS was not significantly different between the two groups (HR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.03; I2: 29%). Higher objective response (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.13-1.97; I2: 81%), and CR rates (RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.07-2.24; I2: 79%) were observed with CAR-T compared to SOC. However, CAR-T was associated with lower CR when compared to patients who underwent ASCT (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90; I2: 89%). The safety profile was not different between CAR-T and SOC. The incidences of grade ≥3 CRS (PP: 4.19; 95% CI: 1.60-7.80; I2: 57%) and grade ≥3 NT (PP: 7.57; 95% CI: 0.20-22.6; I2: 95%) were low. Mixed treatment comparisons showed significant EFS benefit with liso-cel (rank 1: HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22-0.61) and axi-cel (rank 2: HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.29-0.61) compared to tisa-cel (rank 3). No significant differences were observed among different CAR-T products for PFS or OS improvement. The safety profile of CAR-T products was comparable with tisa-cel (rank 1) being the safest. Conclusions: CAR-T therapy, as a second line treatment, appears to be effective in achieving higher response rates and delaying the disease progression compared to SOC in R/R DLBCL. However, given lack of OS benefit coupled with lower response rates when compared to patients who received ASCT, we should exercise caution in adopting CAR-T as second line therapy for all patients with R/R DLBCL.

6589 Background: Real-world utilization and comparative effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment remains largely unexplored. Methods: De-identified administrative claims data (OptumLabs - Data Warehouse) for adult active cancer patients with acute VTE (1/1/2012-9/30/2019) were assessed for utilization patterns, recurrent VTE, and major bleeding differences between DOACs, LMWH, and warfarin. Patients were followed up till the end of treatment. Patients who crossed over to other anti-coagulants within the follow up period were excluded. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess predictors of anticoagulant administration. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the differences in time to medication discontinuation among the three groups. Propensity score (PS) and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to balance baseline differences between groups. Standardized difference (SD) was used to assess the balance of covariates after weighting and SD < 10% was considered acceptable. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression with a robust variance estimator was then used to assess outcomes in PS weighted groups. Results: A total of 5100 patients met the inclusion criteria; 49.3% filled DOACs (n = 2512), 29.2% LMWH (n = 1488), and 28.6% warfarin (n = 1460). Median treatment duration was around 3.2 months for DOACs and warfarin, and 1.8 months for LWMH ( P-value < 0.01). Multinomial regression analysis showed that younger patients were more likely to be prescribed LMWH (OR 0.97 95% CI: 0.97-0.98) as compared to DOACs. Patients with lung (OR 2.07 95% CI: 1.12-3.65; OR 1.87 95% CI: 1.04-3.37), urological (OR: 1.94 95% CI:1.08-3.49; OR: 2.04 95% CI: 1.12-3.73), gynecological (OR 4.25, 95% CI: 2.31-7.82; OR 2.31 95% CI: 1.22-4.39) and colorectal cancer (OR 2.26 95% CI: 1.20-4.32; OR 2.51; 95% CI: 1.32-4.79) were more likely to be prescribed LMWH or warfarin respectively, compared to DOACs. VTE recurrences were more frequent for patients receiving LMWH (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.14-1.90) or warfarin (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.13-1.87) compared to DOACs. LMWH, but not warfarin, was associated with greater major bleeding rates compared to DOACs (HR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.62-3.20). All-cause mortality rates were also significantly higher for patients receiving LMWH, but not warfarin compared to DOACs (HR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.15-2.25). Conclusions: Patients with cancer associated VTE remain on anti-coagulation for a remarkably short duration in real-world clinical practice. DOACs and warfarin may offer better compliance than LMWH. Patients receiving DOACs have a lower risk of VTE recurrence, less major bleeding, and improved mortality. Warfarin may still be considered for patients with contraindications to DOACs and non-compliant to LMWH.

5083 Background: ARASENS and PEACE-1 trials suggests treatment intensification with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel (DOC) provides survival benefit as compared to DOC+ADT in patients with metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). However, the performance of triplet therapy as compared to NHT+ADT remains unexplored. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and recent conference proceedings were searched to include phase III trials evaluating triplet therapy in patients with mCSPC and reporting treatment effects in subgroup of patients with and without docetaxel. Outcomes included overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression free survival (rPFS). Precomputed hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) from non-randomized subgroup comparisons were pooled after logarithmic transformation using inverse-variance weighting approach. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was then performed to assess subgroup differences. Interaction between subgroups was assessed using P-value of heterogeneity. Mixed treatment comparisons were computed using a fixed-effect model within the frequentist framework using subgroup effect estimates from eligible trials. Results: This meta-analysis included five clinical trials (ARASENS, PEACE-1, ENZAMET, ARCHES and TITAN) with a total of 5804 patients (docetaxel: 2836; no docetaxel: 2836). Subgroup analysis showed statistically significant difference between treatment effects in patients who received docetaxel (NHT + DOC + ADT; HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.84; I2: 0%) and those who did not (NHT + ADT; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.53-0.70; I2: 0%) for OS (p-value of interaction: 0.04). However, no statistically significant interaction was observed in terms of rPFS (p-value: 0.46). Mixed treatment comparisons showed improved OS with NHT + DOC + ADT (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.84) as compared to DOC + ADT, but not when compared to NHT + ADT (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.78-1.20). NHT + ADT significantly improved OS compared to DOC + ADT (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92). Consistently, significant rPFS improvement was observed with NHT + DOC + ADT when compared DOC + ADT (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.42-0.57) but not when compared to NHT + ADT (HR: 0.82; 0.65-1.04). NHT + ADT was observed to improve rPFS compared to DOC + ADT (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.50-0.72). Conclusions: This exploratory and hypothesis generating analysis suggests that addition of docetaxel (triplet therapy) may not delay progression or prolong survival compared to NHT-based doublets. These findings provide direction for future clinical trials in this space and suggest an equipoise to the question of how triplet regimens compare with NHT-doublets. The results should be interpreted with caution as this analysis does not account for potential confounding relationships such as volume of disease.

e16550 Background: Improved computational power and modern algorithms have generated significant interest in radiomics for cancer diagnosis and staging. Here we assess the performance of deep learning (DL) models as a means for feature extraction in combination with supervised machine learning (ML) algorithms for accurate staging and chemotherapy response assessment of bladder cancer. Methods: Deidentified grayscale CT images from bladder cancer patients scheduled to undergo radical cystectomy were included in this retrospective study. These images were manually annotated with two regional masks (normal region and cancer region). Five DL models- namely, AlexNet, GoogleNet, InceptionV3, ResNet-50, and XceptionNet pre-trained on the ImageNet dataset, a public dataset, were then fine-tuned on our bladder CT scan data to extract features. Through feature selection process, the subset of the features was used to build ML classifiers for classification. The classification was performed using five different ML classifiers, namely k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Naïve-Bayes (NB), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), and Decision Tree (DT). The classification task was performed with 10-fold cross-validation, and each of the experiments contained a different but not mutually exclusive subset of samples. The evaluation metrics include accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1-score. Results: A total of 200 deidentified grayscale CT images of 100 patients with histologically proven bladder cancer, were included in this study. For experiment (1) normal vs. cancer, the LDA classifier on XceptionNet based features provides the best performance with an accuracy of 86.07%, sensitivity of 96.75%, specificity of 69.65%, precision of 83.07%, and F1-score of 89.39%. For experiment (2) non-muscle invasive Cancer (NMIBC) vs. muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), the LDA classifier on XceptionNet based features provided the best performance with an accuracy of 79.72%, sensitivity of 66.62%, specificity of 87.39%, precision of 75.58%, and F1-score of 70.81%. For experiment (3) T0 lesion vs. MIBC, the LDA classifier on XceptionNet based features provides the best performance with an accuracy of 74.96%, sensitivity of 80.51%, specificity of 70.22%, precision of 69.78%, and F1-score of 74.73%. Conclusions: Our proposed model has shown good results in differentiating normal vs cancer and promising performance in differentiating T0 vs MIBC after chemotherapy treatment. We are expanding our dataset to further improve the performance in differentiating T0 vs MIBC. In addition, we will investigate the applicability of GAN for data augmentation to address data limit. We believe the hybrid DL and ML framework may facilitates radiologists' decisions and clinical decision-making in patients with bladder cancer.

4594 Background: Cisplatin based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by definitive therapy improves survival in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, the clinical benefit of NAC might vary with the choice of definitive therapy. Therefore, we assessed the absolute benefit of NAC followed by radical cystectomy or radical radiotherapy separately using the totality of evidence. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify randomized trials assessing cisplatin based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by either radical cystectomy or definitive radiotherapy in patients with MIBC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Treatment effects were expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Incidence rate ratios were calculated to estimate time to event outcomes for trials not reporting HR. A random-effects DerSimonian-Laird meta-analysis was conducted. Absolute effects were then obtained using baseline risks from the control arm of RCTs. Results: Of 4887 studies identified, 13 trials with 2529 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Most trials included patients with T2-4 and N0 patients and only 3 trials included patients with node positive disease. Total of 180 (47%) DFS events were observed with NAC+RC compared to 213 (56%) events in RC alone (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59-0.89) and 346 (58%) OS events were observed with NAC+ RC compared to 385 (52%) events in RC alone (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.92). Total of 186 (70%) DFS events were observed with NAC + radiotherapy compared to 205 (71%) events in radiotherapy alone (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.74-1.12) and 263 (58%) OS events were observed with NAC+ radiotherapy compared to 294 (61%) events in radiotherapy alone (HR:0.93; 95% CI: 0.79-1.08). Conclusions: The choice of definitive therapy after cisplatin-based NAC impacts survival in patients with MIBC. RC after NAC improved DFS (114 fewer events per 1000 events) and OS (76 fewer per 1000 events) whereas radiotherapy after NAC showed no survival benefit. [Table: see text]

Purpose of review To summarize the role of chemotherapy and offer some guidance regarding the selection of chemotherapy in mPC. Recent findings Patients with mHSPC have varied prognoses with testosterone suppression alone (androgen deprivation therapy, ADT) and differential responses to docetaxel with ADT. Patients with de novo and metachronous high-volume disease have a robust survival benefit with the addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapies. Patients with synchronous low-volume disease have a more modest survival benefit from docetaxel and there is no evidence of survival benefit with docetaxel in patients with metachronous low-volume disease. Integration of biomarkers may refine treatment selection regardless of volume of disease. Docetaxel and cabazitaxel also impart an OS benefit in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The choice of chemotherapy in mCRPC depends on treatment received in mHSPC setting. Docetaxel remains the first line chemotherapy in castration-resistant patients who have not received it in mHSPC followed by cabazitaxel, otherwise cabazitaxel can be deployed without docetaxel retreatment. Summary Chemotherapy is a key class of therapy for selected patients with mHSPC and mCRPC.

Abstract Clinical question In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? Current practice Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients’ values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. Recommendations The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. How this guideline was created An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults’ average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform ( www.magicapp.org ) that also allows re-use and adaptation. The evidence A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/ . Understanding the recommendations The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient’s risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients’ cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms. Because of the anticipated large variability of patients’ values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit. The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Abstract Objective To compare the impact of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in adults taking maximally tolerated statin therapy or who are statin intolerant. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors with ≥500 patients and follow-up of ≥6 months. Main outcome measures We performed frequentist fixed-effects network meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) to assess certainty of evidence. Results included relative risks (RR) and absolute risks per 1000 patients treated for five years for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. We estimated absolute risk differences assuming constant RR (estimated from network meta-analysis) across different baseline therapies and cardiovascular risk thresholds; the PREDICT risk calculator estimated cardiovascular risk in primary and secondary prevention. Patients were categorised at low to very high cardiovascular risk. A guideline panel and systematic review authors established the minimal important differences (MID) of 12 per 1000 for MI and 10 per 1000 for stroke. Results We identified 14 trials assessing ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors among 83 660 adults using statins. Adding ezetimibe to statins reduced MI (RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.94)) and stroke (RR 0.82 (0.71 to 0.96)) but not all-cause mortality (RR 0.99 (0.92 to 1.06)) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09)). Similarly, adding PCSK9 inhibitor to statins reduced MI (0.81 (0.76 to 0.87)) and stroke (0.74 (0.64 to 0.85)) but not all-cause (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)). Among adults with very high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor was likely to reduce MI (16 per 1000) and stroke (21 per 1000) (moderate to high certainty); whereas adding ezetimibe was likely to reduce stroke (14 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (11 per 1000) (moderate certainty) did not reach MID. Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statin may reduce stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (9 per 1000) (low certainty) did not reach MID. Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins and ezetimibe may reduce MI (14 per 1000) and stroke (17 per 1000) (low certainty). Among adults with high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor probably reduced MI (12 per 1000) and stroke (16 per 1000) (moderate certainty); adding ezetimibe probably reduced stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction in MI did not achieve MID (8 per 1000) (moderate certainty). Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statins did not reduce outcomes beyond MID, while adding PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe and statins may reduce stroke (13 per 1000). These effects were consistent in statin-intolerant patients. Among moderate and low cardiovascular risk groups, adding PCSK9 inhibitor or ezetimibe to statins yielded little or no benefit for MI and stroke. Conclusions Ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors may reduce non-fatal MI and stroke in adults at very high or high cardiovascular risk who are receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy or are statin-intolerant, but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk.

Objective To determine the harms of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in people who need lipid-lowering therapy. Methods This systematic review included randomised controlled trials that compared PCSK9 inhibitors with placebo, standard care or active lipid-lowering comparators in people who need lipid-lowering therapy with the follow-up duration of at least 24 weeks. We summarised the relative effects for potential harms from PCSK9 inhibitors using random-effect pairwise meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for each outcome. Results We included 32 trials with 65 861 participants (with the median follow-up duration of 40 weeks, ranging from 24 to 146 weeks). The meta-analysis showed an incidence of injection-site reaction leading to discontinuation (absolute incidence of 15 events (95% CI 11 to 20) per 1000 persons in a 5-year time frame, high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors do not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus, neurocognitive events, cataracts or gastrointestinal haemorrhage with high certainty evidence. PCSK9 inhibitors probably do not increase the risks of myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation or any adverse events leading to discontinuation with moderate evidence certainty. Given very limited evidence, PCSK9 inhibitors might not increase influenza-like symptoms leading to discontinuation (risk ratio 1.5; 95% CI 0.06 to 36.58). We did not identify credible subgroup analyses results, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials. Conclusions PCSK9 inhibitors slightly increase the risk of severe injection-site reaction but not cataracts, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, neurocognitive events, new-onset diabetes or severe myalgia or muscular pain.