Agarwal, Neeraj

Abstract Background Genomic biomarkers that predict response to anti-PD1 therapy in prostate cancer are needed. Frameshift mutations are predicted to generate more neoantigens than missense mutations; therefore, we hypothesized that the number or proportion of tumor frameshift mutations would correlate with response to anti-PD1 therapy in prostate cancer. Methods To enrich for response to anti-PD1 therapy, we assembled a multicenter cohort of 65 men with mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) prostate cancer. Patient characteristics and outcomes were determined by retrospective chart review. Clinical somatic DNA sequencing was used to determine tumor mutational burden (TMB), frameshift mutation burden, and frameshift mutation proportion (FSP), which were correlated to outcomes on anti-PD1 treatment. We subsequently used data from a clinical trial of pembrolizumab in patients with nonprostatic dMMR cancers of various histologies as a biomarker validation cohort. Results Nineteen of 65 patients with dMMR metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with anti-PD1 therapy. The PSA50 response rate was 65%, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 24 (95% confidence interval 16–54) weeks. Tumor FSP, more than overall TMB, correlated most strongly with prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS) on anti-PD1 treatment and with density of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. High FSP similarly identified patients with longer PFS as well as OS on anti-PD1 therapy in a validation cohort. Conclusion Tumor FSP correlated with prolonged efficacy of anti-PD1 treatment among patients with dMMR cancers and may represent a new biomarker of immune checkpoint inhibitor sensitivity. Implications for Practice Given the modest efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in unselected patients with advanced prostate cancer, biomarkers of ICI sensitivity are needed. To facilitate biomarker discovery, a cohort of patients with DNA mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) prostate cancer was assembled, as these patients are enriched for responses to ICI. A high response rate to anti-PD1 therapy in these patients was observed; however, these responses were not durable in most patients. Notably, tumor frameshift mutation proportion (FSP) was identified as a novel biomarker that was associated with prolonged response to anti-PD1 therapy in this cohort. This finding was validated in a separate cohort of patients with nonprostatic dMMR cancers of various primary histologies. This works suggests that FSP predicts response to anti-PD1 therapy in dMMR cancers, which should be validated prospectively in larger independent cohorts.

5077 Background: Several ICIs are used in first and subsequent lines of therapy for mRCC, either alone or in combination with another ICI or targeted therapy (TT). There are no data on the efficacy and safety of using an ICI in patients who have already received an ICI in a prior line of therapy. Methods: We reviewed patients with mRCC at 8 institutions who received 2 separate lines of ICI therapy (ICI-1, ICI-2), including as a single-agent and/or combination with other agents. The primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR) and time to progression (TTP) with ICI-1 and ICI-2. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were graded using CTCAEv5.0. Results: 65 patients were included. Median age at diagnosis of mRCC was 60 years (range 30-86) and the majority had clear cell RCC (n=56, 86%). Median follow-up was 3.5 years (95% CI 2.9-4.4). Median lines at which ICI-1 and ICI-2 were received were 1 (1-6) and 3 (2-8) respectively. Reasons for discontinuing ICI-1 were disease progression (n=47, 72%), toxicity (n=15, 23%) or other (n=3, 5%). Therapies received at ICI-2 were single-agent ICI (n=26, 40%), or combinations of ICI with another ICI (n=20, 31%), TT (n=11, 17%) or other agent (n=8, 12%). Responses to ICI-1 and ICI-2 are shown in the Table; ORR to ICI-2 was significantly lower than to ICI-1 (23% vs. 36%, p=0.044). Amongst those who responded to ICI-2 (n=14), 7 (50%) received single-agent ICI, and the remainder received ICI in combination with another ICI (n=4, 29%) or TT (n=3, 21%); 7 patients (50%) had previously responded to ICI-1. The ORR to ICI-2 was higher in responders to ICI-1 (32%) compared to those with SD (17%) or PD (15%) to ICI-1. Median TTP (mTTP) at ICI-2 was shorter compared to ICI-1 (5.3 months vs. 8.5 months, Wilcoxon p=0.024). 29 patients (45%) experienced an irAE with ICI-2; 8 (12%) and 3 (5%) had a grade 3 or 4 irAE respectively, with 3 (30%) of these patients having previously had ≥grade 3 irAE to ICI-1. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: The ORR to ICI-2 was 23%, which is comparable to that seen with ICI after prior TT. Responses were seen even amongst those receiving single-agent ICI at ICI-2 and the likelihood of response to ICI-2 was higher if a patient had previously responded to ICI-1. No increase in toxicity with ICI-2 was apparent. Additional data from prospective studies are needed to determine whether sequential ICI has a role in treatment of mRCC. [Table: see text]