Bambury, Richard

The Dublin ISUP Consensus Conference covered the proceedings on the best practice recommendations on nonurachal glandular lesions of the urinary bladder, bladder diverticular cancers, and molecular features of bladder and urachal glandular lesions. The conference proceedings on urachal neoplasms (except for their molecular features) are published elsewhere. The rationale for convening this conference was the lack of structured and consented pathologic recommendations in these rare lesions. Consensus by participants was reached on the following statements: (1) intestinal metaplasia with dysplasia is considered to be a precursor to primary bladder adenocarcinoma; (2) dysplasia arising from cystitis glandularis should be reported in terms of focality (focal or nonfocal) and grade (low or high); (3) the term “adenocarcinoma” should only be used for carcinomas showing pure (nonurothelial) morphology and should not be used interchangeably in urothelial carcinoma with “glandular differentiation” because of the pathobiological differences and management implications; (4) the different histologic subtypes of bladder adenocarcinoma should be specified in the report; (5) immunohistochemistry has an ancillary role in the work up of bladder adenocarcinoma versus gastrointestinal or Müllerian-type adenocarcinomas; (6) lymphovascular invasion should be included as a parameter when reporting bladder adenocarcinoma; (7) representative or targeted sampling will be sufficient for bladder diverticulum resection specimens; and (8) molecular analysis in genomic profiling should be performed only in advanced or metastatic bladder and urachal adenocarcinomas for targetable therapy. This report on glandular (nonurachal) lesions of the bladder from the Dublin ISUP consensus conference will serve as a best practice recommendation and as a guide for future research on these relatively rare lesions.

This manuscript summarizes the first part of the proceedings of the 2023 Dublin ISUP Consensus Conference encompassing the best practice recommendations on the pathology of neoplasms of urachal origin. The rationale for convening this consensus conference was the lack of structured and consented histopathologic recommendations in these rare tumors. Consensus among the meeting participants (n=80) was reached on the following statements: (1) combination of gross, histologic, clinical and imaging findings with exclusion of secondary tumor metastasis are to be used in the diagnosis of urachal carcinoma; (2) the 2022 World Health Organization (WHO) separate criteria for the diagnosis of urachal adenocarcinoma and for nonglandular carcinoma should be applied; (3) specific elements are to be evaluated and recorded in the gross examination of resection specimens containing urachal tumors; (4) sampling considerations for resection specimens containing urachal tumors are advised; (5) participants are against using 5% or 10% cutoff for the extent of intraepithelial carcinoma in urachal mucinous cystic tumor of low malignant potential; (6) use of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis of urachal adenocarcinomas in transurethral resection (TUR) specimen is considered optional; (7) similar tumor classificatory (nosology) rules for carcinomas arising from bladder mucosa (eg, urothelial carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and neuroendocrine carcinoma) should be applied for nonglandular urachal carcinomas; (8) a new staging approach other than the previously proposed systems should be designed for urachal carcinoma; (9) a system modifying the current Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM)/American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for urinary bladder cancer is considered appropriate for a study in urachal carcinoma; and (10) several histologic elements are to be reported when diagnosing urachal carcinoma in TUR and resection specimens. This report from the Dublin ISUP consensus conference will serve as a practice recommendation for pathologists and as a guide for future standardized reporting protocols and research regarding urachal tumors. In addition, an international database for urachal cancers under the guidance of ISUP is being planned to be established to address pertinent issues in the pathology of urachal cancers.

155 Background: Primary results from the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 TRITON3 (NCT02975934) study of rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) in patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC and BRCA1/2 (BRCA) vs the control arm of physician’s choice of DTX or ARPI (abiraterone acetate [ABI] or enzalutamide [ENZ]) demonstrated that rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS, primary efficacy endpoint) vs physician’s choice. Here, we report final OS and safety results from TRITON3. Methods: Patients with disease progression after 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of DTX, ABI, or ENZ (control). OS was a key secondary endpoint tested initially in the BRCA subgroup, followed by the intent-to-treat (ITT) population in an ordered step-down multiple-comparisons procedure. Crossover from placebo to rucaparib was allowed after radiographic progression was confirmed by independent radiology review. Results: As of March 1, 2024 (final analysis data cutoff),patients with BRCA (N = 302) and ATM (N = 103) alterations were randomized (ITT, N = 405). After an overall median follow-up of 44.0 months, median OS in the BRCA subgroup in the rucaparib arm was 23.2 months vs 21.2 months for the physician’s choice control arm (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.68–1.20]; P = 0.5044; Table). Hierarchical testing did not continue due to lack of statistical significance. No OS benefit was observed in the ITT population or ATM subgroup (Table). Median duration of treatment in rucaparib and physician’s choice arms was 8.3 and 5.1 months, respectively. The most frequent any-grade treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) in the rucaparib (n = 270) and physician’s choice (n = 130) arms was asthenia/fatigue (61.5% and 63.1%, respectively). The most frequent grade ≥3 TEAE was anemia (23.7%) with rucaparib, and asthenia/fatigue (9.2%) with physician’s choice. Of the 135 patients in the physician’s choice arm, 77 patients had radiographic progression and 70 crossed over to rucaparib. Conclusions: Rucaparib remains the only PARPi to show improved rPFS vs a DTX-containing control arm and has a similar OS even when most patients cross over to rucaparib. Safety was consistent with prior reports. These data support rucaparib as a treatment option for patients with BRCA-mutated mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 . Median OS at final analysis. Group Rucaparib, n Physician's choice, n Rucaparib, months Physician's choice, months HR (95% CI) a BRCA 201 101 23.2 21.2 0.91 (0.68–1.20) ITT 270 135 22.8 21.7 0.99 (0.78–1.26) ATM 69 34 18.4 22.1 1.21 (0.77–1.90) a Calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazard model.

Abstract Purpose: The PARP inhibitor rucaparib is approved in the United States for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and a deleterious germline and/or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alteration. While sequencing of tumor tissue is considered the standard for identifying patients with BRCA alterations (BRCA+), plasma profiling may provide a minimally invasive option to select patients for rucaparib treatment. Here, we report clinical efficacy in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC identified through central plasma, central tissue, or local genomic testing and enrolled in TRITON2. Patients and Methods: Patients had progressed after next-generation androgen receptor–directed and taxane-based therapies for mCRPC and had BRCA alterations identified by central sequencing of plasma and/or tissue samples or local genomic testing. Concordance of plasma/tissue BRCA status and objective response rate and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates were summarized. Results: TRITON2 enrolled 115 patients with BRCA+ identified by central plasma (n = 34), central tissue (n = 37), or local (n = 44) testing. Plasma/tissue concordance was determined in 38 patients with paired samples and was 47% in 19 patients with a somatic BRCA alteration. No statistically significant differences were observed between objective and PSA response rates to rucaparib across the 3 assay groups. Patients unable to provide tissue samples and tested solely by plasma assay responded at rates no different from patients identified as BRCA+ by tissue testing. Conclusions: Plasma, tissue, and local testing of mCRPC patients can be used to identify men with BRCA+ mCRPC who can benefit from treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib.

80 Background: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with BRCA+ mCRPC based on results from the phase 2 TRITON2 study (NCT02952534). The TP53 tumor suppressor gene is among the most frequently mutated genes in human cancers, including mCRPC, and alterations in TP53, PTEN, and RB1 are associated with poor prognosis in patients with prostate cancer and other tumor types. We present data on co-occurring alterations in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC treated with rucaparib in TRITON2. Methods: Patients had progressed on 1–2 lines of androgen receptor-directed therapy and 1 taxane-based chemotherapy and were treated with rucaparib 600 mg BID. Tissue and/or cell-free DNA extracted from plasma samples were profiled comprehensively for genomic alterations using Foundation Medicine, Inc., next-generation sequencing assays. Objective response rate (ORR) was assessed per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria by independent radiologic review of patients with measurable disease. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline) was assessed in all patients. Results: Tissue and/or plasma samples were available for 114/115 patients with BRCA+ mCRPC (visit cutoff date: Dec. 23, 2019). Among patients with BRCA+ mCRPC who had samples available for comprehensive genomic profiling, 36.8% (42/114) had a co-occurring alteration in TP53. Deleterious alterations in PTEN were observed in 34.2% (39/114) of patients, 44% (17/39) of which were homozygous deletions of PTEN. RB1 loss was observed in 12.3% (14/114) of patients and was seen more frequently in patients with measurable disease (18.0%, 11/61) than in patients with non-measurable disease (5.7%, 3/53). Although patients with and without TP53 mutations had generally similar baseline demographics and disease characteristics, visceral disease was more prevalent in patients with TP53 mutations (54.8%; 23/42) than in those without them (29.2%; 21/72). Similar ORR and PSA response rates were seen in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC with or without TP53 mutation, with a non-significant trend towards lower response rates in patients with co-occurring TP53 alterations. Conclusions: Results from TRITON2 showed antitumor activity for rucaparib in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC associated with or without co-occurring alterations in TP53. Demographics and additional efficacy analyses in genomic subgroups with co-occurring alterations in TP53, PTEN, and RB1 will be reported. Clinical trial information: NCT02952534. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE BRCA1 or BRCA2 ( BRCA) alterations are common in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and may confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We present results from patients with mCRPC associated with a BRCA alteration treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily in the phase II TRITON2 study. METHODS We enrolled patients who progressed after one to two lines of next-generation androgen receptor–directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Efficacy and safety populations included patients with a deleterious BRCA alteration who received ≥ 1 dose of rucaparib. Key efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 in patients with measurable disease as assessed by blinded, independent radiology review and by investigators) and locally assessed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) rate. RESULTS Efficacy and safety populations included 115 patients with a BRCA alteration with or without measurable disease. Confirmed ORRs per independent radiology review and investigator assessment were 43.5% (95% CI, 31.0% to 56.7%; 27 of 62 patients) and 50.8% (95% CI, 38.1% to 63.4%; 33 of 65 patients), respectively. The confirmed PSA response rate was 54.8% (95% CI, 45.2% to 64.1%; 63 of 115 patients). ORRs were similar for patients with a germline or somatic BRCA alteration and for patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 alteration, while a higher PSA response rate was observed in patients with a BRCA2 alteration. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event was anemia (25.2%; 29 of 115 patients). CONCLUSION Rucaparib has antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC and a deleterious BRCA alteration, but with a manageable safety profile consistent with that reported in other solid tumor types.