Citations

BackgroundDespite routine evaluation of cytogenetics in myeloma, little is known regarding the impact of high‐dose therapy (HDT) consolidation on overall survival (OS) or progression‐free survival (PFS) in patients who have high‐risk cytogenetics. The authors performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the heterogeneity of HDT efficacy according to cytogenetic risk.MethodsAll RCTs in patients who had newly diagnosed myeloma from 2000 to 2021 that compared upfront HDT versus standard‐dose therapy (SDT) consolidation were included. The primary objective was to assess the difference in HDT efficacy between standard‐risk and high‐risk cytogenetics in terms of the OS or PFS log(hazard ratio) (HR). The pooled OS and PFS HR was calculated according to cytogenetic‐risk subgroup using a random‐effects model, and heterogeneity (I2) (the percentage of total observed variability explained by between‐study differences) was assessed using an interaction test.ResultsAfter screening 3307 citations, 6 RCTs were included for PFS analysis, and 4 were included for OS analysis. The median follow‐up ranged from 3.1 to 7.8 years. The pooled OS HR for HDT versus SDT consolidation in patients with standard‐risk and high‐risk cytogenetics was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70‐1.17; I2 = 0%) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.45‐0.97; I2 = 0%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of OS between standard‐risk and high‐risk patients was statistically significant in favor of the high‐risk group (P for interaction = .03). The pooled PFS HR for HDT versus SDT was 0.65 (95% CI 0.56‐0.76; I2 = 0%) versus 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33‐0.83; I2 = 55%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of PFS between standard‐risk and high‐risk patients was not significant (P for interaction = .25).ConclusionsThe magnitude of OS benefit with upfront HDT is cytogenetics‐dependent. Patients with high‐risk cytogenetics should preferably receive upfront rather than delayed HDT consolidation.Lay Summary Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation improves overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma harboring high‐risk cytogenetics.

e20037 Background: Several treatment options are available for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma(RRMM). However, in the absence of direct-comparative trials, it is unclear how to choose optimal therapy in RRMM. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative efficacy of different treatment options in RRMM. Methods: Standard electronic databases were searched for abstract and full-text publications of phase 2/3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment regimens in RRMM. Progression free survival (PFS) , overall survival (OS), complete response (CR), and very good partial response (VGPR) were analyzed. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using fixed-effect network meta-analysis (NMA) within the frequentist framework due to sparse direct evidence. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the Bayesian approach. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of comparison-adjusted funnel plots. P-score plots were used to assess relative rankings of the treatments. R statistical software v 4.0.3 was used to conduct the analyses. Results: After a review of 1137 citations, A total of 37 relevant studies were included in systematic review and 30 studies were analyzed in the network meta-analysis (29 contributed for PFS; 18 for OS; 23 for CR; 25 for VGPR). Mixed treatment comparisons showed high likelihood of PFS benefit with triplet regimens; Isatuximab-Carfilzomib-Dexamethasone (Isa-Kd; P-score: 0.98), followed by Daratumumab-Carfilzomib-Dexamethasone (DKd; P-score: 0.93), Daratumumab-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone (DVd P-score: 0.92), Elotuzumab-Pomalidomide-Dexamethasone (EPd); P-score: 0.84), and Isatuximab-Pomalidomide-Dexamethasone (Isa-Pd; P-score: 0.80) when compared to monotherapy and different doublet regimens. Isa-Kd and DKd continued to show significant PFS advantage when compared to Kd doublet. High likelihood of OS benefit was observed with Carfilzomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (KRd); P-score: 0.86) followed by Kd (P-score: 0.83), and DVd (P-score: 0.82). However, trials did not consistently report data for OS and most of the mixed treatment comparisons were statistically insignificant. Similar results were observed for CR and VGPR with triplet regimens showing better likelihood for achieving CR and VGPR. Conclusions: This NMA provide most updated evidence on different treatment options in RRMM and can serve as a contemporary guidance in the absence of head-to-head trials. The weight of current evidence favors the use of triplet regimens. Isa-Kd, DKd, DVd, EPd and Isa-Pd showed no statistically significant difference in terms of PFS in RRMM.

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]

e12545 Background: Palbociclib(P), Ribociclib(R) and Abemaciclib(A) in combination with Endocrine therapy (ET) have demonstrated progression free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as compared to ET alone. In the absence of head to head clinical trials and to provide clinical guidance, we performed an indirect comparison for P, R and A using network Meta-Analysis (NMA). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs comparing P+ET, R+ET, A+ ET vs ET alone. NMA for PFS and toxicity endpoints was conducted using a multivariate random-effects meta-regression, using a consistency model, as described by White and colleagues. We used a frequentist approach and provided a point estimate from the network and a 95% CI from the frequency distribution of the estimate. We also estimated the relative ranking of the different treatments for each outcome using the distribution of the ranking probabilities and the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration tool. Results: 8 RCTs were identified including 4580 patients. Risk of bias was low. 5 RCTs tested CDK 4/6 inhibitors in endocrine naive and 2 in the refractory setting, while MONALESSA-3 included patients both with endocrine naive and endocrine resistant disease. In the endocrine naïve patients, PFS for P was similar when compared indirectly with R (HR, 0.95, 95% CI 0.67-1.35) or A (HR, 1.00, 95% CI 0.62-1.61). Similarly, indirect comparison between R vs A did not show any statistical significant (HR, 0.95, 95% CI 0.62-1.45). In endocrine refractory patients, P showed no difference when compared indirectly to A (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.87) or R (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.52-1.86). R vs A did not show any statistically significant PFS either (HR, 1.14, 95% CI 1.61-4.51). P was ranked first in terms of PFS in frontline setting (SUCRA of 70.5) while R ranked first in the refractory setting (SUCRA of 39.5). QT prolongation was reported for R only. P caused more neutropenia while A caused more fatigue, anemia and diarrhea, although the results were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The efficacy of using either palbociclib, ribociclib or abemaciclib in combination with ET was similar in terms of PFS in either endocrine naïve or resistant disease. Palbociclib causes more neutropenia, abemaciclib causes more fatigue, anemia and diarrhea while ribociclib causes QT prolongation.

e12057 Background: Several RCTs have evaluated a shorter duration of T ( < 12 months) with hopes of similar efficacy, reduced cardiotoxicity, cost and burden of treatment. Of the 5 major studies, PERSPHONE showed that 6 months was non-inferior compared to 12 months. However, four additional studies of shorter duration failed to demonstrate non-inferiority. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the optimal duration of adjuvant T. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus and conference proceedings were searched to identify RCTs comparing one year of adjuvant T with a shorter duration in early-stage HER2+ breast cancer. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects Meta-Analysis was performed using CMAv3 software to derive pooled Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates for overall survival (OS, Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Odds Ratio(OR) estimates of cardiac toxicity. Q-test was used to assess between-study heterogeneity; I2 statistic was computed to express the percentage of the total observed variability due to study heterogeneity. The risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: We screened 1772 citations and identified 5 studies(n = 11,377) for analysis. 5691 patients were randomized to 12 months of adjuvant T while 5686 were randomized to a shorter duration (3 studies evaluated 6 vs 12 months, 2 studies evaluated 9 weeks vs 12 months). OS (HR, 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31, P= 0.015,I2 0.00, p= 0.837) and DFS (HR, 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.26 , P = 0.016,I2 14.90, p= 0.319) were significantly worse in patients receiving shorter duration T as compared to 12 months. Cardiotoxicity was significantly higher in the 12 month group vs shorter duration (OR, 2.10, 95% CI 1.58-2.80, p = 0.000 ,I2 51.182, p= 0.085). Grade 3/4 cardiac events and cardiac events leading to discontinuation of therapy were significantly higher in patients receiving 12 months (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60-2.63, P = 0.000, I2 3.967, p= 0.384). There was no significant heterogeneity among studies. Risk of bias was low. Conclusions: Twelve months of adjuvant T is associated with significantly better DFS and OS compared to a shorter duration. As such, 12 months should remain the standard of care for most patients. There is an unmet need to identify lower risk groups which might do well with from shorter duration of HER2-directed therapy.

Background: Four large RCTs (ASSURE, S-TARC, PROTECT, ATLAS) tested adjuvant VEGF-TKI therapy in high risk RCC. The results were variable for efficacy and there were concerns for increased toxicity and decline in quality of life (QoL). We performed an updated meta-analysis including results of ATLAS trial to asses a risk-benefit for adjuvant post-operative treatments in high risk RCC patients by assessing reported disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity endpoints. Methods: Literature search was done using Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to pool estimates for DFS, OS, and common side effects across the 4 trials. A subgroup analysis was performed for sunitinib alone because of its FDA approval. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane Q statistic and was quantified with I2 test. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: The 4 RCTs included 4,820 patients. Adjuvant therapy with TKIs yielded no significant improvement in DFS or OS as compared to placebo (DFS HR=0.916; 95% CI, 0.832–1.009 and OS HR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.886–1.150). Separate analysis of DFS in sunitinib vs placebo did not show any benefit (2 studies, N=1,909; HR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.67–1.19). Use of TKIs was associated with significantly increased risk of drug toxicity. Increased risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (RR=5.110; 95% CI, 3.765–6.935), diarrhea (RR=10.725; 95% CI, 4.672–24.622), fatigue (RR=3.310; 95% CI, 1.879–5.829), hypertension (RR=4.274; 95% CI, 3.452–5.292) and palmar/plantar dysesthesia (RR=20.53; 95% CI, 9.006–46.801) was observed. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity amongst included trials. QoL endpoints were inconsistently reported. Risk of bias was low. Conclusions: This pooled analysis provides further evidence that there is no OS or DFS benefit associated with adjuvant TKI treatment. There was a significantly increased risk of grade 3 or 4 toxicity in greater than half of the patient population leading to decline in QoL during TKI therapy. Carefully selected very high-risk patients who can tolerate these agents without dose modifications may benefit from adjuvant TKI approach.