Citations

Abstract We used a rigorous PRoBE (prospective-specimen collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation) study design to compare the ability of biomarkers of systemic inflammation and biomarkers of gastrointestinal (GI) tissue damage to predict response to corticosteroid treatment, the incidence of clinically severe disease, 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and overall survival in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We prospectively collected serum samples of newly diagnosed GVHD patients (n = 730) from 19 centers, divided them into training (n = 352) and validation (n = 378) cohorts, and measured TNFR1, TIM3, IL6, ST2, and REG3α via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Performances of the 4 strongest algorithms from the training cohort (TNFR1 + TIM3, TNFR1 + ST2, TNFR1 + REG3α, and ST2 + REG3α) were evaluated in the validation cohort. The algorithm that included only biomarkers of systemic inflammation (TNFR1 + TIM3) had a significantly smaller area under the curve (AUC; 0.57) than the AUCs of algorithms that contained ≥1 GI damage biomarker (TNFR1 + ST2, 0.70; TNFR1 + REG3α, 0.73; ST2 + REG3α, 0.79; all P < .001). All 4 algorithms were able to predict short-term outcomes such as response to systemic corticosteroids and severe GVHD, but the inclusion of a GI damage biomarker was needed to predict long-term outcomes such as 6-month NRM and survival. The algorithm that included 2 GI damage biomarkers was the most accurate of the 4 algorithms for all endpoints.

Objective To determine the harms of ezetimibe in people who need lipid-lowering treatment. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies comparing ezetimibe with placebo, standard care, or other lipid-lowering agents in people who need lipid-lowering treatment with a follow-up duration of at least six months (or 24 weeks). The relative effects for potential harms of ezetimibe were pooled by use of random effect pairwise meta-analyses for randomised controlled trials and the evidence from observational studies was narratively summarised. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results 48 randomised controlled trials with 28 444 participants (median follow-up 34 weeks, range 24-312 weeks) and four observational studies with 1667 participants (median follow-up 282 weeks, range 72-400 weeks) were included. The meta-analyses of randomised trials showed moderate to high certainty that ezetimibe was not associated with cancer (relative risk 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.11), fractures (0.90; 0.74 to 1.10), discontinuation due to any adverse event (0.87; 0.74 to 1.03), gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation (1.34; 0.58 to 3.08), myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation (0.82; 0.51 to 1.33), neurocognitive events (1.48; 0.58 to 3.81), or new-onset diabetes (0.88; 0.61 to 1.28). The narrative analysis of observational studies provided consistent findings. No credible subgroup effects were identified for the harm outcomes, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials. Conclusions Ezetimibe results in little to no difference in adverse events or other undesirable effects compared with placebo, usual care or other lipid-lowering agents. Review registration PROSPERO CRD42020187437.

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.

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.