Combining DNA-repair gene mutations and molecular subtyping for more accurate prediction of outcome after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for bladder cancer

5035 Background: ARV7+ mCRPC is an aggressive phenotype with a median PFS of 3-4 mo and OS of 7-9 mo. We hypothesized that ARV7+ tumors would be enriched for DNA repair mutations, rendering them more responsive to combined immune checkpoint blockade. Methods: We enrolled 15 mCRPC pts with ARV7+ CTCs (using a CLIA-certified assay) into a single arm phase 2 study. Pts received Nivo 3 mg/kg plus Ipi 1 mg/kg every 3 wk x 4 doses, then maintenance Nivo 3 mg/kg every 2 wk. Targeted sequencing for DNA repair defects was performed on pretreatment tumor biopsies (n=11) or cell-free DNA (n=4). Primary endpoint: PSA50response rate. Secondary endpoints: objective response rate (ORR) in pts with measurable disease, durable PFS (lack of progression ≥24 wk), PSA‐PFS, radiographic (r)PFS, overall survival (OS), and frequency/intensity of AEs. Results: 15 ARV7+ men were enrolled, with median f/u 8.4 (range 1.9–10.5) mo. Median age was 65, 47% had ECOG ≥1, median PSA was 115 ng/mL, 67% had visceral/nodal mets, all had bone mets, and 60% had ≥4 prior regimens for mCRPC. Mean ARV7/AR ratio was 23% (range 3–75%). 6/15 men (40%) had pathogenic DNA repair gene mutations ( BRCA2, ATM, MSH6, FANCM, FANCA, POLH). Overall, the PSA50rate was 1/15 (7%), ORR was 2/8 (25%), durable PFS rate was 3/15 (20%), PSA-PFS was 3.0 (95%CI 2.1–4.9) mo, rPFS was 3.9 (95%CI 2.8–5.5) mo, and OS was 9.5 (95%CI 7.2–NA) mo. Outcomes appeared better in DNA repair deficient (DRD+) tumors vs. DNA repair proficient (DRD–) tumors (TABLE). 15 grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 7/15 (46%) men (including 2 hepatitis, 2 colitis, 1 pneumonitis); there were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: In this first study targeting ARV7+ mCRPC, treatment with Ipi/Nivo had acceptable safety and encouraging efficacy, particularly in men with DRD+ tumors. DNA repair mutations may be enriched in ARV7+ prostate cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT02601014. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Randomized phase II study of second-line modified FOLFIRI with PARP inhibitor ABT-888 (Veliparib) (NSC-737664) versus FOLFIRI in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC): SWOG S1513.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.4014 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 4014-4014 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

E. Gabriela Chiorean ◽

Katherine A Guthrie ◽

Philip Agop Philip ◽

Elizabeth M. Swisher ◽

Florencia Jalikis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Dna Repair ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Somatic Mutations ◽

Phase Ii Study ◽

Parp Inhibitor ◽

Gene Mutations ◽

Control Treatment ◽

Repair Gene ◽

Randomized Phase Ii ◽

Dna Repair Gene

4014 Background: PC is characterized by DNA Damage Repair (DDR) deficiencies, including in BRCA1/2, ATM, and FANC genes. Given preclinical synergism between veliparib with irinotecan, safety and preliminary efficacy, we designed a randomized phase II study of mFOLFIRI (no 5-FU bolus) + veliparib vs FOLFIRI alone for 2nd line mPC patients (pts). Methods: Eligible pts had mPC, adequate organ function, ECOG PS 0-1, and 1 prior non-irinotecan systemic therapy.143 pts were to be randomized (1:1) to veliparib vs control. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). All pts had blood and tumor biopsies at baseline to assess germline and somatic BRCA1/2 mutations (integrated), and homologous recombination (HR) or DDR biomarkers (exploratory). Results: 123 pts were accrued between 09/2016 to 12/2017, and 108 were included in this analysis. 117 pts were biomarker evaluable: 109 blood/106 tumors. 11 cancers (9%) had HR deficiency (HRD), including 4 germline ( BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM) and 7 somatic mutations ( BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, CDK12). Additional 24 cancers (20%) had germline (n = 11, e.g., FANC, BLM, SLX4, CHEK2) or somatic mutations (n = 13, e.g., FANC, BLM, POLD1, RIF1, MSH2, MSH6) in other DNA repair genes, not classified as HRD. A planned interim futility analysis at 35% of expected PFS events determined the veliparib arm was unlikely to be superior to control. Most common grade 3/4 treatment related toxicities were neutropenia (33% vs 20%), fatigue (19% vs 4%), and nausea (11% vs 4%), for veliparib vs control. Treatment exposure was similar for veliparib vs control: median 4 cycles (range 1-31 vs 1-32). Median OS was 5.1 vs 5.9 mos (HR 1.3, 95%CI 0.9-2.0, p = 0.21), and median PFS was 2.1 vs 2.9 mos (HR 1.5, 95%CI 1.0-2.2, p = 0.05) for veliparib vs control arms, respectively. Correlations of gene mutations and signatures with efficacy outcomes will be presented. Conclusions: Nearly 30% of mPC pts had DNA repair gene abnormalities, including 9% with HRD. Veliparib increased toxicity and did not improve OS when added to mFOLFIRI in biomarker unselected pts. BRCA1/2 and DDR biomarkers will be correlated with efficacy to inform patient selection for future PARP inhibitor clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT02890355.

Download Full-text