In-field progression following radiation therapy as a prognostic biomarker for lutetium-177-PSMA-617 response in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Abstract
86 Background: Prostate cancer often expresses prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), which serves as a diagnostic and therapeutic target. Lutetium-177 ( 177 Lu)-PSMA-617 is a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing sites. The prognostic implications of in-field progression (IFP) following prior radiation treatment (RT) on 177 Lu-PSMA-617 response in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are unknown. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our experience with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in mCRPC delivered at multiple community-based practices in the Mountain West. Exclusion criteria included death unrelated to prostate cancer before cycle 3 of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 and completing < 4 cycles by June 1 st , 2024. Baseline characteristics and treatment history were collected. Baseline PSMA PET/CTs were evaluated for maximum SUV, visceral metastases, and lesional heterogeneity (LH) and correlated with radiation records to determine IFP. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using Kaplan-Meier and Logrank analysis, and Cox proportional hazard model was used for univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) analysis of suspected risk factors. Results: In total, 72 patients were evaluated with a median follow-up of 10.9 months. Median PFS was 6.5 months (95%CI [4.4 – 9.3]), and median OS was 15.0 months (95%CI [10.9 – undefined]). Fifty-nine patients received either palliative or definitive RT courses for prostate cancer prior to receiving 177 Lu-PSMA-617. Of the 59 patients, 25 patients demonstrated IFP, 34 did not. In-field progression (UV: HR 2.5, p=.003; MV: HR 2.7, p=.003) and LH (UV: HR 1.9, p=.025; MV: 2.1, p=.036) were found to be risk factors for progression during 177 Lu-PSMA-617 therapy. Median PFS among patients with IFP was 3.9 mo (95%CI [2.6 – 6.3]) versus 10.3 mo (95%CI [4.4 – 13.0]) among those without (p=.002). Median PFS among patients with LH was 4.6 mo (95%CI [2.9 – 6.5]) versus 11.6 mo (95%CI [6.9 – 13.0]) for those without (p=.023). IFP (UV: HR 2.5, p=.016; MV: 2.7, p=.021; median OS = 10.2 mo, 95%CI [6.2 – 12.8]) and LH (UV: HR 2.45, p=.027; MV: HR 4.17, p=.018; median OS = 11.7 mo, 95%CI [9.3 – 15.0]) were similarly prognostic for OS. At the current follow-up, median OS has not been reached for patients without IFP or LH, but Logrank testing shows statistically significant improvements in OS for these groups (p=.013 and p=.022, respectively) over those with them. Conclusions: In our real-world experience, PFS and OS for 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in mCRPC were similar to the VISION study results. IFP following RT and LH on baseline PSMA PET/CT were negative prognostic biomarkers. Validation in a larger, prospective cohort is warranted.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (8)
Jackson Neal Howell
Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
Jacob Wilkes
1Intermountain Health, Blood and Marrow Transplant, Salt Lake City, United States
Nichole M Maughan
Intermountain Health, Murray, UT
Kathryn Morton
Department of Radiology, Intermountain Health, Murray, UT
Eric Hu
David Michael Gill
Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, UT
Scott James Samuelson
Utah Cancer Specialists, Farmington, UT
Dustin Boothe
Department of Radiation Oncology, Intermountain Health, Murray, UT