Prognostic Role of FGFR Alterations and FGFR mRNA Expression in Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Undergoing Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

PD-L1 (CD274) promoter hypomethylation predicts immunotherapy response in metastatic urothelial carcinoma

PD-L1 status assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) has failed to reliably predict outcomes for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) on immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). PD-L1 promoter methylation is an epigenetic mechanism that has been shown to regulate PD-L1 mRNA expression in various malignancies. The aim of our present study was to evaluate the predictive potential of PD-L1 promoter methylation status (mPD-L1) in ICB-treated mUC compared to conventional IHC-based PD-L1 assessment. We quantified mPD-L1 in formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue sections using an established quantitative methylation-specific PCR assay (qMSP) in a well-characterized multicenter ICB-treated cohort comprising N = 107 patients with mUC. Additionally, PD-L1 protein expression in tumor tissues was assessed using regulatory approved IHC protocols. The effect of pharmacological hypomethylation by the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor decitabine in combination with interferon-γ stimulation in urothelial carcinoma cell lines was investigated by IHC and FACS. mPD-L1 hypomethylation predicted objective response rate at the first staging on ICB. Patients with tumors categorized as PD-L1 hypomethylated (lower quartile) showed significantly prolonged progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after ICB initiation. In contrast, PD-L1 protein expression status neither correlated with response nor survival. In multivariable Cox regression analyses, PD-L1 promoter hypermethylation remained an independent predictor of unfavorable PFS and OS. In urothelial carcinoma cell lines, pharmacological demethylation led to an upregulation of membranous PD-L1 expression and an enhanced inducibility of PD-L1 expression by interferon γ. Hypomethylation of the PD-L1 promoter is a promising predictive biomarker for response to ICB in patients with mUC.

Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 mutation attenuates response to immune checkpoint blockade in metastatic urothelial carcinoma by driving immunosuppressive microenvironment

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy holds promise in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) mutation drives T-cell-depleted microenvironment in UC, which led to the hypothesis that FGFR3 mutation might attenuate response to ICB in patients with metastatic UC. The study aims to compare prognosis and response between patients with FGFR3-mutated and FGFR3-wildtype metastatic UC after ICB therapy, and decode the potential molecular mechanisms.

METHODS

Based on the single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 trial, IMvigor210, we conducted a propensity score matched (PSM) analysis. After a 1:1 ratio PSM method, 39 patients with FGFR3-mutated and 39 FGFR3-wildtype metastatic UC treated with atezolizumab were enrolled. A meta-analysis through systematical database retrieval was conducted for validation. In addition, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing on three FGFR3-mutated and three FGFR3-wildtype UC tumors and analyzed 58,069 single cells.

RESULTS

The PSM analysis indicated FGFR3-mutated patients had worse overall survival (OS) in comparison to FGFR3-wildtype patients (HR=2.11, 95% CI=(1.16 to 3.85), p=0.015) receiving atezolizumab. The median OS was 9.2 months (FGFR3-mutated) versus 21.0 months (FGFR3-wildtype). FGFR3-mutated patients had lower disease control rate than FGFR3-wildtype patients (41.0% vs 66.7%, p=0.023). The meta-analysis involving 938 patients with metastatic UC confirmed FGFR3 mutation was associated with worse OS after ICB (HR=1.28, 95% CI=(1.04 to 1.59), p=0.02). Single-cell RNA transcriptome analysis identified FGFR3-mutated UC carried a stronger immunosuppressive microenvironment compared with FGFR3-wildtype UC. FGFR3-mutated UC exhibited less immune infiltration, and lower T-cell cytotoxicity. Higher TREM2+ macrophage abundance in FGFR3-mutated UC can undermine and suppress the T cells, potentially contributing to the formation of an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Lower inflammatory-cancer-associated fibroblasts in FGFR3-mutated UC recruited less chemokines in antitumor immunity but expressed growth factors to promote FGFR3-mutated malignant cell development. FGFR3-mutated UC carried abundance of malignant cells characterized by high hypoxia/metabolism and low interferon response phenotype.

CONCLUSIONS

FGFR3 mutation can attenuate prognosis and response to ICB in patients with metastatic UC. FGFR3-mutated UC carries a stronger immunosuppressive microenvironment in comparison with FGFR3-wildtype UC. Inhibition of FGFR3 might activate the immune microenvironment, and the combination of FGFR inhibitor targeted therapy and ICB might be a promising therapeutic regimen in metastatic UC, providing important implications for UC clinical management.

E3 ubiquitin ligases and deubiquitinases in bladder cancer tumorigenesis and implications for immunotherapies

With the rapidly increasing incidence of bladder cancer in China and worldwide, great efforts have been made to understand the detailed mechanism of bladder cancer tumorigenesis. Recently, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy has changed the treatment strategy for bladder cancer, especially for advanced bladder cancer, and has improved the survival of patients. The ubiquitin-proteasome system, which affects many biological processes, plays an important role in bladder cancer. Several E3 ubiquitin ligases and deubiquitinases target immune checkpoints, either directly or indirectly. In this review, we summarize the recent progress in E3 ubiquitin ligases and deubiquitinases in bladder cancer tumorigenesis and further highlight the implications for bladder cancer immunotherapies.

Case Report: PD-L1-negative advanced bladder cancer effectively treated with anlotinib and tislelizumab: A report of two cases

Second-line treatment for metastatic or locally advanced urothelial cancer (UC) is limited. Immunotherapy is approved as a second-line treatment for metastatic UC. Its use as a first-line agent is limited to patients who are ineligible for cisplatin-based treatments. The fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor, erdafitinib, can be applied as a third-line approach after the failure of these prior treatments in eligible patients. Therefore, it is especially important to combine limited drugs for second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic UC. Anlotinib is a multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitor agent with both anti-angiogenic and FGFR inhibitory effects. For two patients with advanced and metastatic UC, we combined anlotinib and tislelizumab therapy even though there is no indication of its use. We describe two patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-negative advanced bladder cancer, one with FGFR3 mutation and another with FGFR3 wild type. Both patients had progressed after first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. We selected anlotinib in combination with tislelizumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor, for second-line treatment. Responses were evaluated as partial remission in both cases, who achieved up to 12 months of progression-free survival with no significant adverse events. Two patients with PD-L1-negative UC underwent second-line therapy using tislelizumab in combination with anlotinib, and the efficacy was better than that of tislelizumab alone. These results suggest that anlotinib may act synergistically with tislelizumab in the treatment of UC.