Disparities in Representation of Women, Older Adults, and Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Trials.

PURPOSE: We aim to describe reporting and representation of minority patient populations in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) clinical trials and assess predictors of enrollment disparity. METHODS: Trial-level data were acquired from eligible phase II and III trials. Population-based estimates were acquired from the SEER 18 and Global Burden of Disease incidence databases. Trials reporting race, age, and sex were summarized using descriptive statistics. Enrollment-incidence ratio (EIR) was used to assess representation of subgroups. Average annual percentage change (AAPC) in EIR was calculated using Joinpoint Regression Analysis. Trial-level characteristics associated with EIR were assessed using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 107 trials with 48,095 patients were identified. Participation of Black, White, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic participants was reported in 65 (61%), 77 (72%), 68 (64%), 40 (37%,) and 24 trials (22%), respectively. Subgroup analyses of clinical outcomes by race, age, and sex were reported in 17 (22%), 62 (78%), and 57 (57%) trials, respectively. Women (trial proportion [TP]: 32%; EIR: 0.90 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-0.96]), patients aged ≥65 years (TP: 42%; EIR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.72-0.84]), Black participants (TP: 1.9%; EIR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.13-0.22]) and Hispanics (TP: 5.9%; EIR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.53-0.82]) were underrepresented. Representation of Black patients decreased significantly from 2009 to 2020 (AAPC: -23.13). Black participants were significantly underrepresented in phase III trials (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The reporting of participation by racial or ethnic subgroup categories is inadequate. Women, older adults, as well as Black and Hispanic participants are significantly underrepresented in ICI clinical trials.

Systemic Therapy and Sequencing Options in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: The treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently changed and become relatively confusing. Head-to-head comparisons between most of the available agents have not been performed and are less likely to be examined in a prospective fashion in the future. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) is helpful to compare different agents from across different trials. Objective: To evaluate comparative effectiveness of different systemic treatments in advanced patients with HCC across lines of therapy. Data Sources: We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through March 2020. Study Selection: We included phase 3 trials evaluating different vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis), checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), or their combinations in advanced HCC, in the first-line or refractory setting. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The reporting of this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The overall effect was pooled using the random effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Findings: Fourteen trials (8 in the first-line setting and 6 in the second-line setting) at low risk of bias were included. The 8 trials in the first-line setting encompassed a total of 6290 patients, with an age range of 18 to 89 years. The 5 trials included in the second-line analysis encompassed a total of 2653 patients, with an age range of 18 to 91 years. Network meta-analysis showed the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was superior in patients with HCC treated in the first-line setting compared with lenvatinib (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89), sorafenib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), and nivolumab (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98). In the refractory setting, NMA showed that all studied drugs had PFS benefit compared with placebo. However, this only translated into OS benefit with regorafenib (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75) and cabozantinib (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) compared with placebo. In the NMA of patients with α-fetoprotein (AFP) levels of 400 ng/mL or greater, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showed PFS and OS benefit compared with placebo with no superiority of an active drug compared with any others. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and NMA of 14 trials found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab in combination is now considered the standard of care in the first-line setting in patients with advanced HCC. Regorafenib and cabozantinib are preferred options in refractory patients, with ramucirumab as an additional option in those with levels of AFP of 400 ng/mL or higher. Future trials should focus on other potential combinations and best treatment strategy in patients with prior VEGFi/CPI exposure.

Assessment of Clinicians' Satisfaction With Laboratories at a Public Sector Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan.

Objective The goal of this study was to assess the level of satisfaction of clinicians regarding the provision of information, accessibility, and services by clinical laboratories at a public sector hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 151 participants from a public sector hospital in Karachi to assess their satisfaction regarding the associated laboratories. A five-point Likert scale questionnaire, consisting of 18 study items total, was used. Apart from the sociodemographics, the questionnaire was divided into three main sections: Services, Accessibility, and Provision of Information. The study lasted six months from October 2018 to March 2019. Results Most study participants were women. Less than one-third of the participants were consultants (21.9%). The overall satisfaction score was 62/90, indicating that the respondents were satisfied with most of the items on the scale. Factors such as notification about abnormal test results and courier services provided by the laboratories had the lowest satisfaction score. Conclusion Laboratory services are lacking in certain areas, specifically notifications and courier services, that need development and improvement, both of which can be achieved through seminars and clear communication between the laboratory staff and the associated clinicians.