Comparison of tissue based FGFR mutation detection by Therascreen FGFR with UroTyper FGFR and ADC test and relevance for potential co-targeting with TROP2 and NECTIN4: Preview of Bladder BRIDGister.
Authors: Wirtz Ralph M. , Weber Anke , Schubert Tina , Kastner Lucas , Friedersdorff Frank , Sommerfeldt Lilli , Barski Dimitri , Otto Thomas , Waldner Michael , Graff Johannes , Veltrup Elke , Schwandt Meike , Hake Roland , Eidt Sebastian , Roggisch Jenny , Rieger Constantin , Heidenreich Axel , Schanzenbach Christoph , Weißbach Rebekka , Ecke Thorsten H. 
Published: January 2024

679

Background: In view of the efficacy of FGFR targeting in early and advanced bladder cancer, as has been shown for erdafitinib in the THOR and NORSE trial, molecular testing of FGFR mutations and fusions will soon become clinical routine worldwide. Therascreen FGFR testing has been approved as companion diagnostic to select patients for erdafitinib. However, technical problems and shortages as well as a limited number of detectable mutations indicate the need of FGFR test systems that can be performed easily & fast worldwide. The objective was to evaluate concordance of UroTyper FGFR with Therascreen FGFR mutation testing and unravel molecular characteristics of FGFR mutated tumors to assess potential co-targeting options for erdafitinib to justify subsequent adopted clinical trials with the Bladder BRIDGister framework. Methods: FFPE tumor tissues from 100 TURB samples were prospectively collected as part of the Bladder BRIDGister. RNA from FFPE tissues were extracted by commercial kits to assess Therascreen FGFR & UroTyper FGFR MODAPLEX (BIOTYPE GmbH, Dresden) in conjunction with relative gene expression of subtyping markers (i.a.. PPARG), ADC targets (TROP2, NECTIN4) and CPI targets by RT-qPCR systems. Hierarchical clustering, Spearman correlation tests were done by JMP 9.0.0 (SAS software). Results: After exclusion of FGFR fusion samples, a total of 94 samples was available for comparative mutation analysis. Both PCR based FGFR tests concordantly identified S249C (n=15), R248C (n=2) and G370C (n=1) mutations, while the results for Y373C were in part discrepant with Therascreen FGFR detecting 9 mutations, while UroTyper FGFR did detect 6 mutations. Further examination of the 3 discrepant Y373C cases by SNaPshot and Uromonitor FGFR test revealed that the Therascreen FGFR test resulted in 3 false positive results. Moreover, one sample was invalid from Therascreen FGFR test. Overall, the concordance was very good and reached a kappa value of 0.92. Interestingly, FGFR3 mutations by UroTyper FGFR test were positively associated not only with FGFR3 mRNA overexpression (r=0.6699, p<0.0001), but also with TROP2 and NECTIN4 (r=0.5026 and r=0.4406, p<0.0001) indicating, that combinations of FGFR targeting with ADC targeting of TROP2 or NECTIN4 could have strong synergistic effects. Hierarchical clustering revealed a homogenous FGFR3 mutated group of tumors simultaneously co-expressing the target genes TROP2, NECTIN4 and PPARG. Conclusions: PCR-based FGFR assessment by Therascreen and UroTyper is highly concordant and enables fast, local FGFR assessment within few hours. FGFR3 mutations are associated with increased TROP2 & NECTIN4 expression indicating potential synergistic options which warrants further exploration as part of molecularly stratified clinical trials.