Murugesan, Karthikeyan

Abstract Background: FGFR dysregulation is observed in multiple cancers and targeting FGFR is an emerging therapeutic strategy with FDA approved treatments in bladder and cholangiocarcinoma. Here we examined the prevalence of FGFR mutations, fusions, and high-level amplifications in breast cancer, stratified by receptor subtype and local/metastatic status, in both Foundation Medicine (FM) and institutional Mayo Clinic (MC) cohorts. Methods: For the FM cohort, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) examining at least 324 genes for all classes of alterations, including FGFR1-4 was carried out for 32,048 breast cancers during the course of routine clinical care in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified lab (Foundation Medicine Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA). Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined on up to 1.1 Mb, microsatellite instability high (MSI-High) was determined on up to 114 loci and predicted ancestry from >10,000 SNPs. Estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2 status were available for a subset of FM samples. Additionally, 131 patients with metastatic breast cancer from a subset of patients at three Mayo Clinic sites (MC cohort) with clinical characteristics and cancer-panel DNA sequencing data from a CLIA-certified lab (Tempus, Chicago, IL) were included. Results: In the FM cohort, the prevalence of FGFR1-4 high-level amplification (CN≥10) was 10.1%, while mutations (1.5%) and fusions (0.72%) were rare. Most amplifications occurred in FGFR1 (9.2%); most fusions and mutations occurred in FGFR2 (0.46%, 0.77%). FGFR alteration prevalence was highest in ER+/HER2- subtype (14.4%) and lowest in HER2+ disease (7.7%). FGFR alterations were more common in IDC (11.7%) than ILC (7.7%), p<3E-08. FGFR alterations were more prevalent in the metastatic setting relative to breast-biopsied disease (13.6% v 10.1%; OR = 1.4; p=2E-17), especially in the HER2+ (OR =1.9, p=0.004) and ER-/HER2- (OR = 1.9, p = 0.05) disease; no enrichment was seen in the ER+/HER2- metastases (OR =1.0, p = 1). FGFR amplifications were observed at a higher prevalence in patients with predicted East Asian ancestry, relative to patients with European ancestry (12.1% v 10.0%; p = 0.03). Overall, the most common activating mutations in FGFR were FGFR2 N549K (n=85), FGFR1 N546K (n=78), FGFR4 V510M (n=28), FGFR2 K659E (n=28), FGFR4 V510L (n=20), and FGFR2 Y375C (n=15). The most common recurrent fusions were FGFR3:TACC3 (n=36), FGFR2:TACC2 (n=17), FGFR1:TACC1 (n=9), FGFR1:BAG4 (n=6), and FGFR2:ATE1 (n=5). In patients with FGFR amplifications, the most frequently co-occurring alterations were ZNF703 (78.4%), TP53 (51.5%), CCND1 (36.1%), FGF3/4/19 (32.9 - 34.4%), PIK3CA (30.7%), MYC (29.6%), ESR1 (17.2%), EMSY (16.3%), and PTEN (10.6%). Significant co-occurrence was observed for a number of genes including FGF3/4/19, CDK4, and CDK8 (all OR>2, p<1E-07); mutual exclusivity was observed with PIK3R1, BRCA1, and BRCA2 (all OR <0.5, p<4E-13), among other genes. In the 131 metastatic tumors from MC, the prevalence of FGFR1-4 high-level amplifications was 19.8% [FGFR1 (12.4%), FGFR2 (7.4%), and FGFR3 (0.8%)]. The prevalence of high-level FGFR amplifications did not differ by clinical subtypes: HR-/HER2- (7/31), HR+/HER2- (15/79), and HER2+ (2/11), p=0.68. Conclusions: High-level FGFR amplifications are observed in >11% of breast cancers, especially the ER+/HER2- subtype, while mutations/fusions are rare. These data support the ongoing studies evaluating targeted therapies for FGFR amplified ER + breast cancer. Correlations with clinical information (MC cohort) and associations with actionable alterations are ongoing and may inform potential combination strategies. Citation Format: Karthik V Giridhar, Ethan S Sokol, Peter T Vedell, Jason P Sinnwell, Aakash Desai, Tufia C Haddad, Ciara C O’Sullivan, Roberto A Leon-Ferre, Siddhartha Yadav, Kostandinos Sideras, Brenda Ernst, Minetta C Liu, Abe Eyman Casey, Xiaojia Tang, Zoe Fleischmann, Karthikeyan Murugesan, Krishna R Kalari, Matthew P Goetz. The frequency and somatic mutation landscape of Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alterations in breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-08-02.

PURPOSE Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) is a rare, aggressive primary liver carcinoma, with morphologic features of both hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) and liver cholangiocarcinomas (CCA). METHODS The genomic profiles of 4,975 CCA, 1,470 HCC, and 73 cHCC-CCA cases arising from comprehensive genomic profiling in the course of clinical care were reviewed for genomic alterations (GA), tumor mutational burden, microsatellite instability status, genomic loss of heterozygosity, chromosomal aneuploidy, genomic ancestry, and hepatitis B virus status. RESULTS In cHCC-CCA, GA were most common in TP53 (65.8%), TERT (49.3%), and PTEN (9.6%), and 24.6% cHCC-CCA harbored potentially targetable GA. Other GA were predominantly associated with either HCC or CCA, including, but not limited to, TERT, FGFR2, IDH1, and presence of hepatitis B virus. On the basis of these features, a machine learning (ML) model was trained to classify a cHCC-CCA case as CCA-like or HCC-like. Of cHCC-CCA cases, 16% (12/73) were ML-classified as CCA-like and 58% (42/73) cHCC-CCA were ML-classified as HCC-like. The ML model classified more than 70% of cHCC-CCA as CCA-like or HCC-like on the basis of genomic profiles, without additional clinico-pathologic input. CONCLUSION These findings demonstrate the use of ML for classification as based on a targeted exome panel used during routine clinical care. Classification of cHCC-CCA by genomic features alone creates insights into the biology of the disease and warrants further investigation for relevance to clinical care.

4009 Background: IDH1/2 genetic aberrations (GA) occur in 20% of IHCC cases and may be specifically targeted by IDH inhibitors. The genomic and immunologic profile of IHCC with IDH1/2 GA remains undefined. IDH1 mutations impair DNA damage repair (DDR), loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and may represent a biomarker for DDR in these patients. Methods: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was performed in 3,067 cases of advanced stage IHCC using a hybrid capture-based FDA-approved assay. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined on 0.8 Mbp of sequenced DNA and microsatellite instability (MSI) was determined on 95 loci. PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (Dako 22C3) was measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Genomic LOH (gLOH) was assessed for samples meeting quality criteria. Densities of tumor associated immune cells and immune-checkpoint markers expressed in epithelial malignant cells and in the tumor microenvironment of 100 surgical samples from 96 patients were evaluated by IHC using digital image analysis of 14 markers (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD68, PD1,PD-L1, B7-H4, B7-H3, IDO1, ICOS, VISTA, OX40, TIM3, LAG3). Tissue microarrays were generated for multiplex immune panel analysis. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: 426 (14%) of IHCC were IDH1+ and 125 (4%) were IDH2+ (Table) and were mutually exclusive. All IDH1 GA occurred at the R132 locus and included R132C (69%) and R132L/G/S/H/F (16%/7%/4%/3%/ < 1%) and 119Q ( < 1%) and IDH2 GA at R172 (94.4%) and R140 (6.6%). IDH1+ and IDH2+ IHCC had fewer co-occurring targetable GA than IDH1/2 wildtype (WT, IDHwt) cases including FGFR2 rearrangements (RE) (P <.0001), ERBB2 (P =.0009) and BRAF (P =.04). Median gLOH were not significantly different between IDH1+ IDH2+ IHCC vs. IDHwt IHCC (p = 0.37). Potential biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) response including MSI High, TMB > 10 mut/Mb, and PD-L1 positivity were more frequent in IDHwt IHCC than IDH1+ IHCC. 29/96 (30%) surgical patients were positive for IDH1/2 mutation though mutational status did not confer a statistically significant difference in the 14 immune biomarker panel expression. Conclusions: CGP reveals significant differences in GA between IDH1+, IDH2+ and IDHwt IHCC consistent with IDH1 and IDH2 being driver oncogenes for IHCC. Immune biomarker expression and gLOH did not differ significantly between IDH mutated and WT cases.[Table: see text]

4087 Background: The management of CCA has evolved as targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPI) therapies have emerged. We used comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to characterize the genomic alterations (GA) that have potential to personalize therapy for CCA. Methods: 3634 CCA underwent hybrid capture based CGP on 0.8-1.1 Mb of the coding genome to identify GAs in exons and select introns in up to 404 genes, TMB, microsatellite status (MSI) and % monoallelic genome (gLOH). PD-L1 expression was determined by IHC (Dako 22C3). Results: 52% of CCA were female with a median age of 62 years (range 16 - > 89). The most common biopsy sites were liver (74%), lymph node (4%), bile duct (3.3%), and lung (2%). MSI-high was rare (1%), 118 and 47 cases had TMB > 10 and > 20 mut/mb respectively. Of the latter, 51% (24/47) were MSI-H. PD-L1 amplification (AMP) was present in 0.27%. Of 490 CCA tested, 43 (9%) were positive for PD-L1 expression. 11% of cases had gLOH > 16%, only 2 cases had both TMB > 20 and gLOH > 16%. GA were most common in TP53 (31%), CDKN2A (29%), KRAS (20%) and ARID1A (17%). Potentially targetable GAs included FGFR2 (11%, 85% fusions), BRAF (5%, 50% V600E), ERBB2 (5%, 72% AMP), MET (2%, 90% AMP), EGFR (0.52%) and rarer ( < 0.5%) FGFR3, RET, FGFR1, ALK, and ROS1 fusions. The FGFR2 fusions had 128 unique 3’ partner genes including BICC1 (26%), CCDC6 (3.2%), AHCYL1 (2.6%) and KIAA1217 (2.6%). FGFR2 fusions occurred in a mutually exclusive fashion from high gLOH (p < 0.002), but not high TMB. GA in IDH1 (15%) were mutually exclusive of FGFR2 fusions (p < 1e-13), but co-occurred with PBRM1 GA (23%, p < 1e-21), ARID1A (26% p < 1e-10). IDH1 GA had gLOH similar to the overall CCA population but were enriched for low TMB (p < 1e-3). Conclusions: Nearly 20% of CCA cases harbor targetable kinase GA, half of which were FGFR2 fusions. Independently, an additional 10% (gLOH) and 1% (high TMB, MSI and/or PD-L1 AMP) may benefit from PARP inhibitors and ICPI respectively. Independently, co-mutation of IDH1 and PBRM1/ARID1A defines a class of CCA that warrants further investigation for sensitivity to PARP inhibitors and may serve as a paradigm for other tumors (ie. gliomas) with a similar co-occurrence landscape.