Prevalence of pathogenic germline cancer risk variants in high-risk urothelial carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To date, there has not been a large, systematic evaluation of the prevalence of germline risk variants in urothelial carcinoma (UC). METHODS: We evaluated the frequency of germline pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in 1038 patients with high-risk UC who underwent targeted clinical germline testing. Case-control enrichment analysis was performed to screen for pathogenic variant enrichment in 17 DNA repair genes in 1038 UC patients relative to cancer-free individuals. RESULTS: Among 1038 patients with UC, the cumulative frequency of patients with pathogenic variants was 24%; 18.6% of patients harbored ≥1 actionable germline variant with preventive or therapeutic utility. MSH2 (34/969, 3.5%) and BRCA1/2 (38/867, 4.4%) germline variants had the highest frequency. Germline variants in DNA damage repair genes accounted for 78% of pathogenic germline variants. Compared to the cancer-free cohort, UC patients had significant variant enrichment in MSH2 (odds ratio [OR]: 15.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.1-32.7, p < 0.0001), MLH1 (OR: 15.9, 95% CI: 4.4-67.7, p < 0.0001), BRCA2 (OR: 5.7, 95% CI: 3.2-9.6, p < 0.0001), and ATM (OR: 3.8, 95% CI: 1.8-8.3, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In this study, 24% of UC patients harbored pathogenic germline variants and 18.6% had clinically actionable variants. MLH1 and MSH2 were validated as UC risk genes while ATM and BRCA2 were highlighted as potential UC predisposition genes. This work emphasizes the utility of germline testing in selected high-risk UC cohorts.

Distinct mesenchymal cell states mediate prostate cancer progression.

Alterations in tumor stroma influence prostate cancer progression and metastatic potential. However, the molecular underpinnings of this stromal-epithelial crosstalk are largely unknown. Here, we compare mesenchymal cells from four genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs) of prostate cancer representing different stages of the disease to their wild-type (WT) counterparts by single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and, ultimately, to human tumors with comparable genotypes. We identified 8 transcriptionally and functionally distinct stromal populations responsible for common and GEMM-specific transcriptional programs. We show that stromal responses are conserved in mouse models and human prostate cancers with the same genomic alterations. We noted striking similarities between the transcriptional profiles of the stroma of murine models of advanced disease and those of of human prostate cancer bone metastases. These profiles were then used to build a robust gene signature that can predict metastatic progression in prostate cancer patients with localized disease and is also associated with progression-free survival independent of Gleason score. Taken together, this offers new evidence that stromal microenvironment mediates prostate cancer progression, further identifying tissue-based biomarkers and potential therapeutic targets of aggressive and metastatic disease.

Germline variants associated with toxicity to immune checkpoint blockade.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have yielded remarkable responses but often lead to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Although germline causes for irAEs have been hypothesized, no individual variant associated with developing irAEs has been identified. We carried out a genome-wide association study of 1,751 patients on ICIs across 12 cancer types. We investigated two irAE phenotypes: (1) high-grade (3-5) and (2) all-grade events. We identified 3 genome-wide significant associations (P < 5 × 10-8) in the discovery cohort associated with all-grade irAEs: rs16906115 near IL7 (combined P = 3.6 × 10-11; hazard ratio (HR) = 2.1); rs75824728 near IL22RA1 (combined P = 3.5 × 10-8; HR = 1.8); and rs113861051 on 4p15 (combined P = 1.2 × 10-8, HR = 2.0); rs16906115 was replicated in 3 independent studies. The association near IL7 colocalized with the gain of a new cryptic exon for IL7, a critical regulator of lymphocyte homeostasis. Patients carrying the IL7 germline variant exhibited significantly increased lymphocyte stability after ICI initiation, which was itself predictive of downstream irAEs and improved survival.

Care disruptions among patients with lung cancer: A COVID-19 and cancer outcomes study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with lung cancer (LC) are susceptible to severe outcomes from COVID-19. This study evaluated disruption to care of patients with LC during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The COVID-19 and Cancer Outcomes Study (CCOS) is a prospective cohort study comprised of patients with a current or past history of hematological or solid malignancies with outpatient visits between March 2 and March 6, 2020, at two academic cancer centers in the Northeastern United States (US). Data was collected for the three months prior to the index week (baseline period) and the following three months (pandemic period). RESULTS: 313 of 2365 patients had LC, 1578 had other solid tumors, and 474 had hematological malignancies. Patients with LC were not at increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis compared to patients with other solid or hematological malignancies. When comparing data from the pandemic period to the baseline period, patients with LC were more likely to have a decrease in in-person visits compared to patients with other solid tumors (aOR 1.94; 95% CI, 1.46-2.58), but without an increase in telehealth visits (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 0.85-1.50). Patients with LC were more likely to experience pandemic-related treatment delays than patients with other solid tumors (aOR 1.80; 95% CI 1.13-2.80) and were more likely to experience imaging/diagnostic procedure delays than patients with other solid tumors (aOR 2.59; 95% CI, 1.46-4.47) and hematological malignancies (aOR 2.01; 95% CI, 1.02-3.93). Among patients on systemic therapy, patients with LC were also at increased risk for decreased in-person visits and increased treatment delays compared to those with other solid tumors. DISCUSSION: Patients with LC experienced increased cancer care disruption compared to patients with other malignancies during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Focused efforts to ensure continuity of care for this patient population are warranted.

Activity of cabozantinib after immune checkpoint blockade in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is approved for the first and subsequent line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) based on trials in which most patients were immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) naive. With an expanding role of ICB in earlier lines of therapy, we assessed activity of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic ccRCC after progressing on anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based ICBs. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the clinical outcomes of 86 patients from 2 academic centres who received cabozantinib after progression on ICB alone, ICB in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis) or ICB in combination with other therapies. Overall response rate (ORR, investigator assessed), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and toxicities leading to dose reductions or cessation were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included in the analysis; the median age was 63 years (range 33-84) and the median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-10). The type of prior ICB therapy was ICBs alone (64%), an ICB in combination with a VEGFi (29%) or ICBs in combination with other therapies (7%). At the time of cabozantinib treatment, 71% of patients were in the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium good- or intermediate-risk groups. Approximately half of patients (52%) were started on cabozantinib at the full 60 mg daily dose. The ORR was 36% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 26-47%) with no complete response and 43% achieving stable disease; 21% had primary progressive disease. The median TTF was 6.5 months (95% CI = 5.3-8.5.). The median OS was 13.1 months (95% CI = 8.7-NR) with 55% (95% CI = 41-66%) OS rate at 12 months. Most common reasons for dose reductions were fatigue (27%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (16%) and diarrhoea (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib is active in patients treated with prior ICB-based therapies, with no new safety signals. This study supports the use of cabozantinib after ICB-based therapies.

Differential side effects profile in patients with mCRPC treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are currently approved for mCRPC patients. Both drugs have distinct mechanisms of action and may have different toxicity profile. There are limited data comparing the side effects of abiraterone and enzalutamide. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to better characterize the risk of adverse events associated with both drugs. METHODS: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE for studies reporting abiraterone and enzalutamide side effects from January 1966 to July 31, 2015. Abstracts presented at ASCO meetings from 2004 to 2015 were selected manually. Phase III RCT were included in analysis. We assessed the risk of adverse events reported in RCT by performing two meta-analyses: abiraterone-prednisone vs. placebo-prednisone (2,283 pts) and enzalutamide vs. placebo (2,914 pts). Summary of incidence, relative-risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of included studies. RESULTS: Overall, enzalutamide was not associated with all-grade (RR 1.06 - 95% CI 0.67-1.65) or grade ≥3 (RR 0.81 - 95% CI 0.28-2.33) cardiovascular events, but was associated with increased risk of all-grade fatigue (RR 1.29 - 95% CI 1.15-1.44). On the other hand, abiraterone was associated with increased risk of all-grade (RR 1.28 - 95% CI 1.06-1.55) and grade ≥3 (RR 1.76 - 95% CI 1.12-2.75) cardiovascular events, but was not associated with all-grade (RR 0.85 - 95% CI 0.58-1.23) or grade ≥3 (RR 1.07 - 95% CI 0.97-1.19) fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, abiraterone was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, while enzalutamide was associated with an increased risk of fatigue.