Sipra, Qurat Ul Ain Riaz

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]

e24070 Background: We have maintained a living interactive systematic review (LISR) on the treatment of CAT ( CAT LISR ). Recent publications of CASTA-DIVA and CANVAS trials prompted this report of updated analysis. Methods: The approach to creating LISRs has been previously published and is available on our website. ( LIvE synthesis framework ). Patient important outcomes included venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), net clinical benefit (NCB) and all-cause mortality. Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool treatment effect estimates. A Paul-Mendel random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare DOACs with LMWH. Mixed-treatment comparisons were computed using fixed-effect model within a Bayesian framework owing to a sparse and open network. Effect estimates were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to assess relative treatment rankings. Results: This systematic review currently includes six RCTs with a total of 3690 patients and four unique treatment choices. Apixaban was assessed in two trials (ADAM-VTE, CARAVAGGIO), rivaroxaban in two (SELECT-D, CASTA-DIVA) and edoxaban in one (HOKUSAI-VTE). CANVAS trial reported efficacy of DOACs as a class and hence, was only included in direct comparisons with LMWH. Direct comparisons showed that DOACs as a class significantly decreased the odds of VTE recurrence (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.82) without significantly increasing major bleeding (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.84-1.79) when compared to LMWH. However, higher odds of CRNMB (OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.18-2.31) was observed with DOACs when compared to LMWH. Mortality rates were not different between the two groups (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87-1.21). Mixed treatment comparisons showed decreased VTE recurrences with rivaroxaban (rank 1; OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.23-0.99) and apixaban (rank 2; OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90) relative to LMWH (rank 4). No significant differences were observed between edoxaban (rank 3) and LMWH in terms of VTE risk reduction. Edoxaban (rank 4) increased the risk of major bleeding (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.05-3.15) compared to LMWH (rank 2); there were no significant differences among rivaroxaban (rank 3) apixaban (rank 1), and LMWH. Rivaroxaban (rank 4; OR 3.16; 95% CI: 1.61-6.68) and apixaban (rank 3; OR 1.51, 95% CI: 1.01-2.28) increased the risk of CRNMB compared to LMWH (rank 1). Significant net clinical benefit was observed with apixaban (rank 1; OR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.94) when compared to LMWH (rank 4). No significant differences were observed among other mixed treatment comparisons. Conclusions: Patients treated with DOACs have 31 fewer VTE events per 1000 CAT patients compared to LMWH. Amongst DOACs, apixaban offers the greatest net clinical benefit with 39 fewer VTE and MB events per 1000 patients compared to LMWH.

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.

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]

335 Background: Systematic reviews are outdated quickly when the evidence is rapidly evolving as the process is laborious and there is little incentive for primary author team of an index SRMA to update the evidence. Consequently, there is an epidemic of redundant SRMAs performed by different teams—sometimes with conflicted results—for treatment of first line mRCC. Methods: We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR)and network meta-analysis(LINMA) for the treatment of first line mRCC using an Artificial intelligence (AI) assisted framework for evidence synthesis (Living, Interactive evidence synthesis framework) (LIvE) . The framework is implemented in five-layered architecture (application layer, shared module layer, core service layer, middleware layer, and storage layer) which work together to automate the identification of new studies and analysis and semi-automate the screening and data extraction. Dynamic features such as interactive tables, figures and evidence maps are enabled using Python and JavaScript programming languages. Results: We have maintained a living, interactive evidence profile for the first line treatment mRCC since September 2019 ( LIVING WEBSITE) . Living search strategy identifies new studies as they become available. As of October 13, 2020 LISR, includes data 14 clinical trials ( PRISMA ). Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table ( TABLE) . Cabozantinib& Nivolumab (Cabo-Nivo) is the highest ranked drug for improving Overall Response (OR), Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) whereas Ipilimumab in combination with Nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo) is highest ranked drug for achieving complete response (CR). Ipi-Nivo and Atezolizumab & Bevacizumab (Ate-Bev) ranked highest and Cabo-Nivo ranked lowest for treatment related Adverse events (TRAEs). Results of network meta-analysis are summarized as interactive tables and plots ( NMA ), summary of findings tables ( MULTIPLE COMAPRISONS ) and evidence maps ( MAP ). Conclusions: LISRs can potentially reduce redundancy, increase transparency, reproducibility, enable shared-decision making (at a guideline level, or in a patient-clinician dyad) and support living guidelines.

e17539 Background: Chemotherapy with Docetaxel (D) or androgen pathway inhibition (API) with Abiraterone Acetate plus prednisone (AAP), Aplautamide(APA) and Enzalutamide(E) are acceptable, FDA approved treatment options for mCSPC. It is not clear whether the magnitude of benefit varies by the choice of initial agent [chemotherapy vs API] or by volume of disease [High vs Low]. Data is now available from all registration trials by volume status and motivated this analysis to inform initial treatment choice in mCSPC. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE(Ovid), Embase, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials of chemotherapy(D) or APIs (AAP, APA, ENZ) that had available hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) according to patient’s volume of disease. We also reviewed abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings. We calculated the pooled overall survival HR and 95% CI by chemotherapy and APIs and by high volume(HVD) and low volume(LVD) using a random effect model, and tested for heterogeneity to assess the null hypothesis that no difference in the survival advantage exists by choice of initial agent and volume of disease. Results: Of 4456 studies identified in our search, there were 8 eligible randomized controlled trials that were included in the analysis. Both D and APIs significantly improved PFS [HR 0.48; 0.45-0.51] and OS [0.72; 0.64-0.81] when added to ADT, however the latter was associated with significantly higher improvement in PFS( P < 0.01) and OS (P = 0.03). In patients treated with D, patients with HVD derive significantly more benefit as compared to LVD( P = 0.046) and patients treated with APIs both HVD and LVD patients derive similar benefit( P = 0.80) (Table). Conclusions: mCSPC patients derive higher magnitude of survival benefit when treated with APIs as compared to D; however, D may be preferred in HVD patients. [Table: see text]

5583 Background: FDA has approved three novel AAs [Apalutamide(A), Darolutamide(D) and Enzalutamide(E)] in combination with Androgen deprivation therapy ( ADT) for treatment of (nmCRPC) patients (pts). We report the cost-effectiveness of these drugs from the US perspective to help facilitate the choice of these agents for clinical practice. Methods: A life time Markov state-transition model was constructed with three health states (Metastasis-Free Survival[MFS], Metastatic disease, and Death) to compare cost-effectiveness of AA therapies for treatment of nmCRPC based on US healthcare payer perspective. A network meta-analysis of MFS and OS was conducted due to the lack of head to head trials. An approximation of the original individual-level patient time-to-event data were derived from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and MFS. Weibull distributions was selected as the best fitted model fitted and extrapolated as per the NICE decision support unit recommendations. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Adverse event (AE) grades 3/4 management costs were incorporated in the model. Discount rate of 3% per year was applied to costs and effects. Life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment as well as the incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) and cost utility (ICUR) ratios were estimated. Base case analyses (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were estimated. Results: The table summarizes the results form BCA analyses. A+ADT offers best gain in LYs (8.37yrs) and QALYs (5.30 yrs) but at higher cost. Conclusions: Apalutamide was associated with gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with higher lifetime cost relative to other AA alternatives. ADT was associated with lower gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with lower lifetime cost relative to other alternatives. Based on a $150,000/QALY threshold pay off, A+ADT is likely more cost effective compared to E+ADT or ADT alone; while E+ ADT may be more cost effective compared to D+ ADT. [Table: see text]

709 Background: Several immunotherapy (IMT) combinations either as an IMT doublet or IMT in combination with TKIs are now available for first-line therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, we performed an indirect comparison of frontline treatment options to provide clinical guidance. Methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant trials. Hazard ratios (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for primary outcome of progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary outcome of overall survival (OS) were abstracted. Network meta-analysis was performed using a multivariate, consistency model, random-effects meta-regression. Data on Grade 3 or higher AEs was abstracted and meta-analyzed. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on risk categories (high risk vs low and intermediate vs), history of prior nephrectomy, PD-L1 positivity, age and sex. Risk for bias(RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: Nine studies were included for PFS analysis, and 6 studies for OS analysis. Avelumab-axitinib (AA) (HR 0.69, 0.48-0.96), and Pembrolizumab-Axitinib (PA) (HR 0.89, 0.50-0.96) significantly improved PFS, while there was no significant PFS benefit with atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) (HR 0.83, 0.62-1.13) and nivolumab-ipilimumab (NI) (HR 0.85, 0.63-1.15) as compared to Sunitinib. PA (HR 0.53, 0.38-0.75) and NI (HR 0.63, 0.44-0.90) significantly improved OS, while AB (HR 0.93, 0.75-1.12) showed no significant OS benefit as compared to Sunitinib. NI and AB had significantly fewer grade ≥3 AE than sunitinib. No significant interaction was found by risk group, age, sex or prior nephrectomy. Significant interaction was found by PD-L1 expression(p<0.001), with significant PFS improvement in PD-L1 positive (HR 0.62, 0.53-0.73) but not in PD-L1 negative patients (HR 0.92, 0.81-1.05). Overall, RoB was low amongst included studies. Conclusions: AA improved PFS, NI improved OS, whereas PA improve both PFS and OS as compared to sunitinib monotherapy. However, no IMT combination was superior to other combinations. Cost effectiveness analysis will be reported separately.

708 Background: Patients with high risk non-metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) are at significant risk of recurrence following nephrectomy. Previously, we reported no benefit of adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment in high-risk patients. Since our most recent publication, efficacy results from the multicenter double-blind SORCE trial have become available. We updated our meta-analysis to include these additional data and performed a cumulative meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify relevant RCTs. A generic variance-weighted random effects model was used to derive estimates for efficacy. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic and was quantified using the I2 test. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS), defined as the interval between randomization and the first recurrence, the occurrence of metastasis or a secondary cancer, or death due to any cause. Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3 (Biostat). Results: Five phase 3 trials were identified, enrolling 6531 patients. Two trials compared sunitinib with placebo (S-TRAC and ECOG-ACRIN), two compared sorafenib with placebo (ECOG-ACRIN and SORCE) and one trial each compared pazopanib (PROTECT) and axitinib (ATLAS) vs placebo. Cumulative evidence suggests that adjuvant therapy with TKIs showed no significant improvement in (DFS) hazard ratio [HR] of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85-1.02), compared to placebo. There was no significant heterogeneity among included trials ( I2= 52%, P= .41). Overall, the trials were at low risk of bias. Conclusions: Adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma did not improve DFS as compared to placebo. Improved patient selection using better prognostic biomarkers or scoring systems may identify subsets of patients who can benefit from adjuvant treatments. Toxicity estimates will be updated as data from SORCE trial publication becomes available.

Introduction: We have previously reported underrepresentation of female faculty at senior academic ranks in hematology/oncology (H/O). In this analysis we aimed to investigate the influence of sex in attaining leadership positions amongst academic hematologists/oncologists in United States. Methods: Faculty members were identified at 146 H/O fellowship programs listed on fellowship and residency electronic interactive database (FREIDA.) Data was collected on demographics, academic rank and research output using Doximity and Scopus databases. We compared the unadjusted characteristics of men and women by using two-sided t-tests and χ2 tests where appropriate. In primary analysis, logistic regression models were used to evaluate sex differences on probability of having full professorship (versus assistant and associate professorship) and of achieving leadership positions including division chief, Program Director (PD) and Associate Program Director (APD). Adjusted models included the following variables: clinical experience in years, number of publications, h-index, appointment at top 20 hospital, clinical trial investigator status and National Institutes of Health funding. Stratified analysis was performed adjusting for duration of clinical experience (≤15 vs >15 years) Results: Fewer women were full Professors (21.9% vs 78.1%), division chiefs (16.7% vs 83.3%), and PDs (30.5% vs 69.5) but the number was similar for Associate Program Directors (47.1% vs 52.9%). In a univariate unadjusted model, women were less likely to be full professors compared to men (OR 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.48; P<.001). However, in the multivariable adjusted model no statistically significant sex difference in full professorship was found (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.71, 1.57; P=.85; Table). The likelihood of full professorship was positively associated with clinical experience in years, number of first/last author publications, h-index, and being a primary investigator on at least one clinical trial.In a univariate unadjusted model, women were less likely to be division chiefs as compared to males (OR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.80; P=.01). However, in the multivariable adjusted model, there was no statistically significant sex difference in achieving the position of division chief (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.20, 1.58; P=.28; Table). No significant difference was found between females and males for being program directors or associate program directors in both univariate and multivariate analysis. Similarly, a stratified analysis adjusting for duration of clinical experience (≤15 vs >15 years) found no significant sex differences in attaining leadership position (Table) Conclusion: We found that women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions in hematology/oncology, but that sex is not a significant negative predictor to women obtaining leadership positions after correcting for traditional predictors of academic success. However, "non-traditional" and therefore less measurable and analyzable factors such as networking, mentorship, sponsorship, gender bias, balancing work and home responsibilities and many others may contribute and should be further investigated. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.