4050 Background: Somatic mutations in KRAS, HRAS, NRAS (extended RAS) and BRAF have prognostic and predictive impact in pts with mCRC. We analyzed the prognostic impact of specific somatic mutations in extended RAS and BRAF. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of pts with mCRC at our institution who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) utilizing the Foundation One assay. DNA was extracted from clinical specimens and CGP was performed on hybrid-capture, adaptor ligation-based libraries for up to 315 genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. BRAF mutations were classified as class I, II and III according to accepted nomenclature. Fisher’s exact test and Kaplan Meier estimates were used for statistical analyses. This project was approved by the Medical College of Wisconsin Institutional Review Board. Results: 273 pts were identified - median age at diagnosis was 57, 48% were male. Somatic mutations in extended RAS were found in 138 (50%) pts, majority being mutations in KRAS (46%). Among pts with KRAS mutations, codon 12, 13, 61 and 146 mutations accounted for 73%, 11%, 4% and 6% respectively while KRAS G12C mutations accounted for 9%. BRAF mutations were detected in 22 (8%) pts - BRAF V600E and non–V600E mutations accounting for 4.4% and 3.6% respectively. Among pts with BRAF mutations, 17 (77%) were kinase domain mutations, 16 of which could be further classified as class I (12/16), II (1/16) and III (3/16). Median overall survival (mOS) for the entire cohort was 26.4 months (mo). KRAS mutated pts had a mOS of 25.8 mo; pts with KRAS G12C mutation had a mOS of 23 mo compared to 27.1 mo for pts with other KRAS mutations (p < 0.001).Pts with BRAF mutation had a mOS of 26.2 mo; pts with BRAF V600E mutation had a mOS of 14.1 mo compared to 30.6 mo for pts with BRAF non-V600E mutations (p = 0.1). Conclusions: The poor prognosis of pts with KRAS G12C and BRAF V600E mutations compared to pts with other KRAS and BRAF mutations merit further biologic characterization with functional assays. Individualized therapeutic strategies must be conceptualized for mCRC pts with specific RAS/BRAF mutations, considering their widely disparate prognosis and putative downstream signaling mechanisms. Dynamic molecular simulation to understand conformational changes in proteins associated with specific mutations will be pivotal to optimizing precision therapeutic strategies.

760 Background: Somatic and germline DDR gene alterations in PC have been postulated to positively predict response to DNA damaging cytotoxic agents. Due to the relatively high prevalence of germline DDR gene alterations, germline testing is recommended in all pts with PC. We examined whether somatic CGP can be used to reliably identify PC pts that merit germline testing. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of PC pts who underwent both somatic CGP (utilizing the Foundation One assay) and germline testing. DDR gene mutations were categorized as somatic-pathogenic, somatic-variant of uncertain significance (VUS), germline-pathogenic and germline-VUS. For somatic testing, DNA was extracted from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) clinical specimens and CGP was done on hybrid-capture, adaptor ligation based libraries to a mean coverage depth of > 600 for up to 315 genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. Germline genetic testing was performed on submitted blood or saliva samples, utilizing commercial assays; next generation or Sanger sequencing of all coding regions and adjacent intronic nucleotides were performed. Results: Ninety-three pts had somatic CGP data, 51 (55%) pts had both somatic CGP and germline data available. Among the 51 pts with both germline and somatic data available, DDR gene alterations that were somatic-pathogenic, germline-pathogenic, somatic-VUS and germline-VUS were present in 7 (13.7%), 7 (13.7%), 23 (45.1%) and 16 (31.4%) pts, respectively. Of the 7 pts with somatic-pathogenic alterations, 5 (71%) had a concordant germline alteration and of the 7 pts with germline-pathogenic alterations, 5 (71%) had a concordant somatic alteration. Of the 23 pts with somatic-VUSs, 12 (52%) had a concordant germline VUS and of the 16 pts with germline-VUSs, 12 (75%) had a concordant somatic VUS. Conclusions: Both somatic and germline DDR gene alterations are common in PC pts. Despite the relatively high concordance rate between somatic and germline pathogenic DDR gene alterations, somatic CGP will miss approximately one fourth of the germline DDR gene alterations.

Background: Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) is performed routinely in patients (pts) with metastatic solid tumors (MSTs) to guide treatment. However, there is variability in the interval between metastatic diagnosis (MDx) and performance of CGP based on histology and/or provider preference. We analyzed the CGP utilization patterns and its impact on outcomes at our academic medical center. Methods: All MST pts with CGP data (January 2012 - April 2020), their date of MDx, and the date of CGP were identified by electronic medical record review. Pts who had CGP after MDx were divided into tertiles (T1-earliest, T3-latest) within each cancer type, while some pts had CGP performed prior to MDx (pre-mets). Overall survival (OS) was estimated from the time of MDx with left truncation at the CGP time. Cox regression model was used to estimate the impact of ‘timing of CGP' on survival for individual cancer (CA) types. Results: Among 1,358 pts identified, 710 (52%) were female, 1,109 (82%) Caucasian, 186 (14%) Afro-Americans, and 1,320 (97%) non-Hispanic. Lung (254; 19%), colorectal (203; 15%), gynecologic (121; 8.9%), pancreatic (106; 7.8%) and connective tissue/soft tissue CAs (95; 7%) were the most frequently identified. Sex, race, and ethnicity had no impact on the time interval between MDx and CGP with 2 exceptions - Hispanics with lung CA and females with pancreas CA had delayed CGP compared to non-Hispanics and males respectively (p =0.019, p =0.025). The median time to CGP after MDx was shortest for urothelial CA (2.4 months) and longest for prostate CA (22 months). Pts with lung [T2 Hazard ratio (HR) of 2.25, p&lt;0.001; T3 HR of 2.67, p&lt;0.001], gastro-esophageal (T2 HR of 1.88, p=0.079; T3 HR of 2.49, p= 0.024), and gynecologic CAs (T2 HR of 2.58, p=0.012; T3 HR of 5.19, p=0.003) had better survival if they had CGP performed during the first tertile after MDx. Conclusion: Early CGP after MDx may have a greater impact on OS in CA types with more actionable therapeutic targets. The inherent bias associated with limiting the analyses only to pts who had CGP performed hampers our ability to contrast these results with those who did not have CGP performed. The establishment of national quality metrics for CGP utilization by CA type is imperative. Citation Format: Bicky Thapa, Gulrayz Ahmed, Matthew Lasowski, James P. Thomas, Honey V. Reddi, Michael T. Zimmerman, Raul Urrutia, Aniko Szabo, Ben George. Comprehensive genomic profiling - does timing matter [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 2243.

759 Background: PC is a lethal disease with limited treatment options. We utilized Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) to identify putative prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed PC patients (pts) at our institution who underwent CGP utilizing the Foundation One assay. CGP was performed on hybrid-capture, adaptor ligation-based libraries for up to 315 genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. PC pts were categorized by clinical stage – localized (resectable and borderline resectable PC; LPC), locally advanced (LAPC) and metastatic (mPC). Effect of gene alterations (GAs) with at least 10% prevalence were analyzed. The marginal effect of each gene on radiographic response and survival outcomes was estimated using proportional odds and multivariate Cox regression analysis, respectively, adjusting for stage. Results: Ninety-three pts were identified - median age was 63, 55% were male, and 50% were smokers. Clinical stage at diagnosis was LPC, LAPC and mPC in 42 (45%), 23 (25%) and 28 (30%) pts, respectively. The most commonly altered genes were KRAS (94%), TP53 (75%), CDKN2A (41.2%) and SMAD4 (32.9%). All patients were microsatellite stable and the median tumor mutational burden was 1.7. 5-FU (52%) or Gemcitabine (46%) based chemotherapy combinations were utilized as the first systemic therapy. Median overall survival for patients with LPC, LAPC and mPC were 30.7, 28.8 and 9.6 months respectively. Thirty-eight (91%) pts with LPC underwent curative intent surgery compared to 15 (65%) pts with LAPC (p = 0.019). Thirty-five (95%) pts with wild type (WT) CDKN2A and 47 (94%) pts with WT CDKN2B underwent curative intent surgery compared to 13 (65%) and 1(14%) pt(s) with GAs in CDKN2A and CDKN2B respectively (p = 0.003 and p < 0.0001 respectively). The response to chemotherapy was statistically significantly higher in pts with WT CDKN2A (53%) and CDKN2B (48%) compared to pts with GAs in CDKN2A (19%) and CDKN2B (12%) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: GAs in CDKN2A/B may have a predictive and possibly a prognostic impact. The clinical validity and biological relevance of these findings need to be further explored in larger studies.

No abstract