Association of baseline and on-treatment ctDNA fraction with clinical outcomes in patients with mCRPC in the PSMAfore study of <sup>177</sup> Lu-PSMA-617.

J Johann S. de Bono M Michael J. Morris (Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) A Alton Oliver Sartor (LCMC Health, New Orleans, LA) X Xiao X. Wei (Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA) K Karim Fizazi (Centre Oscar Lambret, University of Paris-Saclay, Lille, France) K Ken Herrmann J Josep M. Piulats H Hakim Mahammedi (Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand, France) C Christopher Logothetis (The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX) D Daniel J. George (Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC) C Connie Wong (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Cambridge, MA) L Louise Barys (Novartis Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland) N Nisha Rajagopal (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Cambridge, MA) S Shaheen Alanee (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Detroit, MI) K Kim N. Chi

Abstract

16 Background: In PSMAfore (NCT04689828), [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) prolonged rPFS versus androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) change in taxane-naive adults with PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing once on an ARPI. Baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) fraction was associated with rPFS at the second interim analysis (IA) of OS (ASCO 24). Here, we assessed the association of baseline and cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1) ctDNA fraction, and early ctDNA and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) dynamics, with rPFS and OS at the third IA of OS. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq Q6W; x6) or ARPI change. Endpoints included rPFS (primary) and OS (key secondary). Plasma ctDNA fraction was analyzed at baseline and at C2D1 using an in-house custom panel. Cox regression (adjusted for 3 risk classes based on clustering of 17 baseline clinical features) and random forest (adjusted for 15 baseline clinical features) modeling were used to assess the association of ctDNA fraction and PSA with clinical outcomes at the Feb-27-2024 data cutoff. Results: Patients with plasma samples at baseline and C2D1 were included ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617, n/N = 82/234; ARPI change, n/N = 91/234). Cox regression models adjusted for clinical features in the 177 Lu-PSMA-617 arm showed that higher ctDNA fraction was associated with shorter rPFS and OS (Table). These associations were stronger for C2D1 than baseline, both when comparing individual models and within a model including both timepoints (Table). In random forest models including clinical features and C2D1 ctDNA fraction, the total area under curves were not improved by addition of baseline ctDNA fraction (rPFS, 0.87; OS, 0.86). In the overall population, fractional decreases from baseline to C2D1 in ctDNA ( p = 0.0015) and PSA ( p &lt; 0.0001) were strongly associated with longer rPFS, and were weakly correlated with one another (correlation coefficient, 0.26). In the 177 Lu-PSMA-617 arm, fractional decrease in ctDNA ( p = 0.002) was more strongly correlated with OS than was decrease in PSA ( p = 0.12). Conclusions: This exploratory analysis suggested that C2D1 ctDNA fraction was more strongly associated than baseline ctDNA fraction with rPFS and OS. Early ctDNA fraction dynamics contributed additional information in the prediction of rPFS and OS beyond PSA dynamics alone. Clinical trial information: NCT04689828 . Cox regression models. a rPFS OS Baseline model, HR (95% CI); p 6.0 (1.6–23.0); 0.0095 12.0 (3.0–48.7); 0.00052 C-index ± SE 0.69 ± 0.04 0.75 ± 0.04 C2D1 model, HR (95% CI); p 47.7 (10.1–226.0); &lt; 0.0001 82.7 (16.4–417.0); &lt; 0.0001 C-index ± SE 0.72 ± 0.03 0.77 ± 0.03 Baseline + C2D1 model Baseline, HR (95% CI); p 3.1 (0.7–14.0); 0.14 2.1 (0.4–12.7); 0.41 C2D1, HR (95% CI); p 35.9 (7.2–180.0); &lt; 0.0001 52.5 (7.6–362.0); &lt; 0.0001 C-index ± SE 0.72 ± 0.03 0.79 ± 0.03 a HRs correspond to 1 unit change in ctDNA fraction.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 16-16
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (15)

J

Johann S. de Bono

M

Michael J. Morris

Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

A

Alton Oliver Sartor

LCMC Health, New Orleans, LA

X

Xiao X. Wei

Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA

K

Karim Fizazi

Centre Oscar Lambret, University of Paris-Saclay, Lille, France

K

Ken Herrmann

J

Josep M. Piulats

H

Hakim Mahammedi

Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand, France

C

Christopher Logothetis

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

D

Daniel J. George

Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC

C

Connie Wong

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Cambridge, MA

L

Louise Barys

Novartis Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland

N

Nisha Rajagopal

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Cambridge, MA

S

Shaheen Alanee

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Detroit, MI

K

Kim N. Chi