Kapur, Payal

507 Background: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is a well-described molecularly heterogeneous tumor. Herein, we assessed the concordance of two of the most commonly mutated genes in ccRCC, PBRM1 (~50%), and BAP1 (~15%), in patient-matched primary and metastatic tumors. Methods: One pathologist (PK) assessed PBRM1 and BAP1 protein expression using immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 99 patients with a primary and at least one metastatic ccRCC tumor available for analysis. All available metastatic tumors were analyzed. Results: A total of 99 patients (48 M0 and 51 M1) had both a primary tumor and at least one metastatic tumor available for analysis. There were a total of 158 metastases with one patient having up to 7 metastases available for analysis. The concordance between primary and patient-matched metastasis was 87% for PBRM1 and 99% for BAP1. We observed a similar concordance between patients with M0 versus M1 disease. Conclusions: While ccRCC is molecularly heterogeneous, PRBM1, and BAP1 are largely concordant between primary and metastatic lesions suggesting that PBRM1 and BAP1 are genetically truncal events in the molecular pathogenesis of ccRCC.

616 Background: Polybromo-1 (PBRM1) and BRCA1 associated protein-1 (BAP1) are genes commonly mutated in clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and have been associated with clinical outcome. This work aims to evaluate the impact of PBRM1 and BAP1 expression by IHC in mRCC patients treated with VEGF-TT. Methods: PBRM1 and BAP1 expression was evaluated by IHC in a TMA including 146 mRCC patients. PBRM1 and BAP1 IHC scores were dichotomized as a binary variable: negative (-) or positive (+) (weak positivity was excluded). The associations of PBRM1 or BAP1 expression with baseline clinico-pathological characteristics were evaluated, as well as with overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) usingCox proportional hazards models. Results: Out of 146 patients, 116 and 109 samples had available results for PBRM1 and BAP1 staining, respectively. Overall, 90% (n = 131) patients had ccRCC. 70/116 samples (60%) were PBRM1- and 26/109 patients (24%) were BAP1-. Only 12% (n = 13) of patients had simultaneous negative PBRM1 and BAP1. While there was no association between PBRM1 expression status and clinical factors, BAP1- samples were associated with poor IMDC prognostic risk score (p = 0.004) and higher Fuhrman grade (p = 0.012). PBRM1+ patients showed a trend towards an increased risk of death and a shorter TTF compared to PBRM1- patients (OS: HR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.92-2.07, p = 0.1; TTF: HR = 1.39, 95%CI: 0.94-2.06, p = 0.1). BAP1 expression was not independently associated with OS or TTF. Conclusions: Loss of PBRM1, but not BAP1 expression showed a trend towards longer TTF and OS in mRCC patients treated with VEGF-TT.

Abstract Introduction: Efforts to improve clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) mortality have focused primarily on evaluating prognostic biomarkers in primary tumors in order to identify indicators of response to treatment and targets for novel therapies. To date little attention has been paid to the status of these biomarkers in the more therapeutically-relevant metastatic tumor. Thus, we evaluated concordance of expression of four key prognostic ccRCC biomarkers (BAP1, PBRM1, Ki-67 and TOPOIIa) in a large cohort of patient-matched primary ccRCC and metastatic tumors. Methods: We identified 114 patients treated surgically for ccRCC between 1990 and 2005 who had synchronous (M1) or metachronous (M0) metastases, underwent metastasectomy for at least one metastatic lesion and had archived tissue available from the primary and at least one metastatic tumor. We performed IHC on all primary and metastatic tumors for BAP1, PBRM1, Ki-67, and TOPOIIa using previously-published protocols. BAP1 and PBRM1 expression was categorized as positive or negative and Ki-67 and TOPOIIa was quantified as the number of positive cells per mm2. For BAP1 and PBRM1, we calculated the concordance between patient-matched primary and metastatic tumors as the percentage of pairs where the primary and metastatic tumor had the same designation (i.e., positive or negative). For TOPOIIa and Ki-67, we assessed concordance using Spearman correlation coefficient. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate if concordance between primary-metastatic tumor pairs for TOPOIIa and Ki-67 was associated with metastatic site, metastatic timing (M0/M1), metastatic tumor grade, metastatic tumor necrosis, and metastatic tumor sarcomatoid differentiation. Results: There were a total of 161 patient-matched metastatic tumors available for the 114 patients: 78 patients had only a single metastasis while 36 patients had two or more metastases. While sites of metastases varied, pulmonary metastases were the most common (44% of all metastases). Loss of BAP1 expression was observed in19% of the primary ccRCC and 98.6% of the tumor pairs had concordant BAP1 status between the paired primary and metastatic tumors. Loss of PBRM1 was observed in 56% of the primary ccRCC tumors and 89.3% of tumor pairs showed concordant PBRM1 status. By comparison, median expression of Ki-67 was 65.0mm2 in the primary ccRCC tumors and the Pearson correlation with the patient-matched metastatic tumors was 0.43. The difference in Ki-67 expression between primary-metastatic tumor pairs was associated with necrosis in the metastatic tumor (p=0.014). Median expression of TOPOIIa was 2.6mm2 in the primary ccRCC tumors and the Pearson correlation with the patient-matched metastatic tumors was 0.25. The difference in TOPOIIa expression between primary-metastatic tumor pairs was associated with metastatic site (p=0.0006) and metastases to the heart were significantly different than pulmonary metastases (p<0.0001). Additionally, synchronous metastases had larger differences from their patient-matched primary tumors in comparison to metachronous metastases (p=0.012), as did necrotic metastases (p=0.028). Conclusion: We observed high concordance for loss of BAP1 and PBRM1 expression between primary ccRCC and metastatic tumors in the same patient. Conversely, we noted high discordance in protein expression of Ki-67 and TOPOIIa between patient-matched primary-metastatic tumor pairs. Moreover, this discordance varied by key pathological features. Our results suggest that using the status of a biomarker in primary ccRCC as a guide for the status in metastatic tumors is not always appropriate and needs to be evaluated on a marker-by-marker basis. Citation Format: Jeanette E. Eckel-Passow, Daniel J. Serie, John C. Cheville, Thai H. Ho, Sue M. Harrington, Tracy Hilton, Christine Lohse, Amanda Shreders, Payal Kapur, James Brugarolas, R Houston Thompson, Bradley C. Leibovich, Eugene D. Kwon, Richard W. Joseph, Alexander S. Parker. Concordance of BAP1, PBRM1, Ki-67, and TOPOIIa protein expression in primary clear cell renal cell carcinoma tumors and patient-matched metastatic tumors. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Precision Medicine Series: Integrating Clinical Genomics and Cancer Therapy; Jun 13-16, 2015; Salt Lake City, UT. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2016;22(1_Suppl):Abstract nr 10.

BACKGROUND The majority of patients diagnosed with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) have low‐risk disease with a < 10% chance of ccRCC‐specific death. DNA sequencing revealed that mutations in BAP1 (BRCA1 associated protein‐1) occur in 5% to 15% of ccRCC cases and are associated with poor outcomes. The vast majority of BAP1 mutations abolish protein expression. In this study, we used a highly sensitive and specific immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay to test whether BAP1 expression is an independent marker of ccRCC‐specific survival, particularly in patients with low‐risk disease. METHODS BAP1 expression was assessed, using IHC, in 1479 patients who underwent nephrectomy to treat clinically localized ccRCC. A centralized pathologist dichotomized patients as either BAP1‐positive or BAP1‐negative. The authors employed Kaplan‐Meier and Cox regression models to associate BAP1 expression with cancer‐specific survival. RESULTS A total of 10.5% of tumors were BAP1‐negative, 84.8% of tumors were BAP1‐positive, and 4.6% of tumors had ambiguous staining for BAP1. Patients with BAP1‐negative tumors have an increased risk of ccRCC‐related death (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.28‐4.10; P = 6.77 × 10 −14 ). BAP1 expression remained an independent marker of prognosis after adjusting for the UCLA integrated staging system (UISS) (HR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.24‐2.25; P < .001). Finally, BAP1 was an independent prognostic marker in low‐risk patients with a Mayo Clinic stage, size, grade, and necrosis (SSIGN) score of ≤ 3 (HR = 3.24; 95% CI = 1.26‐8.33; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS This study used a large patient cohort to demonstrate that BAP1 expression is an independent marker of prognosis in patients with low‐risk (SSIGN≤ 3) ccRCC. Cancer 2014;1059–1067 . © 2014 American Cancer Society .