Association of urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation with Nectin-4 expression and outcomes with enfortumab vedotin (EV) treatment.
Abstract
865 Background: The Nectin-4 directed antibody-drug conjugate EV has demonstrated high efficacy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), but outcomes in patients with divergent histologies remain poorly characterized. Squamous differentiation represents a clinically challenging subtype with distinct molecular features. We investigated Nectin-4 expression patterns and EV clinical outcomes in patients with urothelial cancer with squamous differentiation versus non-otherwise specified (NOS) histology. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 127 patients with mUC (squamous differentiation vs NOS urothelial carcinoma) treated with EV as standard-of-care across multiple centers. NECTIN4 gene amplification was assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), and membranous Nectin-4 protein by immunohistochemistry H-scores. Outcomes including ORR, PFS, and OS were documented by the investigators. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used for statistical comparisons. Results: Among 127 evaluable patients, those with squamous histology (n = 23; 18%) demonstrated significantly lower membranous Nectin-4 expression with a median H-score of 20 (IQR 3.5–85) vs 210 (IQR 97.5–290), p < 0.001. NECTIN4 gene amplification frequency was higher in squamous compared to NOS histology (n = 104): 7.7% vs 34% (p < 0.001). Importantly, patients with squamous histology exhibited inferior clinical outcomes to EV: ORR was lower (20.0% vs 51.6%, p = 0.02), median PFS was 2.8 months vs 6.2 months (HR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.45–4.37, p = 0.001), and median OS was 6.5 months vs 13 months (HR = 2.38, 95% CI 1.26–4.49, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Squamous differentiation in advanced urothelial carcinoma is associated with significantly lower membranous Nectin-4 expression and NECTIN4 amplification frequency, corresponding to markedly inferior responses to EV. These findings highlight the critical need for alternative therapeutic targets and novel treatment strategies in this population.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Jonas Saal
University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Niklas Klümper
Stefanie Zschaebitz
National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
Thomas Büttner
Florian Roghmann
Department of Urology, Ruhr University Bochum, Marienhospital Herne, Herne, Germany
Dora Niedersuess-Beke
Friedemann Zengerling
Richard Cathomas
6Department of Oncology and Hematology, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
Joshua J. Meeks
Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
Guenter Niegisch
Department of Urology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University; Centre for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Düsseldorf, CIO Aachen-Bonn-Cologne-Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
Marieta Toma
Oliver Hahn
Kerstin Junker
Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany
Jozefina Casuscelli
Steffen Rausch
Katrin Schlack
Department of Urology, West German Cancer Center Muenster (WTZ), University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany
Arndt Hartmann
Deutsches Zentrum für Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen
Michael Hölzel
Viktor Grünwald
Markus Eckstein
Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen–Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany