Repeat Next-Generation Sequencing Testing on Progression in Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer Can Identify New Actionable Alterations.

PURPOSE: There are limited data available on the real-world patterns of molecular testing in men with advanced prostate cancer. We thus sought to evaluate next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing in the United States, focused on single versus serial NGS testing, the different disease states of testing (hormone-sensitive v castration-resistant, metastatic vs nonmetastatic), tissue versus plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays, and how often actionable data were found on each NGS test. METHODS: The Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort clinical-genomic database was used for this retrospective analysis, including 1,597 patients across 15 institutions. Actionable NGS data were defined as including somatic alterations in homologous recombination repair genes, mismatch repair deficiency, microsatellite instability (MSI-high), or a high tumor mutational burden ≥10 mut/MB. RESULTS: Serial NGS testing (two or more NGS tests with specimens collected more than 60 days apart) was performed in 9% (n = 144) of patients with a median of 182 days in between test results. For the second NGS test and beyond, 82.1% (225 of 274) of tests were from ctDNA assays and 76.1% (217 of 285) were collected in the metastatic castration-resistant setting. New actionable data were found on 11.1% (16 of 144) of second NGS tests, with 3.5% (5 of 144) of tests detecting a new BRCA2 alteration or MSI-high. A targeted therapy (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor or immunotherapy) was given after an actionable result on the second NGS test in 31.3% (5 of 16) of patients. CONCLUSION: Repeat somatic NGS testing in men with prostate cancer is infrequently performed in practice and can identify new actionable alterations not present with initial testing, suggesting the utility of repeat molecular profiling with tissue or blood of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to guide therapy choices.

Response and Outcomes of Maintenance Avelumab After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy (PBC) in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (aUC): "Real World" Experience.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) followed by avelumab switch maintenance in nonprogressors is standard first line (1L) treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). We describe clinical features and outcomes in a "real-world' cohort treated with avelumab maintenance for aUC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients (pts) who received 1L switch maintenance avelumab after no progression on PBC for aUC. We calculated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from initiation of maintenance avelumab. We also described OS and PFS for specific subsets using Cox regression and observed response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 108 pts with aUC from 14 sites treated with maintenance avelumab were included. There was a median of 6 weeks1-30 from end of PBC to avelumab initiation; median follow-up time from avelumab initiation was 8.8 months (1-42.7). Median [m]PFS was 9.6 months (95%CI 7.5-12.1) and estimated 1-year OS was 72.5%. CR/PR (vs. SD) to 1L PBC (HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.87) and ECOG PS 0 (vs. ≥1), (HR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.47) were associated with longer OS. The presence of liver metastases was associated with shorter PFS (HR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.17-4.59). ORR with avelumab maintenance was 28.7% (complete response 17.6%, partial response 11.1%), 29.6% stable disease, 26.9% progressive disease as best response (14.8% best response unknown). CONCLUSIONS: Results seem relatively consistent with findings from JAVELIN Bladder100 trial and recent "real world" studies. Prior response to platinum-based chemotherapy, ECOG PS 0, and absence of liver metastases were favorable prognostic factors. Limitations include the retrospective design, lack of randomization and central scan review, and possible selection/confounding biases.

Impact of Squamous Histology on Clinical Outcomes and Molecular Profiling in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors or Enfortumab Vedotin.

INTRODUCTION: Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation (UCS) is associated with increased resistance to chemotherapy, but outcomes associated with newer therapies approved in this space over the last 5 to 10 years are less well defined. We investigated clinical outcomes and molecular profiling of patients with UCS treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and/or Enfortumab vedotin (EV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook a retrospective analysis of UC patients treated with ICI and/or EV. Objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between pure UC (pUC) and UCS using X2 and log-rank tests, respectively. Prevalence of the most commonly detected somatic alterations were also compared between the 2 histologic subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients (40 UCS, 120 pUC) were identified for this analysis. Among 151 patients treated with ICI (38 UCS, 113 pUC), UCS patients had a shorter mPFS (1.9 vs. 4.8 months, P < 0.01) and mOS (9.2 vs. 20.7 months, P < 0.01) compared to pUC. Among 37 patients treated with EV (12 UCS, 25 pUC), UCS patients had a lower ORR (17% vs. 70%, P < 0.01) and shorter mPFS (3.4 vs. 15.8 months, P < 0.01). UCS samples were enriched for CDKN2A, CDKN2B, PIK3CA, while pUC samples were enriched for ERBB2 alterations. CONCLUSION: In this single-center retrospective analysis, patients with UCS had a distinct somatic genomic profile relative to patients with pUC. Patients with UCS also had inferior outcomes to ICIs and EV compared to patients with pUC.

Somatic alterations of TP53 and MDM2 associated with response to enfortumab vedotin in patients with advanced urothelial cancer.

Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is an antibody-drug conjugate approved for patients with treatment-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), however data on biomarkers of response is lacking. Methods: We retrospectively identified all aUC patients at our institution who received EV monotherapy and had next-generation sequencing (NGS) data available. Patients were considered responders if they had a complete response or partial response on restaging scans during treatment. Observed response rate (ORR) was evaluated by local investigator and compared between responders and non-responders using Chi-squared test. A univariable analysis was conducted using the Cox proportional hazard test to assess for associations between baseline characteristics and most common somatic alterations (in ≥10% of patients) with patient survival outcomes [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)]. Somatic alterations were then individually evaluated in separate multivariate models while accounting for patient and clinical characteristics using Cox regression models. Results: Among 29 patients treated with EV monotherapy, 27 had available NGS data. Median age was 70, 24 (83%) were men, 19 (62%) were Caucasian, 15 (52%) had pure urothelial histology and 22 (76%) had primary tumor in the bladder. ORR was 41%, and PFS and OS for the overall cohort were 5.1 months and 10.2 months. Responders were enriched among patients with TP53, KDM6A and MDM2 alterations. Patients with these alterations, as well as those with composite TP53/MDM2 alterations (alterations in either TP53 or MDM2), also had increased ORR with EV treatment compared to patients without these alterations. In the univariable analysis, baseline albumin level ≥ 3.0g/dL and presence of composite TP53/MDM2 alterations were associated with a prolonged OS. Baseline ECOG 0/1, TP53 alterations and TP53/MDM2 alterations were associated with a prolonged PFS. In the multivariable analysis, TP53 and TP53/MDM2 alterations were genomic markers predictive of improved PFS after accounting for the relevant clinical characteristics. Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective analysis of aUC patients treated with EV, presence of TP53 or MDM2 somatic alterations, lower ECOG PS scores (ECOG 0 or 1) and higher albumin levels (≥3 g/dL) were associated with improved outcomes with EV treatment. Prospective and external validation of these findings in larger cohorts is warranted.

Treatment Rechallenge With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patient and disease characteristics, toxicity, and clinical outcomes for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who are rechallenged with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort, we included patients treated with ICI for aUC after having prior ICI treatment. Endpoints included the evaluation of radiographic response and disease control rates with first and second ICI courses, outcomes based on whether there was a change in ICI class (anti-PD-1 vs. anti-PD-L1), and assessment of the reasons for ICI discontinuation. RESULTS: We identified 25 patients with aUC from 9 institutions who received 2 separate ICI courses. ORR with first ICI and second ICI were 39% and 13%, respectively. Most patients discontinued first ICI due to progression (n = 19) or treatment-related toxicity (n = 4). Thirteen patients received non-ICI treatment between the first and second ICI, and 12 patients changed ICI class (anti-PD-1 vs. anti-PD-L1) at rechallenge. Among 10 patients who changed ICI class, 8 (80%) had progressive disease as best response with second ICI, while among 12 patients re-treated with the same ICI class, only 3 (25%) had progressive disease as best response at the time of rechallenge. With second ICI, most patients discontinued treatment due to progression (n = 18) or patient preference (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: A proportion of patients with aUC rechallenged with ICI-based regimens may achieve disease control, supporting clinical trials in that setting, especially with ICI-based combinations. Future studies are needed to validate our results and should also focus on identifying biomarkers predictive of benefit with ICI rechallenge.

Association of the Time to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) Initiation and Outcomes With Second Line ICI in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Early progression on first-line (1L) platinum-based therapy or between therapy lines may be a surrogate of more aggressive disease and poor outcomes in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but its prognostic role regarding immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) response and survival is unclear. We hypothesized that shorter time until start of second-line (2L) ICI would be associated with worse outcomes in aUC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective multi-institution cohort study in patients with aUC treated with 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, who received 2L ICI. Patients receiving switch maintenance ICI were excluded. We defined time to 2L ICI therapy as the time between the start of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy to the start of 2L ICI and categorized patients a priori into 1 of 3 groups: less than 3 months versus 3-6 months versus more than 6 months. We calculated overall response rate (ORR) with 2L ICI, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the start of 2L ICI. ORR was compared among the 3 groups using multivariable logistic regression, and PFS, OS using cox regression. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: We included 215, 215, and 219 patients in the ORR, PFS, and OS analyses, respectively, after exclusions. ORR difference did not reach statistical significance between patients with less than 3 months versus 3-6 months versus more than 6 months to 2L ICI. However, PFS (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.02-2.63) and OS (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.10-2.84) was shorter among those with time to 2L ICI less than 3 months compared to those who initiated 2L ICI more than 6 months. CONCLUSION: Among patients with aUC treated with 2L ICI, time to 2L ICI less than 3 months was associated with lower, but not significantly different ORR, but shorter PFS and OS compared to 2L ICI more than 6 months. This highlights potential cross resistance mechanisms between ICI and platinum-based chemotherapy.

APOBEC Mutational Signature and Tumor Mutational Burden as Predictors of Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Response in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

Introduction: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) and APOBEC mutational signatures are potential prognostic markers in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). Their utility in predicting outcomes to specific therapies in aUC warrants additional study. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive UC cases assessed with UCSF500, an institutional assay that uses hybrid capture enrichment of target DNA to interrogate 479 common cancer genes. Hypermutated tumors (HM), defined as having TMB ≥10 mutations/Mb, were also assessed for APOBEC mutational signatures, while non-HM (NHM) tumors were not assessed due to low TMB. The logrank test was used to determine if there were differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among patient groups of interest. Results: Among 75 aUC patients who had UCSF500 testing, 46 patients were evaluable for TMB, of which 19 patients (41%) had HM tumors and the rest had NHM tumors (27 patients). An additional 29 patients had unknown TMB status. Among 19 HM patients, all 16 patients who were evaluable for analysis had APOBEC signatures. HM patients (N=19) were compared with NHM patients (N=27) and had improved OS from diagnosis (125.3 months vs 35.7 months, p=0.06) but inferior OS for patients treated with chemotherapy (7.0 months vs 13.1 months, p=0.04). Patients with APOBEC (N=16) were compared with remaining 56 patients, comprised of 27 NHM patients and 29 patients with unknown TMB, showing APOBEC patients to have improved OS from diagnosis (125.3 months vs 44.5 months, p=0.05) but inferior OS for patients treated with chemotherapy (7.0 months vs 13.1 months, p=0.05). Neither APOBEC nor HM status were associated with response to immunotherapy. Conclusions: In a large, single-institution aUC cohort assessed with UCSF500, an institutional NGS panel, HM tumors were common and all such tumors that were evaluated for mutational signature analysis had APOBEC signatures. APOBEC signatures and high TMB were prognostic of improved OS from diagnosis and both analyses also predicted inferior outcomes with chemotherapy treatment.

Repeat Treatment of Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Following Prior Progression on a Checkpoint Inhibitor Regimen: A Case Series.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become one of the mainstays of systemic therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). Increasingly ICIs are also being utilized earlier in the course of UC treatment. Limited data are available regarding ICI treatment efficacy in aUC patients who have progressed on prior ICI regimens. This case series aims to address this knowledge gap. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified all aUC patients treated with ICI or combination following prior progression on another ICI regimen at two academic institutions. Patient demographic, clinicopathologic and treatment data were retrospectively collected from chart review at each site. Best response to ICI treatment was defined by investigator at each site. RESULTS: Among 7 patients with aUC who received ICI treatment following prior progression on a different ICI regimen, radiographic response to the second ICI regimen was observed in only 1 patient (14%) treated with combination of pembrolizumab/enfortumab vedotin. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of ICI treatment in patients who previously progressed on another ICI regimen appears limited. These observations should be validated in larger cohorts, as it is anticipated that this clinical scenario will become more common in the future.

Efficacy of enfortumab vedotin in advanced urothelial cancer: Analysis from the Urothelial Cancer Network to Investigate Therapeutic Experiences (UNITE) study.

BACKGROUND: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate approved for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) refractory to prior therapy. In the Urothelial Cancer Network to Investigate Therapeutic Experiences (UNITE) study, the authors looked at the experience with EV in patient subsets of interest for which activity had not been well defined in clinical trials. METHODS: UNITE was a retrospective study of patients with aUC treated with recently approved agents. This initial analysis focused on patients treated with EV. Patient data were abstracted from chart reviews by investigators at each site. The observed response rate (ORR) was investigator-assessed for patients with at least 1 post-baseline scan or clear evidence of clinical progression. ORRs were compared across subsets of interest for patients treated with EV monotherapy. RESULTS: The initial UNITE analysis included 304 patients from 16 institutions; 260 of these patients were treated with EV monotherapy and included in the analyses. In the monotherapy cohort, the ORR was 52%, and it was >40% in all reported subsets of interest, including patients with comorbidities previously excluded from clinical trials (baseline renal impairment, diabetes, and neuropathy) and patients with fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) alterations. Progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.8 and 14.4 months, respectively. Patients with a pure urothelial histology had a higher ORR than patients with a variant histology component (58% vs 42%; P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: In a large retrospective cohort, responses to EV monotherapy were consistent with data previously reported in clinical trials and were also observed in various patient subsets, including patients with variant histology, patients with FGFR3 alterations, and patients previously excluded from clinical trials with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min and significant comorbidities. LAY SUMMARY: Enfortumab vedotin, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019, is an important new drug for the treatment of patients with advanced bladder cancer. This study looks at the effectiveness of enfortumab vedotin as it has been used at multiple centers since approval, and focuses on important patient populations previously excluded from clinical trials. These populations include patients with decreased kidney function, diabetes, and important mutations. Enfortumab vedotin is effective for treating these patients. Previously reported clinical trial data have been replicated in this real-world setting, and support the use of this drug in broader patient populations.