Abstract B091: Vulvar squamous cell carcinoma: Comprehensive genomic profiling of HPV(+) versus HPV(–) forms reveals a different set of potentially actionable biomarkers

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: One major form of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (vSCC) is associated with detectable high-risk strains of human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and is often accompanied by usual-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN). The second major form of vSCC is often associated with chronic dystrophic or inflammatory lesions in postmenopausal women, does not harbor detectable HPV infection, and is often preceded by p53-mutant differentiated VIN. While studies have examined the two subtypes, no large-scale genomic study has been performed to our knowledge. We sought to assess the genomics of a large cohort of aggressive vSCCs, with an aim to identify distinct mutational signatures based on the presence or absence of hrHPV genome reads. Methods: 280 vSCC were tested by hybridization capture of up to 406 cancer-related genes evaluated for base substitutions, small indels, amplification (amp), and rearrangements. HPV genome sequences were detected by de novo assembly of non-human sequencing reads and BLASTn comparison against all viral nucleotide sequences in the NCBI RefSeq database. Tumor mutational burden (TMB, mutations/Mb) was determined on ~1.1 Mbp of sequenced DNA. PD-L1 status was determined by IHC (Dako 22C3), with ≥50% tumor proportion score defined as high positive. Results: 102/280 vSCCs contained hrHPV sequences. Of these, 90 were HPV-16, 7 HPV-18, 1 HPV-31, 3 HPV-33, 1 HPV-58, and 1 HPV-67. Patients were significantly younger in the HPV(+) group (median 59 v. 64 years, p=0.001). Compared with the HPV(–) cohort, HPV(+) cases showed significantly more pathogenic genomic alterations (GA) in PIK3CA (31% vs. 17%, p=0.004), PTEN (14% vs. 2%, p<0.0001), EP300 (14% vs. 1%, p<0.0001), STK11 (14% vs. 1%, p<0.0001), AR (5% vs. 0%, p=0.006), and FBXW7 (10% vs. 3%, p=0.03). In contrast, HPV(–) cases showed significantly more alterations in TP53 (82% vs. 3%, p<0.0001), TERTp (71% vs. 8%, p<0.0001), CDKN2A (55% vs. 2%, p<0.0001), CCND1 (23% vs. 2%, p<0.0001), FAT1 (25% vs. 4%, p<0.0001), NOTCH1 (19% vs. 6%, p=0.002), and EGFR (amp: 12% vs. 0%, p<0.0001), as well as a higher rate of 9p24.1 (PDL1/PDL2) amp (7% vs. 1%) and PD-L1 IHC high-positive tumor staining (33% vs. 9%, p=0.04). Differences in alterations were observed between known primary and metastatic sites in cases with similar HPV status but did not reach significance (table). HPV(+)HPV(–) PrimaryMetastasisPrimaryMetastasis # of cases504112442 Age (range)58 (36-81)60 (29-83)64 (25-89)63 (45-89) Median TMB (range)5.2 (0-18.3)6.1 (0-47.8)3.5 (0-90.5)5.0 (0-13) PIK3CA GA26%37%17%17% PTEN GA18%10%2%2% STK11 GA10%22%1%2% FBXW7 GA10%10%5%0% TP53 GA0%5%82%81% TERTp GA6%10%73%64% CDKN2A GA0%5%55%52% CCND1 GA2%2%20%29% EGFR amp0%0%12%14% CD274(PD-L1) amp*0%0%6%10% PD-L1 IHC high*8%11%30%33% TMB >10*6%24%3%19% Conclusions: vSCCs show significant differences in molecular profile based on HPV status. 63% of metastatic HPV(+) cases (54% overall) have a potentially actionable alteration in the PI3K/mTOR pathway, and 42% of metastatic HPV(–) cases (39% overall) have at least one potential predictive biomarker* for response to immunotherapy. Our findings provide compelling rationale for tandem comprehensive genomic profiling and HPV assessment of advanced vulvar SCCs to more fully inform therapeutic options and stratification in clinical trials. Citation Format: Erik A Williams, Adrienne J Werth, Meagan Montesion, Ethan S Sokol, Dean C Pavlick, Nikunj A Shah, Jo-Anne Vergilio, Natalie A Danziger, Jonathan K Killian, Douglas A Lin, Vincent A Miller, Jeffrey S Ross, Julia A Elvin. Vulvar squamous cell carcinoma: Comprehensive genomic profiling of HPV(+) versus HPV(–) forms reveals a different set of potentially actionable biomarkers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2019 Oct 26-30; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2019;18(12 Suppl):Abstract nr B091. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.TARG-19-B091