The Impact of Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Alterations in Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Real-World Data From a Latin American Population

Vinicius Carrera Souza,Fernando Sabino Marques Monteiro,Fernando Cotait Maluf,Gustavo Werutsky,Vanessa de Carvalho Fabrício,Rosemarie Gidekel,Maria Natalia Gandur-Quiroga,Marcelo Roberto Pereira Freitas,Murilo Luz,Saul Campos-Gomez,Jose Augusto Rinck Junior,Diogo Assed Bastos,Juan Pablo Sade,Karine Martins da Trindade,Augusto Cesar de Andrade Mota,Roni de Carvalho Fernandes,Allan Omar Barillas Ruíz,Breno Dauster Pereira E Silva,Fernando Nunes Galvão de Oliveira,Hernan Javier Cutuli,Lucas Nogueira,Luis Fernando García Aceituno,Mauricio Fernandez,Eva Inman,Manuel Caitano,Daniel Herchenhorn,Jaime Ardila-Salcedo,Patrícia Pacheco,Rafaela Gomes de Jesus,Gustavo Gössling,Andrey Soares,André Poisl Fay
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102174
2024-07-25
Abstract:Introduction: Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations and fusions are relevant biomarkers in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, the prevalence of genomic alterations and their impact on clinical outcomes in a Latin American population remains unknown. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of FGFR mutations and/or fusions in patients with mUC in Latin America (LATAM) and its association with clinicopathological characteristics, Bellmunt's prognostic model, and survival outcomes. Patients and methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study from 2016 to 2019 of patients with mUC from several LACOG LATAM institutions. FGFR alterations were analyzed by real-time PCR and/or next-generation sequencing in tumor samples and clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes data were collected. The prevalence of FGFR, patient characteristics, and treatment in real-world settings were summarized. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations of FGFR mutation and/or fusion status with median overall survival (mOS), median time to treatment failure (mTTF), and clinicopathological characteristics. Results: In total, 222 patients were screened. Of these, 196 patients were considered eligible and were included in the analysis. FGFR mutations and/or fusions were found in 35 (17.9%) patients. There was no statistical difference in mOS and mTTF in FGFR-altered and non-altered patients (13.1 vs. 16.8 months, P = .20 and 3.9 vs. 4.1 months, P = .96, respectively). Bellmunt's prognostic model correctly predicted overall survival (P = .049). Conclusions: This is the largest study evaluating the prevalence of FGFR alterations in patients with mUC in the LATAM population. FGFR alterations in mUC were found in 17.9% of the patients, and the presence of this biomarker was not associated with OS. We validated Bellmunt's prognostic model in this cohort.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?