Prevalence of histology-agnostic biomarkers in pure squamous cell carcinomas of the genitourinary tract.
Abstract
4609 Background: Pure squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) of the genitourinary (GU) tract are less responsive to chemotherapy with limited therapeutic options for systemic disease. SCCs account for 2-8% of bladder cancer cases and treatment mirrors urothelial carcinoma despite significantly lower responses. There are 8 FDA-approved histology-agnostic treatments based on biomarker profiling: dostarlimab (dMMR/MSI-H), pembrolizumab (dMMR/MSI-H; TMB-H), larotrectinib (NTRK fusion), entrectinib (NTRK fusion), selpercatinib (RET fusion), trastuzumab deruxtecan (HER2 positive), and dabrafenib plus trametinib (BRAF V600E mutation). Data are limited on gene alterations associated with SCC of the GU tract. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of biomarkers in pure SCCs of the GU tract. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed to identify bladder cancer patients with SCCs of the GU tract that underwent comprehensive molecular profiling. Cases were reviewed by a GU pathologist to confirm pure SCC, and biomarker profiling was conducted to assess prevalence of markers with available histology-agnostic treatments as well as areas of potential future exploration through clinical trials. NextGen DNA sequencing (592-gene panel or whole exome) was performed at Caris Life Sciences (Phoenix, AZ). Results: Of 8000 bladder cancer cases, 655 (8.2%) were coded as having components of SCC. After excluding mixed histologies, 275 (2.4%) cases were reviewed by a GU pathologist, and 169 (2.1%) cases of pure SCC of the GU tract were identified. Of these, 88 were females (51.1%) and 81 males (47.9%), with a median age of 70 (range 34-89). Of the histology-agnostic biomarkers with FDA approvals, 45 patients (27%) were TMB-H and 2 patients (1%) harbored dMMR/MSI-H status. No patients harbored NTRK fusions, RET fusions, or BRAF V600E mutations. HER2 IHC data were not available for cases, but ERBB2 mutation was present in 4 patients (2%) and 1 patient (0.6%) had ERBB2 amplification. Other notable mutations included TP53 (70%), pTERT (64%), PIK3CA (30%), CDKN2A (22%), FAT1 (19%), KDM6A (10%), FGFR3 (5%), and PTEN (5%). HRD-associated mutations included BRCA1 (2%), BRCA2 (4%), ATM (4%), PALB2 (1%), CHEK2 (2%), RAD51 (1%), and BRIP1 (1%). AKT mutation was present in 2% of patients. BAP1 was mutated in 3% of patients. Six of 20 (30%) patients were P16+ by IHC. No significant difference in mutation prevalence was observed between specimens from bladder tumors and metastatic sites. Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the genetic landscape of pure SCC of the GU tract that may inform future therapeutic strategies for this rare tumor with limited treatment options. Almost one-third of patients were TMB-High, reflecting a population that may benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors monotherapy or combination strategies. Other histology-agnostic targets for current therapies were relatively infrequent.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (15)
Saad Omar Atiq
Mount Sinai Tisch Cancer Center, New York, NY
Dilara Akbulut
Shayan S. Nazari
Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ
Elias Chandran
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
Nicholas I. Simon
Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC
Andre Rashad Kydd
Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
Giovanni Maria Iannantuono
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agnostino Gemelli, Roma, Italy
Salah Boudjadi
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
Abdul Rouf Banday
Genitourinary Malignancies Branch, CCR, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD
Maria Merino
Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
Raju Chelluri
Urologic Oncology Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD
Sandeep Gurram
Urologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
Norm Smith
Caris Life Sciences, Irving, TX
Andrew Elliott
Andrea B. Apolo
From the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (A.B.A., N.S., S.N., L.L., L.C.), the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore (J.H.-C.), and the Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville (H.S., E.S.) — all in Maryland; the Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (K.V.B., M.O., C.M., G.P.B.); AdventHealth Cancer Institute and the University of Central Florida, Orlando (G.S.); Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston (S.B., B.M.); UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill (W.Y.K.), and Duke University Medical Center and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham (J.H., S.H.) — both in North Carolina; the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood (R.P.); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (M.Y.T., M.J.M., J.E.R.), and Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo (G.C.) — both in...