Citations

Abstract Background The ability of large language models (LLMs) to work collaboratively and screen studies in a systematic review (SR) is under-explored. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in automating the process of screening in systematic reviews. Methods This is an observational study which included labeled data (title and abstracts) for five SRs. Originally, two reviewers screened the citations independently for eligibility. A third reviewer cross-checked each citation for quality assurance. GPT-4, Claude-3-Sonnet, and Gemini-Pro-1.0 were used using zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting. Collaborative approaches included (i): conflict resolution using benefit of the doubt, (ii) majority voting using an independent third LLM and (iii) conflict resolution using an informed third LLM. Performance was assessed using accuracy, precision for exclusion, and recall for inclusion. Work saved over samples (WSS) was computed to estimate the reduction in manual human effort. Results A total of 11300 articles were included in this study. The individual models, GPT-4, Claude-3-Sonnet, and Gemini-Pro-1.0 exhibited a high precision for exclusion, achieving 99.7%, 99.7%, and 99.2% and high recall for inclusion achieving 95.5%, 96.6% and 85.7%, respectively. However, the collaborative approach utilizing the two best-performing models (GPT-4 and Claude-3S) achieved an average precision of 99.9% and a recall of 98.5% (across all collaborative approaches). Furthermore, the proposed collaborative approach resulted in an average WSS of 63.5%, compared to the average WSS of 45.2% for individual models. Conversational LLM interactions showed a consistent pattern of results. Limitations This study was limited due to reliance on proprietary models, and evaluation on oncology datasets. Conclusion Evidence shows that collaborative LLMs enable efficient, high-performing screening in systematic reviews, supporting continuous evidence updates. Primary funding source NIH (U24CA265879-01-1) and Carolyn-Ann-Kennedy-Bacon Fund.

399 Background: The standard of care for resectable GEA adenocarcinomas is perioperative chemotherapy with the FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) regimen. Recent studies investigating the addition of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) to perioperative chemotherapy have shown mixed results. An NMA can leverage both direct and indirect comparisons to evaluate the relative efficacies of available regimens in this setting. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched until August 27th, 2025. Eligible studies included phase 3 randomized trials evaluating perioperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy +/- CPIs ± radiation in resectable GEA. The primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a frequentist NMA framework. Results: Fifteen trials including 8072 patients were analyzed. For DFS, perioperative durvalumab + FLOT (dFLOT) ranked highest (P-score = 0.99), followed by FLOT (P-score = 0.84) (HR for dFLOT vs. FLOT was 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86). dFLOT also ranked higher than perioperative pembrolizumab + cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine (KN-585), though this comparison was not statistically significant (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40-1.04). Compared with CROSS, dFLOT showed superior DFS (HR of 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.63). For OS, dFLOT ranked the highest (P-score=0.95) and was superior to CROSS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.77). While dFLOT appeared favorable versus FLOT (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98), this finding was primarily driven by MATTERHORN, which did not meet its prespecified OS significance boundary (P = 0.03 vs threshold P < 0.0001), and the proportional hazards assumption was violated. Similarly, no significant OS difference was observed between dFLOT and the KN-585 arms (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45-1.23). Conclusions: In this NMA, perioperative FLOT remained the benchmark regimen for resectable GEA. dFLOT has shown promising early results, ranking the highest for DFS and showing favorable, but not statistically definitive OS trends in comparison to FLOT. Importantly, the network enabled indirect comparisons not tested in head-to-head trials, demonstrating that dFLOT ranked above pembrolizumab+CF/CX (KN-585) without reaching statistical significance, and also outperformed CROSS. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they are primarily driven MATTERHORN data in which OS did not cross the prespecified threshold and proportional hazards assumptions were violated. Perioperative immunotherapy combinations appear promising, but final MATTERHORN results and further confirmatory studies are needed before dFLOT can be considered as a new standard of care.

e16157 Background: The optimal treatment for resectable gastric/GEJ AC is unclear due to limited direct comparisons among chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens. Addressing this gap is critical to improve patient outcomes. We performed this network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the relative efficacy of multimodality regimens for resectable gastric/GEJ AC. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched from inception till September 20, 2024, to identify phase III trials evaluating perioperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy ± radiation in resectable gastric/GEJ AC. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). A frequentist NMA was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI for each outcome. Relative treatment rankings were assessed using P-scores. Results: Fifteen trials (8,072 patients) were analyzed. pFLOT (perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) ranked highest for DFS in the overall population (P score 91%) (Table), significantly outperforming surgery alone (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.60) and nCROSS (neoadjuvant paclitaxel, carboplatin and radiotherapy) (0.67, 0.56-0.81). For OS, nPLF+nCRT(EP) (neoadjuvant cisplatin, leucovorin and fluorouracil for induction, followed by etoposide, cisplatin, and radiotherapy) (P score 90%) and pFLOT (P score 87%) were the top regimens, with pFLOT significantly outperforming surgery alone (0.57, 0.45-0.72), and nCROSS (0.73, 0.60-0.89). Adding neoadjuvant chemoradiation to pFLOT provided no additional OS (1.14, 0.76-1.72) or DFS (1.22, 0.83-1.82) benefit. Similarly, adding pembrolizumab to perioperative chemotherapy (CF/CX) (cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine) was not superior to pFLOT in terms of DFS (1.10, 0.71-1.69) or OS (1.09, 0.69-1.72). Conclusions: pFLOT demonstrated superior efficacy in resectable gastric/GEJ AC, surpassing surgery alone, nCROSS, and other perioperative regimens. The additive role of immunotherapy to pFLOT requires further investigation to refine patient selection and optimize outcomes. Regimen Overall Population GEJ cohort OS DFS OS DFS nPLF+nCRT(EP) 1 (90) 2 (84) 1 (85) NA pFLOT 2 (87) 1 (91) 2 (79) 2 (88) pPembrolizumab+CF/CX 3 (75) 3 (81) 5 (41) - nECX 4 (61) 5 (55) - - pCF 5 (59) 8 (51) 3 (72) - pECF/ECX 6 (47) 6 (55) 7 (40) 3 (57) nECX+aCRT(CX) 7 (45) 7 (52) 9 (31) - nCF 8 (42) 10 (28) 6 (40) - nCROSS 9 (41) 9 (35) 8 (34) 4 (43) pECF/ECX/FLOT+nCRT(F/X) 10 (38) 4 (57) 4 (72) 1 (90) nCRT(CF) 11 (9) 11 (6) - 5 (14) Surgery 12 (7) 12 (5) 10 (5) 6 (9) Data reported as rank (P-score). Abbreviations: n: neoadjuvant; p: perioperative; ECX: epirubicin + cisplatin + capecitabine; CF: cisplatin + fluorouracil; ECF: epirubicin + cisplatin + fluorouracil; aCRT(CX): adjuvant radiotherapy + cisplatin + capecitabine; CRT(F/X): fluorouracil/capecitabine + radiotherapy; CRT(CF): cisplatin + fluorouracil + radiotherapy.

Abstract Background Optimal treatment for resectable gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains unclear due to limited head-to-head comparisons among chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine the relative efficacy of available multimodality treatment regimens in these patients. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched till September 20, 2024. Phase 3 randomized trials evaluating perioperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy ± radiation in resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma were included. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Fifteen trials (8072 patients) were analyzed. pFLOT (perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) ranked highest for DFS in the overall population (P-score 91%), achieving significant improvements compared to surgery alone (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.38-0.60) and nCROSS (neoadjuvant paclitaxel, carboplatin, and radiotherapy) (0.67, 0.56-0.81). For OS, nPLF + nCRT(EP) (neoadjuvant cisplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil for induction, followed by etoposide, cisplatin, and radiotherapy) (P-score 90%) and pFLOT (P-score 87%) were the top regimens. pFLOT significantly outperformed surgery alone (0.57, 0.45-0.72) and nCROSS (0.73, 0.60-0.89). Based on the limited data available, adding neoadjuvant chemoradiation to pFLOT provided no additional OS (1.14, 0.76-1.72) or DFS (1.22, 0.83-1.82) benefit. Similarly, adding pembrolizumab to perioperative chemotherapy (cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine) was not superior to pFLOT (DFS: 1.10, 0.71-1.69; OS: 1.09, 0.69-1.72). Conclusions pFLOT demonstrated superior efficacy in resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma, outperforming surgery alone, nCROSS, and alternative perioperative regimens. The additive role of immunotherapy requires further investigation to optimize patient selection and outcomes.

184 Background: We update evidence on mHSPC when new evidence becomes available (PMID: 36862387). ARANOTE trial prompted us to assess the comparative efficacy of darolutamide (DARO) with other ARPi agents in mHSPC using the living network meta-analysis (LNMA). Methods: This LNMA is conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Phase III trials assessing systemic treatments in mHSPC are included. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using a frequentist network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings with higher values indicating potentially better efficacy. Results: This report of LNMA includes a total 11 trials (12628 patients; 12 unique treatment options) as of October 1 st , 2024. Overall results were consistent with prior updates. Analysis limited to the ARPi trials showed that inhigh volume, abiraterone acetate (AAP)+androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.40-0.53; rank 1), apalutamide (APA)+ADT (0.53; 0.41-0.68; rank 3), DARO+ADT (0.60; 0.44-0.81; rank 4) and enzalutamide (E)+ADT (0.48; 0.41-0.56; rank 2) significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) compared to ADT alone. No statistically significant differences were observed with DARO+ADT compared to AAP+ADT (1.30; 0.94-1.82), APA+ADT (1.14; 0.77-1.67) and E+ADT (1.24; 0.89-1.79). Inlow volume, AAP+ADT (0.48; 0.37-0.63; rank 4), APA+ADT (0.36; 0.22-0.58; rank 3), DARO+ADT (0.30; 0.15-0.60; rank 1) and E+ADT (0.32; 0.25-0.41; rank 2) significantly improved rPFS compared to ADT. E+ADT significantly improved rPFS compared to AAP+ADT (0.67; 0.47-0.96) in low volume. No statistically significant differences were observed with DARO+ADT compared to AAP+ADT (0.62; 0.30-1.30), APA+ADT (0.83; 0.36-1.92) and E+ADT (0.93; 0.45-1.94). In synchronous disease, AAP+ADT (0.58; 0.51-0.67; rank 4), APA+ADT (0.49; 0.39-0.62; rank 2), DARO+ADT (0.59; 0.44-0.79; rank 3) and E+ADT (0.42; 0.36-0.50; rank 1) significantly improved rPFS compared to ADT. E+ADT significantly improved rPFS compared to AAP+ADT (0.73; 0.59-0.89) in synchronous disease. In metachronous disease, DARO+ADT (0.34; 0.17-0.67; rank 1), APA+ADT (0.41; 0.22-0.77; rank 2) and E+ADT (0.44; 0.35-0.57; rank 3) significantly improved rPFS compared to ADT. No statistically significant differences were observed with DARO+ADT compared to APA+ADT (0.83; 0.33-2.08) and E+ADT (0.76; 0.37-1.57) in metachronous disease. The results were consistent for overall survival. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests no significant differences for darolutamide as compared to other ARPi agents. Enzalutamide may be preferred over AAP in low-volume or synchronous disease. Given similar efficacy, choice of ARPi requires careful consideration of patient-specific factors including cost, accessibility and toxicity.

4591 Background: EV-302 and CheckMate 901 demonstrated significant survival benefit with enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab (EVPembro) and gemcitabine-cisplatin-nivolumab (GemCisNivo) as 1L therapy, respectively, in patients (pts) with la/mUC. However, whether these treatments are cost-effective or not remains unclear. Methods: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progression and death) was developed. State utilities were derived from published literature. State transition probabilities were informed from point-probabilities and hazard ratios for OS and PFS obtained from the latest follow-up of eligible trials. Average sales price (2024 USD) for individual treatments (excluding ancillary charges) were obtained from the center of medicare and medicaid services (US payer’s perspective). Treatment strategies were modeled in accordance with the dose/schedule reported in the eligible trials. Pts who received GemCis or Gem-carboplatin (GemCarbo) and did not progress were modeled to receive Avelumab maintenance. Half-cycle corrected costs and utilities were accrued over a 10-year lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 100,000$ per QALY was used. Results: In cisplatin-eligible pts, GemCisNivo demonstrated a 0.8 QALY gain over GemCis at an ICER of 21,127 ($/QALY). GemCisNivo was also associated with an incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of 63,099$ relative to GemCis. EVPembro demonstrated a 2.4 QALY gain over GemCis at an ICER of 915,283 and a 1.6 QALY gain over GemCisNivo at an ICER of 1,406,308. In cisplatin-ineligible pts, EVPembro demonstrated a 2.4 QALY gain over Gem-carboplatin (GemCarbo) at an ICER of 934,761. Price threshold analyses demonstrated that EVPembro is likely to be cost-effective at a cost of 12,344$ for cisplatin-eligible and 13,374$ per cycle for cisplatin-ineligible pts (original cost: 35,665.60$ per cycle). Sensitivity analysis using a total of 12 cycles for EVPembro showed cost-effectiveness at an ICER of 69,594 relative to GemCisNivo in cisplatin-eligible pts, and at an ICER of 53,099 relative to GemCarbo in cisplatin-ineligible pts. Conclusions: In terms of US payer’s perspective, GemCisNivo is most likely to be cost-effective in cisplatin-eligible pts at the WTP of 100,000 $/QALY. Limiting the number of cycles for EVPembro may render it as a cost-effective 1L treatment in la/mUC pts regardless of cisplatin-eligibility status.

e16619 Background: Should patients (pts) with MIBC receive aIO given the DFS benefit seen in AMBASSADOR and CheckMate 274 trials is an important clinical question. Thus, we aimed to quantify the magnitude of absolute benefit across different subgroups to aid clinicians in shared decision-making with their patients. Methods: Phase III trials evaluating aIO as compared to observation or placebo (obs/plac) in pts with MIBC were considered eligible. Outcomes of interest included DFS and OS. Pre-specified subgroups included disease location, PDL1 status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) receipt, and tumor and nodal (TN) staging. Pairwise comparisons were made using a DerSimonian-Lairds (DL) random-effects meta-analysis. Stratified baseline risks (obtained from clinical trials) and relative effect estimates were used to estimate corresponding intervention risks (CIRs). The difference in CIRs and baseline risk was calculated to present absolute risk differences (ARDs) in each subgroup category. Results: Analysis included three trials with 2220 pts (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab assessed in each). No significant difference was observed in OS with aIO compared to obs/plac (hazard ratio: 0.91; 0.76-1.09). However, aIO significantly improved DFS compared to obs/plac (0.76; 0.64-0.91) in the overall population. In pts with bladder/lower tract disease, aIO improved DFS compared to obs/plac (0.72; 0.56-0.92); however, no significant difference was observed in DFS in pts with upper tract disease. There was a statistically significant effect modification by disease location (p: 0.01). Adjuvant IO significantly improved DFS in PDL1- (0.78; 0.64-0.94) but not in PDL1+ pts (0.75; 0.52-1.08). Likewise, aIO significantly improved DFS in pts who received NAC (0.69; 0.53-0.90) but not in pts who did not receive NAC (0.89; 0.75-1.05). In terms of TN staging, aIO improved DFS in T2-3N0 (0.73; 0.57-0.94), T4N0 (0.76; 0.61-0.95), and in T2-4N1 patients (0.75; 0.59-0.95). No statistically significant modifications were observed among these subgroups. Stratified ARDs for DFS by each subgroup are outlined (Table). Conclusions: When delayed disease progression is a vital consideration, a risk-adapted strategy for the optimal patient selection to receive aIO should be considered. Disease location (lower tract/bladder), node positivity, and receipt of NAC emerged as groups likely to derive greater benefit with aIO. [Table: see text]

93 Background: The treatment paradigm for mCSPC patients has rapidly evolved over the last few years with the emergence of triplet therapy and prognostication by volume of disease. However, the health economic implications of triplet therapy by disease volume remain unclear. Methods: A Markov model where patients transitioned between the progression-free, progression and death states was developed. State utilities were derived from the LATITUDE trial. Point probabilities for overall survival, progression-free survival, grade ≥ 3 and 5 toxicities were obtained from the eligible mCSPC phase III clinical trials. Medicare Advantage and commercial total paid amounts (2022 US$) of treatments were obtained from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Costs and disutilities of adverse events were derived from published literature. Half-cycle corrected costs and utilities were accrued monthly over a 20-year lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000 was used. Results: In terms of Medicare Advantage payer’s perspective (Table), docetaxel (D)+ADT was observed to provide additional 0.068 QALYs compared to ADT at an ICER of US$16,544 per QALY in high volume disease. Compared to D+ADT, abiraterone (AAP) triplet provided additional 1.03 QALYs at US$56,641 per QALY. Compared to AAP triplet, apalutamide (APA)+ADT provided additional 0.048 QALYs at US$5,846,248 per QALY in high volume disease. In low volume disease, D+ADT provided 0.45 more QALYs at US$20,690 per QALY compared to ADT alone. Compared to D+ADT, AAP triplet provided an additional 1.51 QALYS at US$44,267 per QALY. In terms of total paid commercial costs, AAP triplet provided an additional 1.19 QALYs compared to ADT at US$91,952 per QALY in high volume disease. In low volume, D+ADT provided additional 0.38 QALYs at US$22,058 per QALY compared to ADT. Compared to D+ADT, AAP triplet provided a 0.97 QALY gain at US$105,958 per QALY. Compared to AAP triplet, darolutamide (DARO) triplet provided a 0.47 QALY at US$689,196 per QALY. Compared to DARO triplet, APA+ADT provided an additional 0.49 QALYs at an ICER of US$971,389 per QALY. All other treatments (not reported here) were dominated. Conclusions: At the selected WTP of US$100,000 per QALY, AAP triplet therapy was most likely the cost-effective strategy in overall mCSPC population particularly in patients with high volume disease. However, these results should be interpreted with careful accounting for timing of metastases. [Table: see text]

412 Background: Previously we have reported comparative effectiveness data regarding survival of first line (1L) treatment options in mRCC. However, it is not known how the life-prolonging frontline combinations compare to patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Electronic databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from each database’s inception through July 1st 2023. Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing 1L immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies for mRCC and reporting HrQoL were included. Small sample size adjusted standardized mean differences (SMD; Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for global, physical, functional, and emotional QoL. Positive SMD indicated an improvement. A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the comparative HrQoL across different treatment options. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings. Results: Of 5770 citations identified, five trials (nine references) were included in this analysis. Patient-reported outcomes have not been reported in the JAVELIN Renal 101 or COSMIC-313 trials yet. Global QoL was significantly improved with cabozantinib-nivolumab (CaboNivo) as compared to Nivo-ipilimumab (SMD 2.74, 95% CI 2.54; 2.93), lenvatinib-pembrolizumab (LenPem; 2.79, 2.53; 3.06), sunitinib (2.87, 2.72; 3.03), Pem-axitinib (PemAxi; 3.09, 2.89; 3.30) and atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AteBev; 3.24, 3.04; 3.45). Global QoL improvement was also observed with NivoIpi compared to sunitinib (0.14, 0.02; 0.25), PemAxi (0.36, 0.18; 0.54) and AteBev (0.51, 0.33; 0.68). Physical QoL improvement were consistent with CaboNivo. Likewise, LenPem significantly improved QoL compared to sunitinib (0.26, 0.04; 0.47), PemAxi (0.38, 0.13; 0.64) and NivoIpi (0.51, 0.27; 0.76). Significant functional QoL benefits were only observed with CaboNivo (0.32, 0.17; 0.48) and NivoIpi (0.19, 0.08; 0.31) compared to sunitinib. No significant mixed treatment comparisons were observed for emotional QoL, however, currently available data suggests that LenPem (rank 1) may potentially improve QoL (Table). Conclusions: CaboNivo and NivoIpi as 1L therapy may offer an improved overall HrQoL compared to other contemporary treatment options in mRCC. [Table: see text]