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

Tanya Jindal, Xiaolin Zhu, Rohit Bose, Vipul Kumar, Edward Maldonado, Prianka Deshmukh, Chase Shipp, Stephanie Feng, Michelle S Johnson, Austin Angelidakis, Daniel Kwon, Hala T Borno, Ivan de Kouchkovsky, Arpita Desai, Rahul Aggarwal, Lawrence Fong, Eric J Small, Anthony Wong, Sima Porten, Jonathan Chou, Terence Friedlander, Vadim S Koshkin
Author Information
  1. Tanya Jindal: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  2. Xiaolin Zhu: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  3. Rohit Bose: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  4. Vipul Kumar: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  5. Edward Maldonado: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  6. Prianka Deshmukh: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  7. Chase Shipp: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  8. Stephanie Feng: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  9. Michelle S Johnson: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  10. Austin Angelidakis: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  11. Daniel Kwon: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  12. Hala T Borno: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  13. Ivan de Kouchkovsky: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  14. Arpita Desai: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  15. Rahul Aggarwal: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  16. Lawrence Fong: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  17. Eric J Small: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  18. Anthony Wong: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  19. Sima Porten: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  20. Jonathan Chou: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  21. Terence Friedlander: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
  22. Vadim S Koshkin: Helen Diller Family Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.

Abstract

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 and alterations. Patients with these alterations, as well as those with composite alterations (alterations in either or ), 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 alterations were associated with a prolonged OS. Baseline ECOG 0/1, alterations and alterations were associated with a prolonged PFS. In the multivariable analysis, and 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 or 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Front Oncol. 2015 Nov 11;5:249 [PMID: 26618142]
  2. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):312-322 [PMID: 28131785]
  3. N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 25;384(12):1125-1135 [PMID: 33577729]
  4. J Immunother Cancer. 2021 May;9(5): [PMID: 33980590]
  5. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):1483-1492 [PMID: 28967485]
  6. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Feb 18;96(4):261-8 [PMID: 14970275]
  7. Cancer. 2022 Mar 15;128(6):1194-1205 [PMID: 34882781]
  8. Clin Cancer Res. 2023 Apr 14;29(8):1496-1505 [PMID: 36534531]
  9. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 3;384(22):2102-2114 [PMID: 34077643]
  10. N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1015-1026 [PMID: 28212060]
  11. Nature. 2013 Aug 22;500(7463):415-21 [PMID: 23945592]
  12. Sci Signal. 2013 Apr 02;6(269):pl1 [PMID: 23550210]
  13. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Jun;4(3):464-472 [PMID: 33423945]
  14. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2023 Feb;21(1):69-75 [PMID: 36509613]
  15. Nat Commun. 2021 Jun 25;12(1):3969 [PMID: 34172722]
  16. PeerJ. 2019 Dec 16;7:e8261 [PMID: 31871844]
  17. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 10;28(11):1850-5 [PMID: 20231682]
  18. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19(1):51-64 [PMID: 29217288]
  19. Genes Cancer. 2012 Mar;3(3-4):240-8 [PMID: 23150757]
  20. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381(4):338-348 [PMID: 31340094]
  21. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 1;38(10):1041-1049 [PMID: 32031899]
  22. Nat Commun. 2021 Sep 23;12(1):5606 [PMID: 34556668]
  23. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jul;22(7):919-930 [PMID: 34051177]
  24. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 Sep 15;28(18):4083-4091 [PMID: 35877091]
  25. Cell. 2017 Sep 7;170(6):1062-1078 [PMID: 28886379]
  26. Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Sep 15;27(18):5123-5130 [PMID: 34108177]
  27. Front Oncol. 2022 Mar 07;12:816706 [PMID: 35321431]
  28. Nature. 2014 Mar 20;507(7492):315-22 [PMID: 24476821]
  29. Cancer Discov. 2012 May;2(5):401-4 [PMID: 22588877]
  30. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24;383(13):1218-1230 [PMID: 32945632]
  31. Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Jul 15;27(14):4025-4035 [PMID: 34074656]
  32. J Clin Oncol. 2023 Jan 1;41(1):22-31 [PMID: 36041086]
  33. Nature. 1997 May 15;387(6630):299-303 [PMID: 9153396]
  34. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Aug 1;39(22):2474-2485 [PMID: 33929895]
  35. Eur Urol. 2017 Dec;72(6):960-961 [PMID: 28688612]
  36. Nature. 1997 May 15;387(6630):296-9 [PMID: 9153395]
  37. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 10;37(29):2592-2600 [PMID: 31356140]

Grants

  1. R35 CA253175/NCI NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0alterationspatientsEVresponseurothelialanalysisPFSassociatedvedotinaUCdatatreatmentORRusingcharacteristicssurvivalOSECOGconjugateadvancedcarcinomamonotherapysequencingNGSavailablePatientsrespondersevaluatedcomparedtestunivariableCoxbaselinesomaticpatientoutcomesoverallSomaticmodelsaccountingclinicaltreated1monthscompositealbuminpresenceprolongedmarkersimprovedenfortumabBackground:Enfortumabantibody-drugapprovedtreatment-refractoryhoweverbiomarkerslackingMethods:retrospectivelyidentifiedinstitutionreceivednext-generationconsideredcompletepartialrestagingscansObservedratelocalinvestigatornon-respondersChi-squaredconductedproportionalhazardassessassociationscommon≥10%[progression-free]individuallyseparatemultivariateregressionResults:Among2927Medianage702483%men1962%Caucasian1552%purehistology2276%primarytumorbladder41%cohort5102Respondersenrichedamongwelleitheralsoincreasedwithoutlevel30g/dLBaseline0/1multivariablegenomicpredictiverelevantConclusion:single-centerretrospectivelowerPSscores0higherlevels≥3g/dLProspectiveexternalvalidationfindingslargercohortswarrantedcancerantibodydrugADCgeneticnextgenerating

Similar Articles

Cited By