Noura J Choudhury1, Alexa Campanile1, Tatjana Antic1, Kai Lee Yap1, Carrie A Fitzpatrick1, James L Wade1, Theodore Karrison1, Walter M Stadler1, Yusuke Nakamura1, Peter H O'Donnell2. 1. Noura J. Choudhury, Alexa Campanile, Tatjana Antic, Kai Lee Yap, Carrie A. Fitzpatrick, Theodore Karrison, Walter M. Stadler, Yusuke Nakamura, and Peter H. O'Donnell, University of Chicago, Chicago; and James L. Wade III, Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur, IL. 2. Noura J. Choudhury, Alexa Campanile, Tatjana Antic, Kai Lee Yap, Carrie A. Fitzpatrick, Theodore Karrison, Walter M. Stadler, Yusuke Nakamura, and Peter H. O'Donnell, University of Chicago, Chicago; and James L. Wade III, Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur, IL. podonnel@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Somatic mutations and copy number variation in the ERBB family are frequent in urothelial carcinoma (UC) and may represent viable therapeutic targets. We studied whether afatinib (an oral, irreversible inhibitor of the ErbB family) has activity in UC and if specific ERBB molecular alterations are associated with clinical response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase II trial, patients with metastatic platinum-refractory UC received afatinib 40 mg/day continuously until progression or intolerance. The primary end point was 3-month progression-free survival (PFS3). Prespecified tumor analysis for alterations in EGFR, HER2, ERBB3, and ERBB4 was conducted. RESULTS: The first-stage enrollment goal of 23 patients was met. Patient demographic data included: 78% male, median age 67 years (range, 36 to 82 years), hemoglobin < 10 g/dL in 17%, liver metastases in 30%, median time from prior chemotherapy of 3.6 months, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1 in 100%. No unexpected toxicities were observed; two patients required dose reduction for grade 3 fatigue and rash. Overall, five of 23 patients (21.7%) met PFS3 (two partial response, three stable disease). Notably, among the 21 tumors analyzed, five of six patients (83.3%) with HER2 and/or ERBB3 alterations achieved PFS3 (PFS = 10.3, 7.0, 6.9, 6.3, and 5.0 months, respectively) versus none of 15 patients without alterations (P < .001). Three of four patients with HER2 amplification and three of three patients with ERBB3 somatic mutations (G284R, V104M, and R103G) met PFS3. One patient with both HER2 amplification and ERBB3 mutation never progressed on therapy, but treatment was discontinued after 10.3 months as a result of depressed ejection fraction. The median time to progression/discontinuation was 6.6 months in patients with HER2/ERBB3 alterations versus 1.4 months in patients without alterations (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Afatinib demonstrated significant activity in patients with platinum-refractory UC with HER2 or ERBB3 alterations. The potential contribution of ERBB3 to afatinib sensitivity is novel. Afatinib deserves further investigation in molecularly selected UC.
PURPOSE: Somatic mutations and copy number variation in the ERBB family are frequent in urothelial carcinoma (UC) and may represent viable therapeutic targets. We studied whether afatinib (an oral, irreversible inhibitor of the ErbB family) has activity in UC and if specific ERBB molecular alterations are associated with clinical response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase II trial, patients with metastatic platinum-refractory UC received afatinib 40 mg/day continuously until progression or intolerance. The primary end point was 3-month progression-free survival (PFS3). Prespecified tumor analysis for alterations in EGFR, HER2, ERBB3, and ERBB4 was conducted. RESULTS: The first-stage enrollment goal of 23 patients was met. Patient demographic data included: 78% male, median age 67 years (range, 36 to 82 years), hemoglobin < 10 g/dL in 17%, liver metastases in 30%, median time from prior chemotherapy of 3.6 months, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1 in 100%. No unexpected toxicities were observed; two patients required dose reduction for grade 3 fatigue and rash. Overall, five of 23 patients (21.7%) met PFS3 (two partial response, three stable disease). Notably, among the 21 tumors analyzed, five of six patients (83.3%) with HER2 and/or ERBB3 alterations achieved PFS3 (PFS = 10.3, 7.0, 6.9, 6.3, and 5.0 months, respectively) versus none of 15 patients without alterations (P < .001). Three of four patients with HER2 amplification and three of three patients with ERBB3 somatic mutations (G284R, V104M, and R103G) met PFS3. One patient with both HER2 amplification and ERBB3 mutation never progressed on therapy, but treatment was discontinued after 10.3 months as a result of depressed ejection fraction. The median time to progression/discontinuation was 6.6 months in patients with HER2/ERBB3 alterations versus 1.4 months in patients without alterations (P < .001). CONCLUSION:Afatinib demonstrated significant activity in patients with platinum-refractory UC with HER2 or ERBB3 alterations. The potential contribution of ERBB3 to afatinib sensitivity is novel. Afatinib deserves further investigation in molecularly selected UC.
Authors: Kai Lee Yap; Kazuma Kiyotani; Kenji Tamura; Tatjana Antic; Miran Jang; Magdeline Montoya; Alexa Campanile; Poh Yin Yew; Cory Ganshert; Tomoaki Fujioka; Gary D Steinberg; Peter H O'Donnell; Yusuke Nakamura Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jean-Pascal H Machiels; Robert I Haddad; Jérôme Fayette; Lisa F Licitra; Makoto Tahara; Jan B Vermorken; Paul M Clement; Thomas Gauler; Didier Cupissol; Juan José Grau; Joël Guigay; Francesco Caponigro; Gilberto de Castro; Luciano de Souza Viana; Ulrich Keilholz; Joseph M Del Campo; Xiuyu Julie Cong; Eva Ehrnrooth; Ezra E W Cohen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Christian Wülfing; Jean-Pascal H Machiels; Dirk J Richel; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Uwe Treiber; Marco R De Groot; Philippe Beuzeboc; Roma Parikh; Frank Pétavy; Iman A El-Hariry Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Steven Bentivegna; Jianbiao Zheng; Eugeni Namsaraev; Victoria E H Carlton; Adam Pavlicek; Martin Moorhead; Farooq Siddiqui; Zhiyong Wang; Liana Lee; James S Ireland; Kent Suyenaga; Thomas D Willis; Malek Faham; Albert B Seymour Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Uttam Satyal; Rahmat K Sikder; David McConkey; Elizabeth R Plimack; Philip H Abbosh Journal: Curr Opin Urol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.309
Authors: Neeraj Agarwal; Sumanta K Pal; Andrew W Hahn; Roberto H Nussenzveig; Gregory R Pond; Sumati V Gupta; Jue Wang; Mehmet A Bilen; Gurudatta Naik; Pooja Ghatalia; Christopher J Hoimes; Dharmesh Gopalakrishnan; Pedro C Barata; Alexandra Drakaki; Bishoy M Faltas; Lesli A Kiedrowski; Richard B Lanman; Rebecca J Nagy; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Kenneth M Boucher; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Guru Sonpavde; Petros Grivas Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sandrine Hiret; Nicolas Isambert; Carlos Gomez-Roca; Jaafar Bennouna; Mouna Sassi; Hélène de Mont-Serrat; Jean Fan; David Schnell; Jean-Pierre Delord Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Siddhartha Devarakonda; Sumithra Sankararaman; Brett H Herzog; Kathryn A Gold; Saiama N Waqar; Jeffrey P Ward; Victoria M Raymond; Richard B Lanman; Aadel A Chaudhuri; Taofeek K Owonikoko; Bob T Li; John T Poirier; Charles M Rudin; Ramaswamy Govindan; Daniel Morgensztern Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sumanta Kumar Pal; Neeraj Agarwal; Stephen Anthony Boorjian; Noah M Hahn; Arlene O Siefker-Radtke; Peter E Clark; Elizabeth R Plimack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sumit Isharwal; Hongying Huang; Gouri Nanjangud; François Audenet; Ying-Bei Chen; Anuradha Gopalan; Samson W Fine; Satish K Tickoo; Byron H Lee; Gopa Iyer; Kalyani Chadalavada; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Dean F Bajorin; Harry W Herr; S Machele Donat; Guido Dalbagni; Bernard H Bochner; David B Solit; Victor E Reuter; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 3.466