Impact of FGFR2/3 activating genomic alterations on response to enfortumab vedotin in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC).

Abstract

472 Background: Enfortumab Vedotin (EV), an antibody-drug conjugate that targets nectin-4, is approved for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) progressing post-platinum and PD1/L1 inhibitor therapy. Erdafitinib is approved in patients for post-platinum mUC with activating genomic alterations in FGFR2/3, but the activity of EV in this subset is unclear. We investigated the activity of EV in patients (pts) with mUC based on FGFR2/3 genotype to inform management. Methods: In this multi-center, retrospective analysis, we assessed the objective response rate (ORR) to EV in mUC pts with and without FGFR2/3 genomic alterations detected by targeted panel next-generation sequencing. Activating gene fusions and known hotspots mutations in the two genes were considered. Descriptive analysis of ORR and patient characteristics was performed. Fisher’s exact test and binomial test with two-tailed p-value were used. Results: 40 pts were available from 4 institutions. Most pts were male (31/40, 78%) and the median age at start of EV was 74.1 (range 49 – 90) years. Ten patients (25%) had upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), and 33 (82%) had baseline ECOG performance status of 0-1. 31 of 39 patients had received both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD1/L1 inhibitors. Seven patients had confirmed activating hotspot FGFR3 mutations (p.S249C or p.Y373C). One pt had FGFR2 high-level amplification (HA), and one had FGFR3 HA. Of 36 patients evaluable for ORR, 18 had partial response (PR), 12 had stable disease (SD) and 6 had progressive disease (PD). Patients with FGFR2/3 activating mutations exhibited an ORR that was not statistically different compared to patients without no mutations: 2/7 (29%; 90% CI: 5 – 66%) vs. 16/29 (55%; 90% CI: 38 – 71%) respectively ( p-value = 0.4). 3/7 patients with FGFR3 hotspot mutations received an FGFR2/3 inhibitor and none responded; one of them had a sequential response to EV. Conclusions: In this multi-center retrospective cohort, FGFR2/3 activating genomic alterations did not appear to compromise response to EV in mUC. Larger studies are required to confirm our findings and optimal sequencing of EV and erdafitinib in mUC pts with FGFR2/3 genomic alterations requires further assessment.