Outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in patients with FGFR2/3 alterations in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC).

Authors

null

Rafee Talukder

University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Rafee Talukder , Dimitra Rafailia Bakaloudi , Dimitrios Makrakis , Nishita Tripathi , Neeraj Agarwal , Tanya Jindal , Vadim S Koshkin , Jeffrey Johnson , Yousef Zakharia , Jason Brown , Macarena Rey-Cárdenas , Daniel Castellano , Ajjai Shivaram Alva , Roubini Zakopoulou , James Korolewicz , Alexandra Drakaki , Pedro C. Barata , Petros Grivas , Ali Raza Khaki

Organizations

University of Washington, Seattle, WA, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, University of California San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine,University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, Hospital Universitario 12 De Octubre, Madrid, Spain, Servicio de Oncologia Medica, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, Attiko hospital, Athens, Greece, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, University of Washington; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Research Funding

No funding received
None.

Background: Erdafitinib is FDA-approved for patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) with FGFR2/3 mutation or fusion and progression after platinum-based chemotherapy. It is postulated that FGFR3-altered aUC may be a “cold tumor” and associated with non-T cell-inflamed phenotype and, thus, may be less responsive to ICI. We hypothesized that pts with aUC that harbor FGFR2/3 alterations would have lower response and shorter survival on ICI. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of pts with aUC treated with ICI and available genomic data in 11 institutions; pts with pure non-UC, treated with combinations or on clinical trial were excluded. Outcomes (overall response rate [ORR], progression free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS] were compared in pts with and without FGFR2/3 alterations. PFS and OS was compared using Cox proportional hazards. All analyses were performed in the overall population and also categorized by treatment line (1st line [1L] vs salvage [2+L]). Multivariable models were adjusted for an internally developed risk score for 1L and Bellmunt risk score for 2+L; p<0.05 was significant. Results: 310 pts met inclusion criteria; 217 pts, 206 pts, and 204 pts were included in ORR, OS and PFS analyses, respectively. Median follow up time was 37 months [mo]. Overall, median age at ICI initiation was 69, 74% men, 85% White, 27% mixed histology, 24% upper tract, 15% liver metastases, 55% ECOG PS 0-1; 101 pts (33% of total population) had FGFR2 or FGFR3 mutation/fusion. ORR to ICI in pts with FGFR2/3 alteration was 25% (95% CI 15-37%) vs 46% (95% CI 38-55%) in pts without such alterations. PFS was shorter for pts with FGFR2/3 alteration (median [m] PFS 4 mo vs 7 mo without such alterations; HR=1.53 [95% CI 1.09-2.15], p=0.015). However, OS was similar in both groups (mOS 14 mo in both groups; HR=1.09 [95% CI 0.75-1.58], p=0.65). ORR, PFS and OS analyses stratified by ICI treatment line (1L vs 2+L) are shown in the Table. Conclusions: In this multisite retrospective study, the presence of FGFR2/3 alterations was associated with lower ORR and shorter PFS in pts with aUC treated with ICI. Limitations include retrospective nature, lack of randomization and central scan review, selection bias, missing data, and possible residual confounding. Findings suggest that FGFR2/3 alterations may impact response and PFS with ICI and might inform discussion on the optimal sequence of therapies in aUC but need external validation and ideally clinical trial data.


NORR %
(95% Cl)
NmPFS, mo
(95% CI)
HR
(95% CI)
pNmOS, mo
(95% CI)
HR
(95% CI)
p
1L
No FGFR 2/3 alteration10152
(43-62)
958
(6-13)
Ref0.049518
(12-26)
Ref0.82
Yes FGFR 2/3 alteration4127
(15-43)
404
(2-8)
1.73
(1.03-2.91)
3917
(10-30)
0.94
(0.53-1.69)
2+L
No FGFR 2/3 alteration4432
(11-40)
444
(3-8)
Ref0.39429
(4-22)
Ref0.64
Yes FGFR 2/3 alteration3123
(20-42)
254
(2-6)
1.33
(0.70-2.55)
3013
(6-20)
1.17
(0.61-2.25)

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B: Prostate Cancer and Urothelial Carcinoma

Track

Urothelial Carcinoma,Prostate Cancer - Advanced

Sub Track

Quality of Care/Quality Improvement and Real-World Evidence

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 6; abstr 478)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.478

Abstract #

478

Poster Bd #

H19

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Rafee Talukder

First Author: Dimitra Rafailia Bakaloudi

First Author: Chase Allain Shipp

First Author: Dimitrios Makrakis