Citations

Abstract Despite recent methodology advancements in clinical natural language processing (NLP), the adoption of clinical NLP models within the translational research community remains hindered by process heterogeneity and human factor variations. Concurrently, these factors also dramatically increase the difficulty in developing NLP models in multi-site settings, which is necessary for algorithm robustness and generalizability. Here, we reported on our experience developing an NLP solution for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) signs and symptom extraction in an open NLP framework from a subset of sites participating in the National COVID Cohort (N3C). We then empirically highlight the benefits of multi-site data for both symbolic and statistical methods, as well as highlight the need for federated annotation and evaluation to resolve several pitfalls encountered in the course of these efforts.

7509 Background: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous CAR T approved for adult patients (pts) with r/r FL after ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapy. In the primary analysis of the pivotal ZUMA-5 trial, 94% of pts who received axi-cel to treat r/r FL achieved an objective response, with a 79% CR rate (Jacobson et al. 2022). Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events occurred in 6% and 15% of pts, respectively. Here, we present the real-world outcomes of pts receiving axi-cel for r/r FL, including those who would have been ineligible for ZUMA-5. Methods: A total of 230 pts from 72 US centers receiving first axi-cel for r/r FL in the real-world setting between March 2021 and October 2022 were identified from the CIBMTR registry. The following pts were excluded: no consent, prior non-transplant cellular therapy, and FL grade 3b or 3a/3b unspecified. Of the 230 pts, 151 pts had post-infusion assessments and were included in the analysis of outcomes. Effectiveness outcomes were ORR, CR, DOR, PFS and OS. Adverse events included CRS, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) and prolonged cytopenia. Results: Of the 230 pts, median age was 62 years and 60% were male. Prior to infusion, 98% had an ECOG performance score of 0-1, 33% had elevated LDH, and 66% were chemo-resistant. Clinically significant comorbidities were present in 74% of the pts. Ninety-two (40%) pts would have been ineligible for ZUMA-5, mainly due to comorbidities. Pts had a median of 4 (range 1-13) lines of prior therapy including 14% who also underwent prior ASCT. Median time from leukapheresis to infusion was 28 days (IQR 26-34). 9% of pts received bridging therapy. Outcomes were analyzed among the 151 pts with follow-up (median 6.2 mo). ORR and CR rates were 93% (95% CI 88-97%) and 84% (95% CI 77-89%), respectively. Estimated PFS and OS at 6 mo were 88% (95% CI 81-92%) and 96% (95% CI 91-98%), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 CRS (ASTCT consensus) and ICANS (ASTCT consensus) occurred in 2% (95% CI 0-6%) and 13% (95% CI 8-19%) of pts, respectively. Median cumulative incidence estimates of CRS resolution was 5 days and ICANS resolution was 4 days. Among pts alive at Day 30 (n = 150), 11% experienced prolonged cytopenia (4% neutropenia, 9% thrombocytopenia). PFS and OS at 6 mo were comparable regardless of ZUMA-5 eligibility, while pts eligible for ZUMA-5 had fewer Grade ≥ 3 ICANS (10% vs 16%) and more rapid ICANS resolution (92% vs 71% resolved within 2 weeks). Pts aged ≥ 65 vs < 65 years had comparable effectiveness and safety profiles. Conclusions: This is the first report on axi-cel to treat r/r FL in real-world settings. Despite a broader pt population, early results demonstrate effectiveness and safety profiles consistent with those observed in the ZUMA-5 trial. The intent is to present findings from an updated dataset with longer follow-up at ASCO. Overall, these findings support the continued broad use of axi-cel to treat r/r FL.

5088 Background: Previous evidence suggests that there may be no additional benefit of triplet therapy in low volume disease based on limited data. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of triplet therapy as compared to docetaxel (D) and androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets by volume of disease using the most up to date results from the ARASENS trial. Methods: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment intensification with API, and/or D in patients with mCSPC were included. Precomputed hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for OS were pooled using an inverse-variance approach. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of triplet therapy compared to D doublet therapy. P-value of interaction was computed to assess difference between high (HV) and low volume (LV) disease subgroups (Pint <0.1 - statistical significance). Additionally mixed treatment comparisons were computed using network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative effectiveness of triplet therapy compared to API doublets by volume of disease. Results: Pairwise meta-analysis included a total of 3 RCTs (ARASENS, PEACE-1, ENZAMET) with 2518 patients (HV: 1820; LV: 698) as shown. In patients with HV disease, 385 (43%) and 484 (53%) deaths were observed with triplet therapy, and D doublet, respectively. Triplet therapy significantly improved OS as compared to D doublet in HV (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64-0.84). In patients with LV disease, 73 (20%) and 94 (28%) deaths were observed with triplet therapy, and D doublet, respectively. Triplet therapy significantly improved OS as compared to D doublet in LV (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52-0.97). There was no statistically significant interaction by volume of disease for triplet therapy vs. D doublet (Pint: 0.86). NMA including 10 clinical trials and over 11500 patients updated as of 13th Feb 2023 showed that in HV mCSPC, triplet therapy was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment option and may improve OS compared to API doublet therapy (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.66-1.03). In LV mCSPC, API doublet therapy was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment followed by triplet therapy. There was no significant difference between triplet therapy and API doublet therapy (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.74-1.12). Conclusions: These results underscore that triplet therapy may be preferred in mCSPC patients with HV disease whereas API doublet therapy may be preferred in LV disease. [Table: see text]

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]

193 Background: We maintain a network meta-analysis for the treatment of mCSPC using a living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Recently, the STAMPEDE trial presented evidence regarding a new triplet regimen (enzalutamide-abiraterone-androgen deprivation therapy [E+AAP+ADT]). Hence, in this report we provide the most-up-to-date evidence to inform the choice of optimal therapy in mCSPC patients. Methods: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment intensification with androgen pathway inhibitors (API), docetaxel (D), or both in patients with mCSPC were included. Mixed treatment comparisons for overall-survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were made across randomized comparisons using a frequentist network-meta-analysis. Additionally, subgroup data from three trials (ENZAMET, TITAN, ARCHES) by the receipt of docetaxel were abstracted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different triplet regimens. Treatment effects were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Relative treatment rankings were evaluated using P-scores and assessed in congruency with the pairwise estimates. Results: This report includes 10 clinical trials (30 references) and over 11500 patients updated as of 1st October 2022. Using randomized data in overall patient population, AAP+D+ADT (rank 1; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) and E+AAP+ADT (rank 4; HR: 0.76; 0.62-0.93) significantly improved PFS compared to D+ADT (rank 7) but not when compared to E+ADT (rank 2) and APA+ADT (rank 3). Similarly, darolutamide (DARO)+D+ADT (rank 1; HR: 0.68; 0.57-0.81), AAP+D+ADT (rank 2; HR: 0.75; 0.59-0.95) significantly improved OS when compared to D+ADT (rank 7). Efficacy by volume of disease and timing of metastatic presentation was consistent with prior update. Using subgroup data by the receipt of docetaxel, a total of five triplet regimens (DARO+D+ADT, AAP+D+ADT, E+D+ADT, apalutamide (APA)+D+ADT, and E+AAP+ADT) were evaluable for comparisons. E+D+ADT (rank 3) improved PFS compared to D+ADT (rank 9; HR: 0.52; 0.41-0.66) and E+AAP+ADT (rank 6; HR: 0.70; 0.52-0.94). Compared to AAP+ADT (rank 7), E+D+ADT (HR: 0.64; 0.49-0.84) and AAP+D+ADT (rank 2; 0.62; 0.42-0.91) significant improved PFS. However, no significant differences were observed among E+D+ADT, AAP+D+ADT, and APA+D+ADT. Similarly, DARO+D+ADT (rank 1) improved OS compared to APA+D+ADT (HR: 0.47; 0.24-0.93). Conclusions: Current evidence favors the use of emerging triplet regimens over docetaxel doublet but not API doublets in overall population. Among different triplets, E+AAP+ADT may not delay progression compared to docetaxel triplets. Hence, access to treatment, toxicity, disease volume and timing of metastases should be carefully considered in mCSPC patients.

Importance The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown. Objective To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups. Data Sources For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database’s inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a “living” auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available. Study Selection Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Results This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT. Conclusions and Relevance The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.