Abstract 4890: Mutational signatures as biomarkers of response to nivolumab in metastatic bladder cancer
Authors: Han G. Celine , Szabo Peter M. , Saci Abdel , Walsh Alice M. , Kalinava Natallia , Sasson Ariella , Fischer Bruce , Galsky Matthew D. , Sharma Padmanee 
Published: August 2019

Abstract
Background: Metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial cancer (UC) is a disease with high unmet need. Nivolumab monotherapy demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with platinum-resistant UC (CheckMate 275; NCT02387996). Because not all patients respond to nivolumab therapy, identifying biomarkers for response is of critical importance. In the CheckMate 275 cohort, higher tumor mutational burden (TMB) was associated with longer overall survival (OS) (1). Previous studies have shown that certain mutational signatures, combinations of mutation types arising from specific mutagenesis processes, were associated with mutational burden and clinical outcome in UC (2,3). We hypothesized that specific mutational signatures may be associated with response to nivolumab in CheckMate 275.
Methods: Whole exome sequencing data and clinical annotations for 139 archival, tumor-normal paired samples from patients enrolled in the CheckMate 275 cohort were collected and analyzed. Sequencing reads were processed and somatic variants called as described previously (4). Percentage of mutations across 30 mutational signatures were generated using deconstructSigs, which infers signature activity with given known signatures (5). Association of the most prevalent mutational signatures with TMB, previously known clinical biomarkers, and clinical efficacy (OS, progression free survival [PFS], and objective response [OR]) were examined.
Results: We identified age-related (signature 1), endogenous mutagenesis-related APOBEC (signatures 2 and 13) and UV-induced (signature 7) as the most prevalent mutational signatures in UC. When examining their correlations with TMB, signature 1 showed negative correlation, signatures 2 and 13 showed high positive correlation, and signature 7 showed low correlation. Higher signature 2 scores were associated with better OS, but were poor predictors for PFS and OR. Overall, while signature 2 added predictive value over previously known clinical biomarkers such as PD-L1 expression, serum hemoglobin level, and presence of liver metastasis, it did not improve on the predictive performance of TMB.
Conclusions: An APOBEC-related mutational signature (signature 2) was associated with OS in patients with advanced UC treated with nivolumab. This signature was correlated with TMB and did not improve upon TMB as a predictive biomarker. Our work demonstrates the importance of including TMB as a covariate when analyzing mutational signatures.
References:
1. Galsky MD et al. Ann Oncol 2017;28(suppl 5). Abstract 848PD
2. Glaser AP et al. Oncotarget 2018;9:4537-48
3. Roberts SA et al. Nat Genet 2013;45:970-6
4. Carbone DP et al. NEJM 2017;376:2415-26
5. Forbes SA et al. Nucleic Acids Res 2017;45:D777-83
Citation Format: G. Celine Han, Peter M. Szabo, Abdel Saci, Alice M. Walsh, Natallia Kalinava, Ariella Sasson, Bruce Fischer, Matthew D. Galsky, Padmanee Sharma. Mutational signatures as biomarkers of response to nivolumab in metastatic bladder cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 4890.