Adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: A living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

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]

Anti-CD19 chimeric antigenic receptor T cell as a second-line therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

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.

Treatment of cancer associated thrombosis: A living interactive systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis

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.

Quantifying absolute benefit of adjuvant treatments in renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and network-meta-analysis

360

Background: Pembrolizumab has been established as an effective treatment option in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma after the publication of KEYNOTE-564. However, the magnitude of benefit based on different risk categories is not well defined. Methods: We included full-text publications of phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma after a systematic search. The outcomes of interest included disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), all grade or grade ≥3 treatment related, and all cause adverse events. Mixed treatment comparisons were computed through a fixed-effect multivariate meta-regression within the frequent framework. Relative treatment rankings were assessed using P-scores. 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 (CIRs) 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 baseline category. Results: This NMA included six RCTs with a total of 7525 participants and five unique treatment options. Mixed treatment comparisons showed significant DFS and OS benefit with pembrolizumab (rank 1) when compared against sunitinib (DFS HR 0.74 [0.55-0.99]; OS HR 0.51 [0.27-0.94]). However, there were no significant differences with pembrolizumab compared to pazopanib (DFS HR 0.81 [0.60- 1.09]; OS HR 0.54[0.29-1.01]) and axitinib (DFS HR 0.78 [0.54-1.14]; OS HR 0.52 [0.24-1.16]). The safety profiles were comparable. Absolute benefit of TKIs in adjuvant setting was minimal whereas this benefit increased with higher T and N patients in patients treated with pembrolizumab (Table). Similarly, the treatment benefit increased with higher Leibovich’s risk scores at 5, 10 and 15 years of follow up. Conclusions: The current analysis suggests that a risk adapted approach may be useful when considering adjuvant pembrolizumab in RCC patients.[Table: see text]

Contemporary Management of Pancreatic Cancer from an Internist Perspective

Primary care physicians are in a favorable position to curb the growing burden of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This review aims to provide an overview of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from a primary care perspective, with a specific focus on risk factors, selection of high-risk individuals for screening, patient presentation at the primary-care clinic, and the role of the internist in supportive care. Overall, the internist is an essential member of the multidisciplinary care team with respect to optimizing patients' quality of life across various stages of the pancreatic cancer.

A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of First-line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

CONTEXT

Identifying the most effective first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is challenging as rapidly evolving data quickly outdate the existing body of evidence, and current approaches to presenting the evidence in user-friendly formats are fraught with limitations.

OBJECTIVE

To maintain living evidence for contemporary first-line treatment for previously untreated mRCC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR) and network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of mRCC using data from randomized controlled trials comparing contemporary treatment options with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We applied an advanced programming and artificial intelligence-assisted framework for evidence synthesis to create a living search strategy, facilitate screening and data extraction using a graphical user interface, automate the frequentist network meta-analysis, and display results in an interactive manner.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

As of October 22, 2020, the LISR includes data from 14 clinical trials. Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table. The cabozantinib + nivolumab combination (CaboNivo) is ranked the highest for the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, whereas ipilimumab + nivolumab (NivoIpi) is ranked the highest for achieving a complete response (CR). NivoIpi, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AteBev) were ranked highest (lowest toxicity) and CaboNivo ranked lowest for treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Network meta-analysis results are summarized as interactive tables and plots, GRADE summary-of-findings tables, and evidence maps.

CONCLUSIONS

This innovative living and interactive review provides the best current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for patients with untreated mRCC. Trial-level comparisons suggest that CaboNivo is likely to cause more AEs but is ranked best for all efficacy outcomes, except NivoIpi offers the best chance of CR. Pembrolizumab + axitinib and NivoIpi are acceptable alternatives, except NivoIpi may not be preferred for patients with favorable risk. Although network meta-analysis provides rankings with statistical adjustments, there are inherent biases in cross-trial comparisons with sparse direct evidence that does not replace randomized comparisons.

PATIENT SUMMARY

It is challenging to decide the best option among the several treatment combinations of immunotherapy and targeted treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic kidney cancer. We have created interactive evidence summaries of multiple treatment options that present the benefits and harms and evidence certainty for patient-important outcomes. This evidence is updated as soon as new studies are published.

A framework for living evidence synthesis in cancer: Living, interactive network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)

335

Background: Systematic reviews are outdated quickly when the evidence is rapidly evolving as the process is laborious and there is little incentive for primary author team of an index SRMA to update the evidence. Consequently, there is an epidemic of redundant SRMAs performed by different teams—sometimes with conflicted results—for treatment of first line mRCC. Methods: We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR)and network meta-analysis(LINMA) for the treatment of first line mRCC using an Artificial intelligence (AI) assisted framework for evidence synthesis (Living, Interactive evidence synthesis framework) (LIvE) . The framework is implemented in five-layered architecture (application layer, shared module layer, core service layer, middleware layer, and storage layer) which work together to automate the identification of new studies and analysis and semi-automate the screening and data extraction. Dynamic features such as interactive tables, figures and evidence maps are enabled using Python and JavaScript programming languages. Results: We have maintained a living, interactive evidence profile for the first line treatment mRCC since September 2019 ( LIVING WEBSITE) . Living search strategy identifies new studies as they become available. As of October 13, 2020 LISR, includes data 14 clinical trials ( PRISMA ). Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table ( TABLE) . Cabozantinib& Nivolumab (Cabo-Nivo) is the highest ranked drug for improving Overall Response (OR), Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) whereas Ipilimumab in combination with Nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo) is highest ranked drug for achieving complete response (CR). Ipi-Nivo and Atezolizumab & Bevacizumab (Ate-Bev) ranked highest and Cabo-Nivo ranked lowest for treatment related Adverse events (TRAEs). Results of network meta-analysis are summarized as interactive tables and plots ( NMA ), summary of findings tables ( MULTIPLE COMAPRISONS ) and evidence maps ( MAP ). Conclusions: LISRs can potentially reduce redundancy, increase transparency, reproducibility, enable shared-decision making (at a guideline level, or in a patient-clinician dyad) and support living guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness of novel antiandrogens (AAs) for treatment of nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC)

5583

Background: FDA has approved three novel AAs [Apalutamide(A), Darolutamide(D) and Enzalutamide(E)] in combination with Androgen deprivation therapy ( ADT) for treatment of (nmCRPC) patients (pts). We report the cost-effectiveness of these drugs from the US perspective to help facilitate the choice of these agents for clinical practice. Methods: A life time Markov state-transition model was constructed with three health states (Metastasis-Free Survival[MFS], Metastatic disease, and Death) to compare cost-effectiveness of AA therapies for treatment of nmCRPC based on US healthcare payer perspective. A network meta-analysis of MFS and OS was conducted due to the lack of head to head trials. An approximation of the original individual-level patient time-to-event data were derived from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and MFS. Weibull distributions was selected as the best fitted model fitted and extrapolated as per the NICE decision support unit recommendations. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Adverse event (AE) grades 3/4 management costs were incorporated in the model. Discount rate of 3% per year was applied to costs and effects. Life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment as well as the incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) and cost utility (ICUR) ratios were estimated. Base case analyses (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were estimated. Results: The table summarizes the results form BCA analyses. A+ADT offers best gain in LYs (8.37yrs) and QALYs (5.30 yrs) but at higher cost. Conclusions: Apalutamide was associated with gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with higher lifetime cost relative to other AA alternatives. ADT was associated with lower gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with lower lifetime cost relative to other alternatives. Based on a $150,000/QALY threshold pay off, A+ADT is likely more cost effective compared to E+ADT or ADT alone; while E+ ADT may be more cost effective compared to D+ ADT. [Table: see text]

Treatment of metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) by disease volume: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

e17539

Background: Chemotherapy with Docetaxel (D) or androgen pathway inhibition (API) with Abiraterone Acetate plus prednisone (AAP), Aplautamide(APA) and Enzalutamide(E) are acceptable, FDA approved treatment options for mCSPC. It is not clear whether the magnitude of benefit varies by the choice of initial agent [chemotherapy vs API] or by volume of disease [High vs Low]. Data is now available from all registration trials by volume status and motivated this analysis to inform initial treatment choice in mCSPC. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE(Ovid), Embase, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials of chemotherapy(D) or APIs (AAP, APA, ENZ) that had available hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) according to patient’s volume of disease. We also reviewed abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings. We calculated the pooled overall survival HR and 95% CI by chemotherapy and APIs and by high volume(HVD) and low volume(LVD) using a random effect model, and tested for heterogeneity to assess the null hypothesis that no difference in the survival advantage exists by choice of initial agent and volume of disease. Results: Of 4456 studies identified in our search, there were 8 eligible randomized controlled trials that were included in the analysis. Both D and APIs significantly improved PFS [HR 0.48; 0.45-0.51] and OS [0.72; 0.64-0.81] when added to ADT, however the latter was associated with significantly higher improvement in PFS( P < 0.01) and OS (P = 0.03). In patients treated with D, patients with HVD derive significantly more benefit as compared to LVD( P = 0.046) and patients treated with APIs both HVD and LVD patients derive similar benefit( P = 0.80) (Table). Conclusions: mCSPC patients derive higher magnitude of survival benefit when treated with APIs as compared to D; however, D may be preferred in HVD patients. [Table: see text]

Adjuvant therapy in high-risk renal cell cancer: A systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis

708

Background: Patients with high risk non-metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) are at significant risk of recurrence following nephrectomy. Previously, we reported no benefit of adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment in high-risk patients. Since our most recent publication, efficacy results from the multicenter double-blind SORCE trial have become available. We updated our meta-analysis to include these additional data and performed a cumulative meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify relevant RCTs. A generic variance-weighted random effects model was used to derive estimates for efficacy. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic and was quantified using the I2 test. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS), defined as the interval between randomization and the first recurrence, the occurrence of metastasis or a secondary cancer, or death due to any cause. Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3 (Biostat). Results: Five phase 3 trials were identified, enrolling 6531 patients. Two trials compared sunitinib with placebo (S-TRAC and ECOG-ACRIN), two compared sorafenib with placebo (ECOG-ACRIN and SORCE) and one trial each compared pazopanib (PROTECT) and axitinib (ATLAS) vs placebo. Cumulative evidence suggests that adjuvant therapy with TKIs showed no significant improvement in (DFS) hazard ratio [HR] of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85-1.02), compared to placebo. There was no significant heterogeneity among included trials ( I2= 52%, P= .41). Overall, the trials were at low risk of bias. Conclusions: Adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma did not improve DFS as compared to placebo. Improved patient selection using better prognostic biomarkers or scoring systems may identify subsets of patients who can benefit from adjuvant treatments. Toxicity estimates will be updated as data from SORCE trial publication becomes available.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line treatment options in patients metastatic renal cell carcinoma

709

Background: Several immunotherapy (IMT) combinations either as an IMT doublet or IMT in combination with TKIs are now available for first-line therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, we performed an indirect comparison of frontline treatment options to provide clinical guidance. Methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant trials. Hazard ratios (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for primary outcome of progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary outcome of overall survival (OS) were abstracted. Network meta-analysis was performed using a multivariate, consistency model, random-effects meta-regression. Data on Grade 3 or higher AEs was abstracted and meta-analyzed. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on risk categories (high risk vs low and intermediate vs), history of prior nephrectomy, PD-L1 positivity, age and sex. Risk for bias(RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: Nine studies were included for PFS analysis, and 6 studies for OS analysis. Avelumab-axitinib (AA) (HR 0.69, 0.48-0.96), and Pembrolizumab-Axitinib (PA) (HR 0.89, 0.50-0.96) significantly improved PFS, while there was no significant PFS benefit with atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) (HR 0.83, 0.62-1.13) and nivolumab-ipilimumab (NI) (HR 0.85, 0.63-1.15) as compared to Sunitinib. PA (HR 0.53, 0.38-0.75) and NI (HR 0.63, 0.44-0.90) significantly improved OS, while AB (HR 0.93, 0.75-1.12) showed no significant OS benefit as compared to Sunitinib. NI and AB had significantly fewer grade ≥3 AE than sunitinib. No significant interaction was found by risk group, age, sex or prior nephrectomy. Significant interaction was found by PD-L1 expression(p<0.001), with significant PFS improvement in PD-L1 positive (HR 0.62, 0.53-0.73) but not in PD-L1 negative patients (HR 0.92, 0.81-1.05). Overall, RoB was low amongst included studies. Conclusions: AA improved PFS, NI improved OS, whereas PA improve both PFS and OS as compared to sunitinib monotherapy. However, no IMT combination was superior to other combinations. Cost effectiveness analysis will be reported separately.

CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer: A network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

e12545

Background: Palbociclib(P), Ribociclib(R) and Abemaciclib(A) in combination with Endocrine therapy (ET) have demonstrated progression free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as compared to ET alone. In the absence of head to head clinical trials and to provide clinical guidance, we performed an indirect comparison for P, R and A using network Meta-Analysis (NMA). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs comparing P+ET, R+ET, A+ ET vs ET alone. NMA for PFS and toxicity endpoints was conducted using a multivariate random-effects meta-regression, using a consistency model, as described by White and colleagues. We used a frequentist approach and provided a point estimate from the network and a 95% CI from the frequency distribution of the estimate. We also estimated the relative ranking of the different treatments for each outcome using the distribution of the ranking probabilities and the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration tool. Results: 8 RCTs were identified including 4580 patients. Risk of bias was low. 5 RCTs tested CDK 4/6 inhibitors in endocrine naive and 2 in the refractory setting, while MONALESSA-3 included patients both with endocrine naive and endocrine resistant disease. In the endocrine naïve patients, PFS for P was similar when compared indirectly with R (HR, 0.95, 95% CI 0.67-1.35) or A (HR, 1.00, 95% CI 0.62-1.61). Similarly, indirect comparison between R vs A did not show any statistical significant (HR, 0.95, 95% CI 0.62-1.45). In endocrine refractory patients, P showed no difference when compared indirectly to A (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.87) or R (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.52-1.86). R vs A did not show any statistically significant PFS either (HR, 1.14, 95% CI 1.61-4.51). P was ranked first in terms of PFS in frontline setting (SUCRA of 70.5) while R ranked first in the refractory setting (SUCRA of 39.5). QT prolongation was reported for R only. P caused more neutropenia while A caused more fatigue, anemia and diarrhea, although the results were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The efficacy of using either palbociclib, ribociclib or abemaciclib in combination with ET was similar in terms of PFS in either endocrine naïve or resistant disease. Palbociclib causes more neutropenia, abemaciclib causes more fatigue, anemia and diarrhea while ribociclib causes QT prolongation.

Short versus long duration of adjuvant trastuzumab (T) in HER2+ breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

e12057

Background: Several RCTs have evaluated a shorter duration of T ( < 12 months) with hopes of similar efficacy, reduced cardiotoxicity, cost and burden of treatment. Of the 5 major studies, PERSPHONE showed that 6 months was non-inferior compared to 12 months. However, four additional studies of shorter duration failed to demonstrate non-inferiority. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the optimal duration of adjuvant T. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus and conference proceedings were searched to identify RCTs comparing one year of adjuvant T with a shorter duration in early-stage HER2+ breast cancer. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects Meta-Analysis was performed using CMAv3 software to derive pooled Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates for overall survival (OS, Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Odds Ratio(OR) estimates of cardiac toxicity. Q-test was used to assess between-study heterogeneity; I2 statistic was computed to express the percentage of the total observed variability due to study heterogeneity. The risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: We screened 1772 citations and identified 5 studies(n = 11,377) for analysis. 5691 patients were randomized to 12 months of adjuvant T while 5686 were randomized to a shorter duration (3 studies evaluated 6 vs 12 months, 2 studies evaluated 9 weeks vs 12 months). OS (HR, 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31, P= 0.015,I2 0.00, p= 0.837) and DFS (HR, 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.26 , P = 0.016,I2 14.90, p= 0.319) were significantly worse in patients receiving shorter duration T as compared to 12 months. Cardiotoxicity was significantly higher in the 12 month group vs shorter duration (OR, 2.10, 95% CI 1.58-2.80, p = 0.000 ,I2 51.182, p= 0.085). Grade 3/4 cardiac events and cardiac events leading to discontinuation of therapy were significantly higher in patients receiving 12 months (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60-2.63, P = 0.000, I2 3.967, p= 0.384). There was no significant heterogeneity among studies. Risk of bias was low. Conclusions: Twelve months of adjuvant T is associated with significantly better DFS and OS compared to a shorter duration. As such, 12 months should remain the standard of care for most patients. There is an unmet need to identify lower risk groups which might do well with from shorter duration of HER2-directed therapy.

HSR19-108: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for Efficacy and Safety of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) Adjuvant Therapy in High-Risk Renal Cell Cancer (RCC)

Background: Four large RCTs (ASSURE, S-TARC, PROTECT, ATLAS) tested adjuvant VEGF-TKI therapy in high risk RCC. The results were variable for efficacy and there were concerns for increased toxicity and decline in quality of life (QoL). We performed an updated meta-analysis including results of ATLAS trial to asses a risk-benefit for adjuvant post-operative treatments in high risk RCC patients by assessing reported disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity endpoints. Methods: Literature search was done using Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to pool estimates for DFS, OS, and common side effects across the 4 trials. A subgroup analysis was performed for sunitinib alone because of its FDA approval. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane Q statistic and was quantified with I2 test. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: The 4 RCTs included 4,820 patients. Adjuvant therapy with TKIs yielded no significant improvement in DFS or OS as compared to placebo (DFS HR=0.916; 95% CI, 0.832–1.009 and OS HR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.886–1.150). Separate analysis of DFS in sunitinib vs placebo did not show any benefit (2 studies, N=1,909; HR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.67–1.19). Use of TKIs was associated with significantly increased risk of drug toxicity. Increased risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (RR=5.110; 95% CI, 3.765–6.935), diarrhea (RR=10.725; 95% CI, 4.672–24.622), fatigue (RR=3.310; 95% CI, 1.879–5.829), hypertension (RR=4.274; 95% CI, 3.452–5.292) and palmar/plantar dysesthesia (RR=20.53; 95% CI, 9.006–46.801) was observed. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity amongst included trials. QoL endpoints were inconsistently reported. Risk of bias was low. Conclusions: This pooled analysis provides further evidence that there is no OS or DFS benefit associated with adjuvant TKI treatment. There was a significantly increased risk of grade 3 or 4 toxicity in greater than half of the patient population leading to decline in QoL during TKI therapy. Carefully selected very high-risk patients who can tolerate these agents without dose modifications may benefit from adjuvant TKI approach.

Apalutamide (APA) or enzalutamide (ENZA) in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC): A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs)

263

Background: In non-metastatic CRPC with short PSA doubling time, APA or ENZA with ADT have shown to slow development of metastasis. We performed an indirect comparison of APA and ENZA clinical effectiveness (efficacy and side effects) using network meta-analysis. Methods: A search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify relevant RCTs. Collected data included hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for primary outcome of median time to metastasis free survival (MFS) and secondary outcomes of median time to overall survival (OS), PSA progression, initiation of cytotoxic therapy and number of adverse events (AE) in each study arm. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. We used a fixed effects model using Bayesian approach to generate pooled estimates. Results: Two randomized trials (n=2608) were analyzed. SPARTAN trial compared APA plus ADT to ADT alone and PROSPER compared ENZA plus ADT to ADT alone. Risk of bias was low. There were no statistically significant differences between APA and ENZA in MFS, OS, median time to PSA progression and initiation of cytotoxic therapy. The MFS endpoint hazard ratio (HR) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.73-1.28) for comparing the two drugs. APA had fewer reports of hypertension (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.91) compared to enzalutamide. However, no significant differences were observed in other AEs including grade 3 or higher AE, serious AE, AE leading to death or trial discontinuation. Common AEs (nausea, diarrhea, fall, dizziness, arthralgia, weight loss) and AEs of special interests (mental impairment disorders, seizures) were also comparable between APA and ENZA. Conclusions: In non-metastatic CRPC with short PSA doubling time, APA and ENZA showed similar time to metastasis free survival. APA was associated with lower incidence of hypertension than ENZA; otherwise, side effect profile was similar. Given similar efficacy and risk profile demonstrated in this study, clinical decision making should depend on other factors such as cost and availability.

Disease Milestones through Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Cited Articles in Multiple Myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 1.6% of all cancers and 5%-10% of all hematologic malignancies in the United States (US). Despite marked progress in disease management, it remains incurable with high rates of relapse. We conducted a bibliographic analysis on the Web of Science (WOS) from July 25, 2017 and July 29, 2017. Among the top 100 most-cited articles (1901-2012), the most cited article received 2404 citations and least cited article received 336 citations. Forty-four of 100 articles were published in journals with impact factors greater than 20. We observed that over the years, the focus of research has shifted from diagnosis, staging, and pathogenesis to better treatment outcomes. A subgroup analysis of the top 100 cited articles published in the last five years (2012-2017) demonstrated that several landmark studies, which will likely change the landscape of treating multiple myeloma, were not included in the top 100 list. Interestingly, most of these articles were focused on novel therapeutic agents. This bibliographic analysis provides a list of the 100 top-cited articles in multiple myeloma along with the captivating comprehension of the history and development in various aspects of disease processes. The landscape of this disease is rapidly evolving, and bibliometric studies such as the one presented provide a valuable tool that can highlight the important transitions in the field.