TY - JOUR
T1 - Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of Upper-tract and Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma
AU - Necchi, Andrea
AU - Madison, Russell
AU - Pal, Sumanta K.
AU - Ross, Jeffrey S.
AU - Agarwal, Neeraj
AU - Sonpavde, Guru
AU - Joshi, Monika
AU - Yin, Ming
AU - Miller, Vincent A.
AU - Grivas, Petros
AU - Chung, Jon H.
AU - Ali, Siraj M.
N1 - Funding Information:
Other: None. Financial disclosures: Andrea Necchi certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: R. Madison and J.S. Ross: employees of Foundation Medicine, a wholly owned subsidiary of Roche Pharmaceuticals. J.H. Chung, V. Miller, and S.M. Ali are former employees of Foundation Medicine. A. Necchi: consulting—Merck, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Incyte, Roche, Rainier Therapeutics, Clovis Oncology, Bayer, Astellas/Seattle Genetics, Ferring, and Immunomedics; grant/research support—Merck, Ipsen, and Astra Zeneca; travel expenses/honoraria—Roche, Merck, Astra Zeneca, and Janssen. P. Grivas (all unrelated in the past 3 yr): consulting—AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocept, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Driver, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Heron Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and QED Therapeutics; educational program (not current; with direct input in content)—Bristol-Myers Squibb; research funding to institutions—AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Oncogenex, Pfizer, Clovis Oncology, Bavarian Nordic, Immunomedics, Debiopharm, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. S.K. Pal: consulting—Genentech, Aveo, Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Exelixis, Ipsen, BMS, and Astellas. G. Sonpavde: advisory board—Pfizer, BMS, Genentech, EMD Serono, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Janssen, Amgen, Eisai, and Bicycle Therapeutics; research support to institution—Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca; travel costs—BMS and AstraZeneca; speaker fees: Physicians Education Resource (PER)—Onclive, Research to Practice, and Clinical Care Options; writing fees—Uptodate; steering committee of trials—BMS, Bavarian Nordic, Seattle Genetics, QED (all unpaid), and AstraZeneca and Debiopharm (both paid). M. Joshi: research grant/support—AstraZeneca and Pfizer; advisory board—Sanofi and Bayer. M. Yin: no conflicts of interest. N. Agarwal: consultancy—Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Ely Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Nektar, Pfizer, and Pharmacyclics. Funding/Support and role of the sponsor : This study was supported by Foundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA. Acknowledgments : This paper was presented, in part, in a poster discussion session at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Chicago, IL, USA, May 31–June 4, 2019.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 European Association of Urology
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Background: Characterization of the different genomic alterations (GAs) in urothelial carcinoma (UC), by site of origin, may identify contrasting therapeutic opportunities and inform distinct putative pathogenetic mechanisms. Objective: To describe the genomic landscape of UC based on the anatomic site of the primary tumor. Design, setting, and participants: In total, 479 upper tract UC (UTUC) and 1984 bladder UC (BUC) patients underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to evaluate all classes of GAs, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI) status. Targetable GAs and signatures were assessed according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT). Intervention: Hybrid-capture–based CGP. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Descriptive analyses and differences between anatomic subgroups were reported. Results and limitations: In total, 39% of patients with UC harbored one or more tier 1–2 GAs, suggesting potential benefit from approved or investigational therapies. UTUC cases were enriched in FGFR3 short variant (SV) GA (20% vs 13%) and HRAS SV GA (7.3% vs 3%), the latter attributed specifically to enrichment in renal pelvis UC (9.5%) versus ureteral UC (1.8%, p = 0.002). RB1 GAs were more frequent in BUC than in UTUC (21% vs 7.8% p < 0.001). Non-FGFR3 kinase fusions were observed in 1% of patients, including BRAF/RAF1 fusions in 0.5%. BRAF mutations/fusions were observed in 2% of cases and were mutually exclusive with FGFR3 GA (p = 0.002). There were no differences of TMB high/MSI high for primary tumor and metastatic sites, but UTUC was enriched for MSI high (3.4%) relative to BUC (0.8%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Differences in the genomic landscapes of UTUC and BUC were modest; however, patients with UTUC were enriched for FGFR3 and HRAS SV relative to BUC. Further investigation on UC, stratified by the site of origin, is warranted. In addition, these results suggest an opportunity for the routine incorporation of CGP prior to systemic therapy initiation in metastatic UC. Patient summary: Genomic profiling of advanced urothelial carcinoma can inform several therapeutic opportunities for patients, particularly those with upper tract urothelial carcinoma, an infrequent and generally aggressive tumor entity with nonoverlapping clinical features compared with its bladder counterpart, which is often treated based on the data extrapolated from bladder cancer.
AB - Background: Characterization of the different genomic alterations (GAs) in urothelial carcinoma (UC), by site of origin, may identify contrasting therapeutic opportunities and inform distinct putative pathogenetic mechanisms. Objective: To describe the genomic landscape of UC based on the anatomic site of the primary tumor. Design, setting, and participants: In total, 479 upper tract UC (UTUC) and 1984 bladder UC (BUC) patients underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to evaluate all classes of GAs, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI) status. Targetable GAs and signatures were assessed according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT). Intervention: Hybrid-capture–based CGP. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Descriptive analyses and differences between anatomic subgroups were reported. Results and limitations: In total, 39% of patients with UC harbored one or more tier 1–2 GAs, suggesting potential benefit from approved or investigational therapies. UTUC cases were enriched in FGFR3 short variant (SV) GA (20% vs 13%) and HRAS SV GA (7.3% vs 3%), the latter attributed specifically to enrichment in renal pelvis UC (9.5%) versus ureteral UC (1.8%, p = 0.002). RB1 GAs were more frequent in BUC than in UTUC (21% vs 7.8% p < 0.001). Non-FGFR3 kinase fusions were observed in 1% of patients, including BRAF/RAF1 fusions in 0.5%. BRAF mutations/fusions were observed in 2% of cases and were mutually exclusive with FGFR3 GA (p = 0.002). There were no differences of TMB high/MSI high for primary tumor and metastatic sites, but UTUC was enriched for MSI high (3.4%) relative to BUC (0.8%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Differences in the genomic landscapes of UTUC and BUC were modest; however, patients with UTUC were enriched for FGFR3 and HRAS SV relative to BUC. Further investigation on UC, stratified by the site of origin, is warranted. In addition, these results suggest an opportunity for the routine incorporation of CGP prior to systemic therapy initiation in metastatic UC. Patient summary: Genomic profiling of advanced urothelial carcinoma can inform several therapeutic opportunities for patients, particularly those with upper tract urothelial carcinoma, an infrequent and generally aggressive tumor entity with nonoverlapping clinical features compared with its bladder counterpart, which is often treated based on the data extrapolated from bladder cancer.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089862615&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089862615&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.001
DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 32861617
AN - SCOPUS:85089862615
SN - 2405-4569
VL - 7
SP - 1339
EP - 1346
JO - European Urology Focus
JF - European Urology Focus
IS - 6
ER -