Hussain, Syed A.

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]

518 Background: Cisplatin (C) based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been the mainstay treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, the optimal choice of NAC is not well-established. We therefore conducted a network-meta-analysis (NMA) to assess comparative efficacy of different treatment options. Methods: Several electronic databases (MEDLINE, and EMBASE) and conference proceedings were systematically used to identify randomized trials evaluating first-line treatments in neoadjuvant MIBC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and pathologic complete response (pCR). DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was used to compute direct comparisons between NAC and local therapy (LT) only. Fixed effect NMA was conducted within the frequentist framework for mixed treatment comparisons. P-scores were used to assess relative treatment rankings. All statistical analyses were conducted in R (v 4.1.1). Results: This systematic review included 23 trials (25 references) with a total of 5313 patients with 10 unique treatments. Direct comparisons showed significant benefit in PFS (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94), and in OS (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.92) with NAC when compared to LT only. However, the likelihood of achieving an objective response (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.72-1.95: I2: 85%) or CR (RR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.87-2.61; I2: 79%) was not different between the two arms. Data available in 15 trials contributed to the network for PFS outcome while only eight trials contributed to OS outcome. Mixed treatment comparisons showed significantly improved PFS with nintedanib-gemcitabine-cisplatin (NinGC; HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20-0.87) and dose-dense-methotrexate-vinblastine-doxorubicin-cisplatin (ddMVAC; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43-0.88) compared to LT only. Consistent benefit was observed when NinGC (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.24-0.97) and ddMVAC (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96) were compared to GC only. However, no significant differences were observed between NinGC (rank 1) and ddMVAC (rank 2) or among other mixed treatment comparisons. Similarly, OS was significantly improved with NinGC (rank 1) relative to MVAC (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.97), MVC (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.88), MC (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.16-0.92), AC (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15-0.91), and GC (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17-0.90). While similar results were observed with ddMVAC (rank 2) when compared to MVC (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42-0.94), MC (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.98), and GC (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.47-0.92), no significant differences were observed with ddMVAC when compared to MVAC (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.38-1.01) and NinGC (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 0.69-4.19). Conclusions: Current evidence shows improved PFS and OS with the use of neoadjuvant ddMVAC and Nin-GC in patients with MIBC relative to other treatment options.

132 Background: Treatment landscape for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is rapidly evolving. Recent updates of relevant trials and presentation of PEACE-1 results warranted mixed treatment comparisons to inform the choice of treatment in mCSPC. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE, along with conference proceedings were searched using a systematic search strategy to identify relevant abstracts and full-text publications of phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options in mCSPC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs). Direct comparisons were made using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Fixed-effect frequentist NMA was conducted to compute network estimates using a multivariate meta-regression approach. Relative treatment rankings were assessed in congruency with direct estimates using P-scores. Secondary NMAs were conducted in several substrata (young, and old; Gleason score < 8 and ≥8; performance status 0 and 1-2, low and high volume of disease). Results: This NMA included nine trials (23 references) with nine unique treatments. rPFS was improved with abiraterone acetate and prednisone-docetaxel-androgen deprivation therapy combination (AAP-D-ADT; rank 1) when compared against most treatment options including AAP-ADT (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44-0.76; rank 5), apalutamide (APA)-ADT (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.87; rank 4), TAK-ADT (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36-0.84; rank 6), and enzalutamide(E)-AAP-ADT (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.97; rank 3), however no significant differences were observed between AAP-D-ADT, and E+ADT (rank 2). Improved OS was observed with AAP-D-ADT (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.59-0.95; rank 2), E-AAP-ADT (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.48-0.97; rank 1), and AAP-ADT (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.96; rank 3) compared to D+ADT (rank 6). However, most of the mixed treatment comparisons were statistically insignificant in terms of OS. Similarly, in patients with high volume of disease, AAP+D+ADT (rank 1) was observed to significantly improve rPFS compared to AAP-ADT, APA-ADT, E-ADT, and D-ADT; however, no significant differences were observed among treatment comparisons with regards to OS improvement. E+ADT (rank 1) improved rPFS compared to other treatment in low volume disease but was not different for OS. No significant differences were observed among different treatment options when compared across prespecified subgroups. Moreover, AAP+D+ADT was ranked as the least safe with significantly increased risk of grade 3 AEs relative to other treatments. Conclusions: Current NMA suggests that triplet therapy options were ranked as most likely to improve rPFS and OS at the cost of increased toxicity. Doublet combinations may still be preferred for older patients with low volume of disease.

26 Background: The underrepresentation of minority populations in clinical trials negatively impacts cancer and widens inequities. We aimed to quantify the enrollment disparities in prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials over the last three decades. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify primary reports of prostate cancer RCTs (1989-2020). Data for trial characteristics, the proportion of trials reporting race, ethnicity and age, and the proportion of patients by race, ethnicity and age enrolled in trials were summarized using descriptive statistics. Enrollment incidence ratios (EIR), which compare trial enrollment against global estimates of incidence in age-related subgroups (acquired from the Global Burden of Disease database) and U.S. population-based estimates of racial/ethnic subgroups (acquired from the SEER 18 incidence database) were calculated. Individual trial EIRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses to account for the substantial heterogeneity between trials. Multivariable meta-regression was used to explore associations between key trial characteristics and EIR. Annual percentage changes (APC) over the last three decades in enrollment disparities were analyzed using the Joinpoint Regression Analysis. Results: 281 trials from 1989 to 2020 with 99,588 patients were included in this analysis. 107 trials reported race (38%), of which only 25 trials (9%) reported data on all 5 U.S. racial categories (Black, White, Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American. 255 (91%) trials reported mean or median but only 71 trials (25%) specifically reported the enrollment proportion of older adults (age > 65 years). Clinical outcomes by race and age were reported in 9 (8%) and 37 (14%) trials, respectively. Results from meta-analyses showed that Black patients (summary EIR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.35 - 0.51]), Hispanics (summary EIR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.37 - 0.68]) and older adults (summary EIR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.91 - 0.99]) were underrepresented in trials relative to their population estimates. Significantly fewer Black participants (EIR for Black patients = 0.42, EIR for White patients = 0.99; p < 0.0001), Hispanic participants (EIR for Hispanics = 0.50, EIR for non-Hispanics = 1.00; p = 0.001) and older adults (EIR for older adults = 0.95, EIR for younger adults = 1.06; p = 0.037) were enrolled. Representation of Black patients decreased significantly from 1989-2019 (APC: -4.25), while Hispanic representation increased significantly from 2000-2020 (APC: 5.89). Meta-regression showed Black patients were particularly underrepresented in larger-size trials (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Black representation in PC clinical trials is less than 50% of their expected share based on cancer incidence and it has consistently decreased over last three decades, contributing to the disparities experienced by the population.

6549 Background: Representation and outcomes of women, older adults, and racial minorities in ICI trials has not been previously described. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify ICI RCTs. Data for trial characteristics, proportion of trials reporting race, age and sex as well as the proportion of patients by race, age and sex enrolled in ICI trials was collected. Descriptive statistics were reported for trials reporting minority representation and proportion of included patients by race, age and sex. Disparities in representation were calculated using enrollment incidence disparity (EID) and enrollment incidence ratios (EIR) by comparing trial enrollment against U.S. population-based estimates acquired from the SEER 18 incidence database. The relationship of EID to key trial characteristics were compared using standard parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. Trends in EIR were analyzed using the Joinpoint Regression Analysis software. Results: 108 ICI trials from 2009 to 2020 with 48,360 patients were included in this analysis. All RCTs reported sex (101/101). 78 trials reported race (72%), of which only 41 trials (38%) reported data on all 5 U.S. racial categories (Black, White, Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American). Participation of Black patients was reported in 66 trials (61%), White participants in 78 trials (72%), Asians in 69 trials (64%), Native Americans and Pacific Islanders in 41 trials (38%), and Hispanics in 24 trials (22%). Age categories were inconsistently defined, and 80 trials (74%) reported the proportion of patient by age categories. Subgroup analyses of clinical outcomes by race, age and sex were reported in 17 (22%), 62 (79%) and 57 (73%) trials respectively. Women (trial proportion [TP]: 32%; EIR: 0.77), patients aged ≥ 65 years (TP: 42%; EIR: 0.74), Black participants (TP: 1.8%; EIR: 0.17) and Hispanic participants (TP: 5.9%; EIR: 0.67) were largely underrepresented, and Asians were overrepresented (TP: 15.9%; EIR: 2.64). Black patients were underrepresented across all cancer types. Similarly, women, older adults ( > 65 years of age) and Hispanic patients were consistently underrepresented across cancer types with few exceptions. Representation of older adults increased significantly from 2010-2020 (APC: 2.72), while representation of Black patients decreased significantly from 2009-2020 (APC: -23.37). Black patients were found to be significantly underrepresented in phase III trials (p = 0.0005), trials with OS as the primary endpoint (p = 0.004), and PD1 inhibitor trials (p = 0.002). Hispanics were significantly underrepresented in PD1 inhibitor trials (p = 0.003). Conclusions: There is both suboptimal reporting about participation and underrepresentation of women, racial minorities (particularly Black patients) and older adults in ICI trials as compared to their cancer incidence.