Schrock, Alexa B.

ABSTRACT Reversion mutations (REVs) restore homologous recombination repair (HRR) and confer resistance to PARP inhibitors (PARPi) in HR-deficient cancers. Yet, their prevalence, mechanisms, and biological constraints remain undefined. We analyzed genomic profiling of 609,464 tissue and liquid biopsy samples across multiple cancer types to delineate the pan-cancer landscape of REVs. REVs were identified in eight HRR genes, most frequently BRCA2 and BRCA1 and notably never in ATM or CHEK2 . REVs exclusively impacted truncating pathogenic variants, predominantly through large in-frame and exon-level deletions, associated with repetitive sequences. Conserved functional domains are relatively depleted of REVs. Structural modeling and functional studies support that exon-level deletions preserve critical domain architecture and confer PARPi resistance. The study establishes HRR reversion as a structurally permissive, yet evolutionarily constrained, resistance mechanism with implications on response, monitoring, and therapeutic strategy. One Sentence Summary Homologous recombination reversion evolves through structurally tolerated, microhomology-driven alterations that restore DNA repair under therapeutic selection across cancers.

PURPOSE Poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are approved for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (hereafter mutation) in the BRCA1/ 2 genes (g BRCA); however, clinical benefit has also been demonstrated in mBC with somatic BRCA1/ 2 mutations (s BRCA) or germline PALB2 mutations (g PALB2). This study aims to describe the genomic landscape of homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations in mBC and assess PARPi treatment outcomes for patients with g BRCA compared with other HRR genes and by status of a novel homologous recombination deficiency signature (HRDsig). METHODS A real-world (RW) clinico-genomic database (CGDB) of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) linked to deidentified, electronic health record–derived clinical data was used. CGP was analyzed for HRR genes and HRDsig. The CGDB enabled cohort characterization and outcomes analyses of 177 patients exposed to PARPi. RW progression-free survival (rwPFS) and RW overall survival (rwOS) were compared. RESULTS Of 28,920 patients with mBC, g BRCA was detected in 3.4%, whereas the population with any BRCA alteration or g PALB2 increased to 9.5%. HRDsig+ represented 21% of patients with mBC. BRCA and g PALB2 had higher levels of biallelic loss and HRDsig+ than other HRR alterations. Outcomes on PARPi were assessed for 177 patients, and g BRCA and s BRCA/ gPALB2 cohorts were similar: g BRCA versus s BRCA/g PALB2 rwPFS was 6.3 versus 5.4 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37 [0.77-2.43]); rwOS was 16.2 versus 21.2 months (HR, 1.45 [0.74-2.86]). Additionally, patients with HRDsig+ versus HRDsig– had longer rwPFS (6.3 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.62 [0.42-0.92]) and numerically longer rwOS (17.8 v 13.0 months; HR, 0.72 [0.46-1.14]). CONCLUSION Patients with s BRCA and g PALB2 derive similar benefit from PARPi as those with g BRCA alterations. In combination, HRDsig+, s BRCA, and g PALB2 represent an additional 19% of mBC that can potentially benefit from PARPi. Randomized trials exploring a more inclusive biomarker such as HRDsig are warranted.

PURPOSE Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is largely considered a nonimmunogenic malignancy; however, approximately 1%, of patients may have tumors with deficient mismatch repair, high microsatellite instability, or high tumor mutational burden (TMB ≥10 mutations/Mb), which may be predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. We sought to analyze outcomes of patients with high-TMB and pathogenic genomic alterations observed in this population. METHODS This study included patients with PDAC who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) at Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA). Clinical data were obtained from a US-wide real-world clinicogenomic pancreatic database. We report genomic alterations in those with high and low TMB, and compare outcomes on the basis of receipt of single-agent ICI or therapy regimens not containing ICI. RESULTS We evaluated 21,932 patients with PDAC who had tissue CGP data available, including 21,639 (98.7%) with low-TMB and 293 (1.3%) with high-TMB. Among patients with high-TMB, a greater number of alterations were observed in BRCA2, BRAF, PALB2, and genes of the mismatch repair pathway, whereas fewer alterations were observed in KRAS. Among patients who received an ICI (n = 51), those with high-TMB had more favorable median overall survival when compared with the low-TMB subset (25.7 v 5.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.91; P = .034). CONCLUSION Longer survival was observed in patients with high-TMB receiving ICI compared with those with low-TMB. This supports the role of high-TMB as a predictive biomarker for efficacy of ICI therapy in PDAC. Additionally, we report higher rates of BRAF and BRCA2 mutations and lower rates of KRAS mutation among patients with PDAC and high-TMB, which to our knowledge, is a novel finding.

4146 Background: Currently, ICI therapy is recommended for patients with metastatic PDAC whose tumors exhibit dMMR, MSI-H, or high TMB (≥10 mutations/Mb). However, due to the low prevalence of high TMB in PDAC (~1%), few studies have evaluated the role of ICI therapy in this subpopulation. This study aimed to compare GA between PDAC patients with high TMB and low TMB ( < 10 mutations/Mb) and to evaluate the effectiveness of ICIs in real-world PDAC patients by TMB status. Methods: This study included PDAC patients who underwent genomic testing using Foundation Medicine tissue comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) assays. GA were compared between tissue specimens with high and low TMB by chi-squared, adjusted for multiple comparisons. Patient clinical data was obtained by the US-wide de-identified Flatiron Health and Foundation Medicine real-world clinicogenomic pancreatic database (CGDB), originated from ~280 US cancer clinics between 01/2011 and 09/2022. Real-world overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were compared between patients receiving an ICI (high TMB versus low TMB) and between patients with high TMB (ICI versus other therapies) by Cox models. Results: We included 21,932 patients with PDAC with tissue CGP data available; 98.7% with low TMB and 1.3% with high TMB. Among actionable alterations, patients with high TMB had higher prevalence of mutations in BRCA2 (p < 0.0001), BRAF (p < 0.0001), PALB2 (p < 0.0001), and genes of the mismatch repair pathway ( MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2, p < 0.0001), but lower prevalence of KRAS mutations (p < 0.0001). The most common KRAS mutation in both groups of patients was G12D. In CGDB, 51 patients received an ICI (10 with high TMB and 41 with low TMB) and 17 patients with high TMB received other therapies. Among patients receiving an ICI, those with high TMB had more favorable median OS compared to those with low TMB (25.7 versus 5.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 - 0.76, p = 0.01) and median TTD (20.7 versus 3.0 months, HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.82, p = 0.02). Among patients with high TMB, those receiving an ICI had more favorable OS compared to those receiving other therapies (25.7 versus 6.6 months, HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10-0.96, p = 0.043), nominally favoring ICI use in this small cohort (n = 10 versus 17). Conclusions: There is no randomized clinical trial evaluating ICI versus other therapies in PDAC. To our knowledge, this is the largest cohort to date comparing ICI effectiveness in PDAC. We observed more favorable OS among PDAC patients with high TMB receiving ICI versus those with low TMB who received an ICI and more favorable to those with high TMB receiving other therapies. This study supports the FDA-approved use of ICIs in patients with PDAC and high TMB and demonstrates the importance of TMB assessment for patients with PDAC.

PURPOSE APOBEC mutagenesis underlies somatic evolution and accounts for tumor heterogeneity in several cancers, including breast cancer (BC). In this study, we evaluated the characteristics of a real-world cohort for time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival on CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus endocrine therapy (ET) and immune checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS Comprehensive genomic profiling results from 29,833 BC samples were analyzed for tumor mutational burden and APOBEC signatures. For clinical outcomes, a deidentified nationwide (United States–based) BC Clinico-Genomic Database (CGDB) was evaluated with log-rank and Cox models. Patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) BC who received first-line ET and CDK4/6i were included. Eligible patients from Mayo Clinic and Duke University were HR+ HER2– BC with sequencing data between September 2013 and July 2020. RESULTS Of 29,833 samples sequenced, 7.9% were APOBEC+ with a high rate in invasive lobular carcinoma (16.7%) and in metastatic tumors (9.7%) relative to locally biopsied BC (4.3%; P < .001). In CGDB, 857 patients with HR+ HER2– BC received ET plus CDK4/6i in the first line. APOBEC+ patients had significantly shorter TTD on ET plus CDK4/6i than APOBEC– patients, 7.8 (95% CI, 4.3 to 14.6) versus 12.4 months (95% CI, 11.2 to 14.1; hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.39; P = .0036). Clinical benefit to immune checkpoint inhibitors was observed in HR+ HER2–, APOBEC+, tumor mutational burden–high patients, with four of nine CGDB patients (TTD 0.3-11.3 months) and four of six patients in Duke/Mayo cohorts (TTD 0.9-40.5 months) with a TTD of ≥ 3 months. CONCLUSION APOBEC+ HR+ HER2– patients had shorter TTD on first-line ET plus CDK4/6i relative to APOBEC– patients. Further research is needed to optimize the treatment of APOBEC+ HR+ HER2– BC and to investigate the efficacy of immunotherapeutic strategies in this population.

Abstract Background: APOBEC mutagenesis underlies somatic evolution and accounts for tumor heterogeneity in several cancers, including BC. In our clinical experience, HR+HER2- BC with an APOBEC signature do poorly on standard of care (SOC) first line endocrine therapy (ET) + CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) and need additional treatment options. Here we evaluated the characteristics of a real-world cohort for time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) on SOC and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).Methods: Hybrid capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) results from 29,833 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue biopsies of all BC subtypes were analyzed. For outcomes (TTD and OS), this study used a de-identified nationwide (US-based) BC clinico-genomic database (CGDB, ~800 sites of care, 1/2011 - 12/2020). HR+HER2- metastatic BC pts who received first line ET + CDK4/6i were included (CGDB cohort).TTD was defined as the difference between the first and last drug episode within a given line of treatment (LOT). LOT were derived based on FH algorithms. OS was defined as the time from LOT start to the date of death or data cutoff. Log-rank test and Cox model were used to evaluate the difference in outcomes. To reduce the impact of confounding variables (Age at Dx, Stage at Dx, Tumor Type, Metastases sites, TMB group (≥10 vs &lt;10), SOC treatment group, PIK3CA), inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used. Eligible pts from Mayo Clinic and Duke University were HR+HER2- mBC with sequencing data from FMI between 9/2013-7/2020. Clinical data were manually extracted from Mayo and Duke EHR. Results: Of all 29,833 BC samples in the CGP cohort, 7.9% were APOBEC+ with high rate in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) 16.7% vs. 4.9% in invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and metastatic lesions 9.7% vs. 4.3% from breast. APOBEC+ samples had a higher median TMB 12.5 vs. 2.5 mut/Mb. In CGDB, 857 HR+HER2- BC met inclusion criteria; 69 (8%) pts were APOBEC+ and 788 (9.2%) were APOBEC-. APOBEC+ pts had significantly shorter TTD on SOC ET+CDK4/6i than APOBEC- pts, 7.8 (95% CI 4.3-14.6) vs. 12.4 (95% CI 11.2-14.1) months (p=0.0036). APOBEC+ pts also had noticeably shorter OS compared to APOBEC- pts, 32.4 (95%CI 19.8-47.4) vs. 40.5 (95%CI 36.9-45.7) months (p=0.06).Cox regression results indicate that the relative risk of shorter TTD for the APOBEC+ vs the APOBEC- was 1.6 (95%CI 1.03-2.39). Also, APOBEC+ pts had almost twice the risk that APOBEC- pts had of death (HR=1.96, 95%CI 1.2-3.3). In CGDB, there were 10 APOBEC+ pts who received ICI, 9/10 had evaluable TTD data, 4/9 were still on treatment as of Dec 2020. 5/9 received ICI monotherapy, 4 pts received ICI + chemotherapy. TTD ranged from 0.3 to 11.3 mo, 1 pt’s TTD was &gt; 6 mo. In Mayo and Duke cohort, there were 6 pts, 5/6 received ICI + chemotherapy. The TTD was 0.9-40.5 months with longest 2 pts receiving 5-FU plus ICI (11 and 40.5 months). To better understand the ICI treatment landscape, TTD in HR+HER2- hTMB MSS APOBEC- CGDB cohort (N=6) was analyzed: 5/6 had evaluable treatment data, 4/5 finished ICI treatment, 1 pt’s TTD was &gt; 3 mo, 0/5 had TTD &gt; 6 mo. Conclusions: APOBEC+ occurs in ~7% of BC and is more common in ILC and metastatic lesions. APOBEC+ HR+HER2- pts had shorter TTD and OS on SOC ET+CDK4/6i relative to APOBEC- pts. However, TTD on ICI tended to be longer in APOBEC+ pts, but our data is limited, and more research is needed. CGDB APOBEC+ vs. APOBEC- with SOC 1st lineAPOBEC+ (N=69)APOBEC- (N=788)p adjusted (FDR)*Age at Dx, Median (IQR)59.0 (53.0, 65.0)56.0 (47.0, 65.0)0.102Stage at Dx0.067- 0-III52 (75.4%)505 (64.1%)- IV11 (15.9%)245 (31.1%)- Not documented6 (8.7%)38 (4.8%)Metastasis free interval, yrs, Median (IQR)5.2 (3.0, 10.5)5.1 (2.8, 9.3)0.734Tumor Grade0.104- Grade 12 (2.9%)49 (6.2%)- Grade 234 (49.3%)259 (32.9%)- Grade 311 (15.9%)163 (20.7%)- Not documented22 (31.9%)317 (40.2%)Tumor Type0*- IDC7 (10.1%)251 (31.9%)- ILC30 (43.5%)138 (17.5%)- Other /Not documented32 (46.4%)399 (50.6%)Metastases sites0.734- Bone-only17 (24.6%)169 (21.5%)- CNS11 (15.9%)104 (13.2%)- Visceral41 (59.4%)514 (65.3%)TMB, Median (IQR)11.3 (8.8, 18.8)2.5 (1.3, 3.8)0*MSI0.946- MSI-H0 (0.0%)4 (0.5%)- MSI-I0 (0.0%)1 (0.1%)- MSS68 (98.6%)728 (97.2%)- Not documented1 (1.4%)16 (2.1%)BRCA5 (7.2%)45 (5.7%)0.734PIK3CA46 (66.7%)341 (43.3%)0.001*Treatments0.005*- AI + CDK4/6i31 (44.9%)510 (64.7%)- Fulvestrant + CDK4/6i38 (55.1%)278 (35.3%) Citation Format: Saranya Chumsri, Kira Raskina, Sarah Sammons, Laura Alder, Natalie Danziger, Alexa B Schrock, Kim McGregor, Ethan Sokol. APOBEC signature, clinical characteristics, and outcome in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) patients (pts) in real-world data (RWD) [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 PD14-09.

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.

263 Background: DNA repair genomic alterations (GAs) have been identified in 12% of Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCCA), 26% of extrahepatic CCA (EHCCA) and 8% of gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients (pts) ( Cancer 2016;122:3838–3847). Recently, the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has described more than 20 mutated DNA repair genes, many of which were not previously represented in prior reports. DNA repair GAs including MSI are associated with higher tumor mutational burden (TMB). Our study aim is to identify variations in the frequency of DNA repair GAs in IHCCA, EHCCA, and GBC. Methods: Hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing of 422 fixed formalin paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks of BTC including; 270 IHCCA, 60 EHCCA, and 92 GBC was performed. We included 20 DNA repair genes and classified them as "direct" DNA repair genes ( ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, FANCA, FANCD2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, POLD1, POLE, PRKDC, RAD50, SLX4) and "caretaker" genes that induce genomic instability ( BAP1, CDK12, MLL3, TP53, BLM). We calculated TMB on 1.1 Mb of sequenced DNA in 205 tissue specimens [138 IHCCA, 23 EHCCA, and 44 GBC] and classified into three groups; high (TMB-H; ≥ 20 mut/Mb), intermediate (TMB-I; 6-19mut/Mb) and low (TMB-L; < 6mut/Mb). Results: A distinct pattern of DNA repair GAs in each tumor type was detected. (Table 1). DNA repair GAs were more commonly noted in both EHCCA and GB (63%) as compared with IHCAA (45.2%) (p= .002). Direct DNA repair GAs were highest within EHCCA (25%), while indirect DNA GAs were predominant in GBC (59.8%) (p= 0.04 and 0.001, respectively). The frequency of TMB-H and TMB-I differed significantly between BTC subtypes. Pts with EHCCA and GBC had significantly higher TMB-H and TMB-I versus IHCCA. Conclusions: The frequency of DNA repair GA’s is higher in EHCCA and GBC as compared with IHCCA. These results may have implications for clinical trials with DNA repair inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockers. [Table: see text]

4076 Background: Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is commonly diagnosed at an advanced, unresectable disease stage and has a poor prognosis. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) has a developing role in guiding systemic, precision anti-cancer therapy. Methods: We performed hybrid capture-based CGP on FFPE samples for 491 consecutive advanced GBCs. Mean coverage depth was >550X for up to 315 cancer-related genes plus 37 introns from 28 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. All 4 classes of genomic alterations (GA) were detected. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined on up to 1.1 Mb of sequenced DNA. Results: Median age was 64 (range 25-88) and 69% (337/491) of patients were female. 96% (470), 2.9% (14), and 1.4% (7) of GBC patients had the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous, or carcinoma not specified (NOS), respectively. Commonly altered genes were TP53 (62%), CDNK2A (31%), ARID1A (18%), and SMAD4 (15%), and most of the genetic aberrations (GA) were short variants. Potentially targetable SCNAs (including ERBB genes, MET, FGFRs, and the CCND1-FGF3/4/19 11q13 amplicon) were identified in 21% of cases (Table). Oncogenic BRAF, ALK, or FGFR2/3 rearrangements were found in 7 cases (1.4%). Moreover, 7.8% of cases had BRCA2 or ATM GA, and 0.8% had INI1loss suggesting benefit from PARP or EZH2 inhibitors, respectively. TMB was low; the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were 2.5, 3.8 and 6.3 mutations/Mb, respectively. Less than 1% of cases had microsatellite instability. Radiological response to TKIs and immunotherapy was noted. Conclusions: In addition to the significant opportunity for anti-HER targeted therapies, other subsets of GBC cases harbored kinase GA (particularly SCNA), the 11q13 amplicon, or BRCA2/ ATM/ INI1mutations that are linked to therapeutic benefit. How the frequency of both driver SCNA and DNA repair alterations in GBC can be linked with inflammation awaits additional investigation. [Table: see text]