Clinically advanced urothelial bladder cancer (CAUBC) in young onset bladder cancer (YOUC) patients: A genomic landscape study.

A Alina Basnet (Renzi Cancer Center, The Guthrie Clinic, Cortland, NY) A Ashish M. Kamat A Andrea Necchi (Department of Medical Oncology Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori University of Milan Milan Italy) R Roger Li (Department of Genitourinary Oncology Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa Florida USA) P Philippe E. Spiess P Petros Grivas (Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine University of Washington Seattle Washington USA) N Neeraj Agarwal (Division of Medical Oncology Department of Internal Medicine Huntsman Cancer Institute University of Utah Salt Lake City Utah USA) L Liang Cheng (Institute of Functional Nano & Soft Materials (FUNSOM), Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Carbon-Based Functional Materials and Devices) D Dean Pavlick (4Foundation Medicine, Cambrige, United States) J Jeffrey S. Ross (4Foundation Medicine, Cambrige, United States) D Douglas I Lin (Foundation Medicine, Inc., Boston, MA) O Ole Gjoerup (Foundation Medicine, Inc., Boston, MA) J Joseph M Jacob (Department of Urology, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY) T Tamara Jamaspishvili (Department of Pathology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY) G Gennady Bratslavsky (SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY) S Shilpa Gupta (Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology Taussig Cancer Institute Cleveland Clinic Cleveland Ohio USA)

Abstract

666 Background: CAUBC (any patients with node positive, metastasis positive or inoperable T4 disease) arising in YOUC is a challenging disease with significant need for improvements in systemic therapy especially for patients with surgically incurable disease. Methods: 9,411 cases of CAUBC underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to examine all classes of genomic alterations (GA). MSI high status, tumor mutation burden (TMB) levels, genomic ancestry and trinucleotide mutational signatures were determined from the sequencing data. HRDsig status was calculated using a broad set of genome-wide copy number features (PMID 37769224). PD-L1 was determined by IHC using the Dako 22C3 tumor proportional score (TPS) system. Results were compared using the Fisher exact system with the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment to correct for false discovery. Results: 291 (3.1%) CAUBC developed in YOUC patients under the age of 50 (CAUBC<50). The GA and biomarkers were compared with 9,120 CAUBC that developed in patients 50 years of age and older (CAUBC>50). The male gender preponderance in the CAUBC>50 was greater than in the CAUBC<50 cases (75.1% vs 69.4%; p=.069). The GA/tumor were higher in the CAUBC>50 (8.0 vs 7.0; p<.0001). Genomic ancestry distribution revealed significantly more Admixed American cases in the CAUBC<50 (8.9% vs 5.2%; P=.033) and more European cases in the CAUBC>50 (85.3% vs 74.9%; P<.0001). MSI high status was extremely uncommon (range 0.3% to 0.8%; NS). The frequency of TMB > 10 mutations/Mb was higher in the CAUBC>50 patients (35.1% vs 28.5%; P=.048). An APOBEC trinucleotide signature was more frequent in the CAUBC>50 patients (32.5% vs 25.8%; p=.041). PD-L1 low expression (1-49% TPS) was available in small subsets of cases and was similar in both groups (21.5% vs 28.5%; p=.84). GA in KMD6A (26.6% vs 14.8%; p=.0001), ERBB2 (18.4% vs 16.8%; p=.85.), ERBB3 (6.3% vs 6.5%; p=.91) MTAP (25.0% vs 20.3%; p=.27) and TERT (78.0% vs 68.4%; p=.005) were more frequent in CAUBC>50 cases and GA in HRAS (4.8% vs 2.1%; p=.11) and CCND1 (16.2% vs 13.1%; p=.35) were more frequent in the CAUBC<50 cases. GA in FGFR1 (4.1% vs 5.2%; p=.71), FGFR3 (14.1% vs 17.9%; p=.31), PIK3CA (20.3% vs 21.3%; p=.91) and PTEN (6.5% vs 4.5%; p=.31) were similar in both groups. Conclusions: In review of the CGP data, in contrast with CAUBC arising in older patients > 50 years of age, CAUBC arising in YOUC patients <50 years features a unique patten of biomarker and GA distribution that has potential to influence therapy selection and guide future clinical trials. CAUBC 0-49 years CAUBC >50 years P-value Sex (% male) 69.4% 75.1% .069 AMR ancestry 8.9% 5.2% .033 EUR ancestry 74.9% 85.3% <.0001 FGFR3 14.1% 17.9% NS KDM6A 14.8% 26.6% .0001 MTAP 20.3% 25.0% NS TERT 68.4% 78.0% .005 TMB>10 mut/Mb 28.5% 35.1% .048 APOBEC Signature 25.8% 32.5% .041

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 666-666
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (16)

A

Alina Basnet

Renzi Cancer Center, The Guthrie Clinic, Cortland, NY

A

Ashish M. Kamat

A

Andrea Necchi

Department of Medical Oncology Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori University of Milan Milan Italy

R

Roger Li

Department of Genitourinary Oncology Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa Florida USA

P

Philippe E. Spiess

P

Petros Grivas

Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine University of Washington Seattle Washington USA

N

Neeraj Agarwal

Division of Medical Oncology Department of Internal Medicine Huntsman Cancer Institute University of Utah Salt Lake City Utah USA

L

Liang Cheng

Institute of Functional Nano & Soft Materials (FUNSOM), Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Carbon-Based Functional Materials and Devices

D

Dean Pavlick

4Foundation Medicine, Cambrige, United States

J

Jeffrey S. Ross

4Foundation Medicine, Cambrige, United States

D

Douglas I Lin

Foundation Medicine, Inc., Boston, MA

O

Ole Gjoerup

Foundation Medicine, Inc., Boston, MA

J

Joseph M Jacob

Department of Urology, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY

T

Tamara Jamaspishvili

Department of Pathology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY

G

Gennady Bratslavsky

SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY

S

Shilpa Gupta

Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology Taussig Cancer Institute Cleveland Clinic Cleveland Ohio USA