Naqvi, Syed Arsalan Ahmed

Introduction Prognostication in myelofibrosis (MF) currently relies on manual assessment of clinical, pathological, and laboratory variables, which is inefficient and error-prone. The potential of large language models (LLMs) and rule-based programming to automate data extraction and prognostication in these patients remains unexplored and merits investigation. Methods Patients with MF were identified from a retrospective chart review. Data regarding clinical (age, constitutional symptoms, transfusion requirements), laboratory (hemoglobin, circulating white blood cell, platelet, and blast counts), and pathological (grade of bone marrow fibrosis, chromosomal analyses, cytogenetics) features was extracted from the latest free-text clinical notes and pathology reports using the generative pretrained transformer-4 (GPT-4) model in a zero-shot setting with the prompting parameters set to generate deterministic responses. The patients were randomly sampled into development (15%) and test (85%) sets, with the documents of patients in the development set used for iterative prompt engineering. The finalized prompts were used for data extraction in the test set. Rule-based programming was used for post-processing of the extracted data and ascertaining prognosis via Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS), DIPSS-plus (DIPSS+), and Mutation-enhanced International Prognostic Scoring System-70 (MIPSS-70). Automatically extracted data and prognostic categories were compared with the manually generated human annotations. Mean accuracy, precision, and recall with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed. Detailed error and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess performance. Results The study included 100 patients (development: 15; test: 85) with 100 clinical notes (development: 15; test: 85) and 90 pathology reports (development: 13; test: 77). The mean age of these patients was 70 (SD: 10.6); 55 (55%) patients were men, and 93 (93%) patients were White. In the development set, the mean accuracy, precision, and recall for data extraction from clinical notes were 94% (95% CI: 90-98%), 92% (84-99%), and 99% (97-100%). For data extraction from pathology reports, the mean accuracy, precision, and recall were 96% (93-100%), 98% (92-100%), and 83% (63-100%). For prognostication, the mean accuracy, precision, and recall were 87% (79-94%), 80% (73-87%), and 100% using DIPSS (accuracy: 80%; precision: 73%; recall: 100%), DIPSS+ (accuracy: 93%; precision: 83%; recall: 100%) and MIPSS-70 (accuracy: 87%, precision: 83%; recall: 100%). In the test set, the mean accuracy, precision, and recall for data extraction from clinical notes were 96% (95% CI: 93-98%), 91% (87-96%), and 98% (97-100%). For data extraction from pathology reports, the mean accuracy, precision, and recall were 95% (92-98%), 93% (87-99%), and 90% (80-100%). For prognostication the mean accuracy, precision, and recall were 95% (94-96%), 89% (88-90%) and 99% (96-100%) using DIPSS (accuracy: 94%; precision: 89%; recall: 100%), DIPSS+ (accuracy: 95%; precision: 88%; recall: 95%) and MIPSS-70 (accuracy: 94%, precision: 90%; recall: 100%). Error analyses identified incorrect extractions by GPT-4 were related to the circulating blasts and constitutional symptoms variables from the clinical notes. Sensitivity analyses excluding the associated variables improved overall accuracy from 94% to 97% and 96% to 97% in the development and test sets, respectively. Similarly, incorrect extractions from the pathology reports were related to the CALR gene mutation variables. Sensitivity analyses excluding the associated variables improved the overall accuracy from 96% to 98% and 95% to 97% in the development and test sets, respectively. Conclusion LLMs and rule-based programming can accurately extract data from the electronic health records and prognosticate MF patients via DIPSS, DIPSS+, and MIPSS-70. The automated approach could significantly streamline clinical and research workflows, providing an efficient and less resource-intensive alternative to manual prognostication.

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.

Abstract Background and Aims: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have shown inconsistent effectiveness of FMT among IBD patients. This study aimed to appraise the evidence for clinically relevant outcomes with FMT in IBD patients using published SRMAs. Methods: We searched major databases from inception through Nov 2023 to identify SRMAs assessing the effectiveness of FMT in IBD patients. Primary outcomes included clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic remission/response, a composite endpoint, and adverse effects. We included SRMAs investigating FMT's effect in IBD patients using RCTs and observational studies data. Methodological quality and evidence certainty were assessed using AMSTAR 2 and GRADE. Results: Out of 106 citations, 16 SRMAs were included with varying study sizes (2 to 60 primary studies) and participants (112 to 1169 per SRMA). Five SRMAs assessed FMT in IBD, while 11 focused on Ulcerative Colitis (UC). Seven SRMAs included RCTs only, and nine included both RCTs and observational studies. Methodological quality was critically low in 9 SRMAs (56%) and low in 7 studies (44%). FMT showed clinical remission benefit in all 16 SRMAs, with varying certainty: 3 high, 4 moderate, 4 low, and 5 very low. Endoscopic remission/response was reported in 5 meta-analyses on UC, with 1 high, 3 moderate, and 1 very low certainty. Combined clinical remission and endoscopic response were reported in 3 SRMAs on UC, with 1 low and 2 moderate certainty. Adverse events were reported in 6 SRMAs, with 1 high, 3 moderate, 1 low, and 1 very low certainty. Conclusion: Current evidence shows potential benefits of FMT in IBD, particularly UC, supported by significant associations in 16 meta-analyses. However, poor methodological quality and variability in evidence certainty call for high-quality RCTs to strengthen the evidence.

The landscape of prostate cancer care has rapidly evolved. We have transitioned from the use of conventional imaging, radical surgeries, and single-agent androgen deprivation therapy to an era of advanced imaging, precision diagnostics, genomics, and targeted treatment options. Concurrently, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has dramatically transformed the paradigm for artificial intelligence (AI). This convergence of advancements in prostate cancer management and AI provides a compelling rationale to comprehensively review the current state of AI applications in prostate cancer care. Here, we review the advancements in AI-driven applications across the continuum of the journey of a patient with prostate cancer from early interception to survivorship care. We subsequently discuss the role of AI in prostate cancer drug discovery, clinical trials, and clinical practice guidelines. In the localized disease setting, deep learning models demonstrated impressive performance in detecting and grading prostate cancer using imaging and pathology data. For biochemically recurrent diseases, machine learning approaches are being tested for improved risk stratification and treatment decisions. In advanced prostate cancer, deep learning can potentially improve prognostication and assist in clinical decision making. Furthermore, LLMs are poised to revolutionize information summarization and extraction, clinical trial design and operations, drug development, evidence synthesis, and clinical practice guidelines. Synergistic integration of multimodal data integration and human-AI integration are emerging as a key strategy to unlock the full potential of AI in prostate cancer care.

6582 Background: Although high symptom burden indicates poor survival and informs treatment decisions, little is known about the impact of demographic, clinical, and laboratory features on total symptom score (TSS) in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). Methods: Patients with MPN (polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and myelofibrosis (MF)) were identified from the retrospective chart review. TSS, individual symptom scores (fatigue, early satiety, abdominal discomfort, inactivity, concentration problems, fever, night sweats, itching, bone pain, weight loss), demographic characteristics (race, ethnicity, age, gender), clinical features (time since diagnosis, depression status, obesity status, spleen size), laboratory results and season at the time of visit were recorded from the clinical encounter when index assessment of TSS was performed for each patient. Normality was assessed using visual inspection of data distribution, whereas multicollinearity was assessed using various inflation factors. A univariable regression followed by a multivariable regression analysis was conducted using a backward selection approach. A p-value <0.05 indicated a statistically significant association of a given feature with TSS. Results: The chart review identified 252 patients (PV: 78; ET: 81; MF: 93). Mean age was 59 (SD: 17.7), 67 (SD: 13.0), and 68 (SD: 10.9) years for ET, PV, and MF respectively. Most patients were white (PV, MF: 92%; ET: 83%) and females (ET: 75%; PV: 60%; MF: 53%). The TSS of patients was highest with PV (mean: 18.5; SD: 16.9) followed by MF (mean: 18.1; SD: 15.4) and ET (mean: 14.3; SD: 15.9). Fatigue was the most reported symptom whereas the least reported symptoms were fever and weight loss. Univariable regression analyses showed depression (B: 17.7; p=0.02), female gender (B: 10.6; p=0.01), platelet count (B: 0.03; p=0.03), and hemoglobin (Hb) (B: -2.6; p=0.01) in PV patients, depression (B: 19.8, p=2x10-5) in ET patients and depression (B: 11.0, p=0.03), white blood cell (WBC) count (B: 0.2; p=0.01), neutrophil count (B: 0.3, p=0.01), and non-neutrophil WBC count (B: 0.6; p=0.02) in MF patients to have significant association with TSS. Multivariable regression analyses ( Table) showed Hb (B: -2.5; p=0.01) and platelet count (B: 0.02; p=0.03) in PV patients, depression (B: 19.7; p=2x10-5) in ET patients and depression (B: 12.3, p=0.01) and WBC count (B: 0.3; p=0.002) in MF patients to have a significant association with TSS. Conclusions: Depression in ET and MF and low Hb in PV were identified as significant drivers of symptom burden. Identifying and managing patients with these comorbidities could improve their quality of life with a potential survival benefit. [Table: see text]

e19534 Background: Immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors plus dexamethasone are the standard triplet induction regimen for TENDMM. We analyzed the efficacy of adding either anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or anti-SLAMF7 antibody to the triplet therapy. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and published abstracts were systematically searched from each database’s inception through 01-31-2024 to identify II/III trials assessing quadruplet therapy versus triplet therapy in TENDMM patients. Hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), odds ratios (OR) for overall response rates (ORR), measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (with sensitivity of 10 -5) and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (G≥3 TRAE) were summarized using random effects meta-analysis via inverse variance approach. Additional subgroup analyses based on the cytogenetic risk were performed. P-value of interaction (Pint ) < 0.1 was pre-specified as statistically significant for the difference between the two groups. Results: 3806 studies were screened and seven trials were included with a total of 3546 patients. Four trials (2303 patients) assessed the addition of anti-CD-38 mAbs and three (1243 patients) assessed anti-SLAMF7 mAb, elotuzumab to the triplet regimen. Quadruplet therapy significantly improved PFS as compared to triplet (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43-0.92), and the PFS benefit was also observed in standard risk group (HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.2-0.9); however, results were insignificant for high-risk group (HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.62-1.93). No significant OS benefit was observed (HR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.49–1.26); however, data for three trials (CASSIOPEIA, DSMM XVII, PERSEUS) is immature, with longer-term follow-up ongoing. Quadruplet therapy showed significant results for very good partial response or better (OR: 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.36), stringent complete response (OR: 1.74; 95% CI 1.27-2.07) and complete response or better (OR: 1.91; 95% CI 1.19-3.06). MRD rate shows benefit with quadruplet therapy (OR: 2.59; 95% CI 2.22-3.01). Improved MRD rate was also observed for high-risk (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.4-3.2) and standard-risk group (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.68-3.94). Secondary analysis for efficacy of anti-CD38 mAbs showed benefit for PFS (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.35-0.56), ORR (OR: 1.77;95% CI: 1.02-3.06), and MRD (OR: 2.98; 95% CI 1.8-4.8). G ≥3 TRAE did not significantly differ between the groups (OR: 1.05; 95% CI 0.97-1.12). However, quadruplet therapy showed significant risk of infection (OR: 1.2; 95% 1.05-1.35) and thrombocytopenia (OR: 1.41; 95% CI 1.24-1.59). Conclusions: Quadruplet therapy improved PFS, ORR, and MRD rates compared to triplet regimen and has demonstrated promising benefits to be considered the new standard of care for TENDMM patients.

e17059 Background: It is unclear if patients with different HRR gene-mutated mCRPC derive consistent benefit from treatment with PARPi and API combination. Approval labels for PARPi+API are inconsistent across regulatory bodies in the US (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) and Europe (European Medical Agency, EMA), adding to confusion among practicing clinicians. Therefore, we aimed to assess the differential efficacy of PARP+API therapy by different genes using up-to-date trial evidence. Methods: We maintain a living meta-analysis on mCRPC treatments that is updated when new data becomes available. Here, we report data from phase III randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing PARPi+API in 1L mCRPC. The outcomes of interest included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HR) for rPFS and OS by different genes were summarized using random effects meta-analysis via inverse variance approach. Results: We have screened 27376 references since the inception of this living review. Here, we report data from three trials (15 references) with a total of 1618 patients. Frequently reported HRR gene mutations in the included trials were BRCA2 (35%), ATM (21%), CDK12 (12.2%), CHEK2 (12.2%), BRCA1 (4.6%), and PALB2 (3.4%). In terms of rPFS, statistical benefit was observed in BRCA (0.28; 95% CI: 0.13-0.59) and CDK12 (0.58; 95% CI: 0.35-0.95) subgroups, whereas no statistically significant benefit was seen in PALB2 (0.53; 95% CI: 0.21-1.32), ATM (0.93; 95% CI, 0.57-1.53), and CHEK2 (0.92; 95% CI: 0.53-1.61) subgroups. For OS, benefit was observed in BRCA (0.47; 95%CI: 0.31-0.71) subgroup. While not statistically significant, a signal of meaningful OS benefit was observed in PALB2 (0.33; 95%CI: 0.10-1.16) but no OS benefit was observed in ATM (0.97; 95% CI: 0.57-1.67), CDK12 (0.80; 95% CI: 0.36-1.78), and CHEK2 (0.81; 95% CI: 0.37-1.75) subgroups. Conclusions: Current results show that mCRPC patients with BRCA and CDK12 alterations had delayed disease progression with PARPi+API as 1L therapy. BRCA mutations are also associated with improved OS, while patients with CHEK2 and ATM derived no significant benefit with PARPi+API combination. [Table: see text]

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]

e16579 Background: Recent results from EV 302 and CheckMate 901 have transformed the treatment landscape of untreated locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (Ia/mUC). Here, we present the most up-to-date evidence of comparative efficacy and safety of first line (1L) treatment options in Ia/mUC with emphasis on Enfortumab vedotin (EV)-pembrolizumab (P) and gemcitabine (Gem)-cisplatin (Cis)-nivolumab (N). Methods: This living systematic review used the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Full-text and abstract publications of phase II/III randomized clinical trials comparing 1L immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy (IO+C) or immunotherapy alone (IO) regimens with platinum-based chemotherapy (Plat) in Ia/mUC were included. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment-related grade 3 or greater adverse events (≥G3 TRAE). Mixed treatment comparisons were made using network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings. Results: A total of 5 trials (8 references) with 4,749 patients and 9 unique treatments were included. EV-P and Gem-Cis-N were ranked first and second in terms of OS and PFS improvement. EV-P improved OS compared to Gem-Cis-N (HR: 0.60; 0.45-0.81), Gem-Plat-atezolizumab(A) (0.55; 0.42-0.72), durvalumab(D)- tremelimumab(T) (0.55; 0.42-0.72), Gem-Plat-P (0.55; 0.42-0.72), P (0.51; 0.39-0.68), D (0.47; 0.36-0.63), A (0.48; 0.36-0.63) and Gem-Plat (0.47; 0.38-0.58). EV-P also improved PFS compared to Gem-Cis-N (0.63; 0.48-0.82), Gem-Plat-A (0.55; 0.43-0.69), D-T (0.42; 0.33-0.53), Gem-Plat-P (0.58; 0.45-0.74), P (0.34; 0.26-0.44), D (0.35; 0.27-0.44) and Gem-Plat (0.45; 0.38- 0.54). For ≥G3 TRAE, A was ranked first with the lowest adverse events compared to others. EV-P (rank 5) had significantly fewer events compared to Gem-Plat, Gem-Plat-A, Gem-Cis-N and Gem-Plat-P. Gem-Cis-N was ranked last with significantly greater events compared to A, P, D, D-T, Gem-Plat, EV-P, and Gem-Plat-A (Table with ranks [p-scores]). Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that patients with untreated la/mUC experience improved survival and slower disease progression with EV-P when compared to other contemporary options. Gem-Cis-N may be a reasonable alternative in patients who are cisplatin-eligible. Cost and access to these treatments are crucial and should be considered to facilitate shared decision making. [Table: see text]

98 Background: The risk of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) among the survivors of GU cancer is not well-established. In this study, we attempt to describe the patterns of SPMs in patients diagnosed with GU cancers. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (SEER*Stat 8.4.2) was searched to obtain data on the incidence of SPM in adult patients (age >18 years) diagnosed with GU cancers, including prostate, renal, and bladder cancer. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. SIR was defined as the observed SPMS from each category divided by the expected number of SPMs in the age-matched US population for the same period. The data was further stratified by age (<50y, 50-70y, >70y), race (White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander), ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic), chemotherapy, and radiotherapy exposure. Results: A total of 1,041,217 patients were included in this analysis. In patients diagnosed with GU cancer, the incidence of overall SPM was 11%. Particularly, patients with GU cancers were observed to have a high incidence of Endocrine system SPM (1.52; 1.45-1.59), and urinary system SPM (1.51; 1.49-1.53) These results were consistent by different sociodemographic groups. In patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, the incidence of thyroid SPM was increased (1.31; 1.23-1.39). Particularly, prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy had increased incidence rates of SPM in the peritoneum, omentum and mesentery (1.57; 0.79-2.81) and urinary bladder (1.36;1.32-1.40) was higher as compared to those with no exposure to radiation therapy (1.11;1.08-1.13 and 1.03;1-1.06 respectively). Bladder cancer patients had an overall increased incidence of SPM in the esophagus (1.21; 1.08-1.35), lung, bronchus, trachea, and other respiratory organs (1.97;1.92-2.01), prostate (3.50;3.4-3.6) and kidney (1.86;1.76-1.97). A higher incidence of renal pelvis, ureter and other urinary organ SPM (11.08;10.48-11.07) was also notable in this population. Similarly, kidney cancer patients had a higher incidence of the endocrine system (3.00;2.74-3.27), prostate (1.24;1.2-1.29) and bladder 1.78;1.68-1.79 SPMs. Conclusions: This population-based study shows an increased risk of SPM development in GU cancer survivors compared to the general population. Clinicians should keep a high index of suspicion for SPMs and initiate appropriate workups at early warning signs.