Evaluation of ctDNA alterations in lethal mCRPC.

245 Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be used as a prognostic biomarker in mCRPC patients, with changes in ctDNA providing insight into patient survival. In this study, we evaluate the ctDNA landscape of patients with mCRPC prior to their death. Methods: A retrospective clinical data review, 2015-2024, was conducted at Tulane Cancer Center to identify mCRPC patients who underwent ctDNA testing prior to death. All ctDNA data were obtained through a multi-gene cancer panel via the Guardant 360 assay (70-83 genes). Lethal mCRPC was defined as patients who underwent ctDNA testing ≤3 months prior to death. A matched control group (CTRL) was defined as mCRPC patients with ctDNA collection ≥2 years prior to death or most recent follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed using Pearson Chi-Square Test or Fisher Exact Test whenever appropriate. Furthermore, survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: There were 70 patients in lethal mCRPC group and 157 patients in CTRL group. Compared to the CTRL group, in lethal mCRPC, somatic mutations and/or amplifications in BRAF(OR=2.1549, 95% C.I. [1.1136,4.1523], p=0.0298), CCND2 (OR=3.7925, 95% C.I.[1.1937,13.3380], p=0.03326), MYC (OR=2.6332, 95%C.I. [1.4158, 4.9120], p=0.0029), PDGFRA (OR=2.5235, 95% C.I. [1.1438, 5.5793], p=0.0291), and PIK3CA (OR=2.0328, 95% C.I. [1.1098, 3.7166], p=0.02846) were significantly more frequent. Additionally, lethal mCRPC patients were more likely to have missense (OR=4.3194, 95% C.I. [1.443456,19.3338], p=0.01687) and nonsense (OR=1.9364, 95% C.I. [1.06091,3.5250], p=0.04112) mutations at the end-of-life. Patients with a higher allelic fraction (≥0.6%) of TP53 alterations had a shorter median survival (p-value= 0.034). Conclusions: ctDNA mutations and/or amplifications in BRAF, CCND2, MYC, PDGFRA, and PIK3CA were more frequently detected in lethal mCRPC compared to matched CTRLs. Additionally, mCRPC patients with a lethal phenotype were more likely to have missense and nonsense mutations compared to the CTRL group. CtDNA assessment of copy number alterations was limited to amplifications only; additionally, with this assay, distinguishing between gene level and large scale chromosomal amplification is not assessable. Though this study is limited to a single-institution with retrospective analyses of clinical testing, understanding the somatic landscape of lethal mCRPC is critical for development of new biomarkers, strategies and ultimately druggable targets.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.245
Primary Topic
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of ctDNA alterations in lethal mCRPC.

Jennifer Schwartz, Olivia Pocha, Alexandra Lieberman, Elisa M. Ledet et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
article

Evaluation of ctDNA alterations in lethal mCRPC.

Jennifer Schwartz, Olivia Pocha, Alexandra Lieberman, Elisa M. Ledet, Jodi Lyn Layton, Tivoli Nguyen, Nicholas Habibian, Priya Bhandari, Alton Oliver Sartor, Brian Lewis, Minqi Huang, Courtney R. Johnson, Akerele Opeoluwa
article en

Abstract

245 Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be used as a prognostic biomarker in mCRPC patients, with changes in ctDNA providing insight into patient survival. In this study, we evaluate the ctDNA landscape of patients with mCRPC prior to their death. Methods: A retrospective clinical data review, 2015-2024, was conducted at Tulane Cancer Center to identify mCRPC patients who underwent ctDNA testing prior to death. All ctDNA data were obtained through a multi-gene cancer panel via the Guardant 360 assay (70-83 genes). Lethal mCRPC was defined as patients who underwent ctDNA testing ≤3 months prior to death. A matched control group (CTRL) was defined as mCRPC patients with ctDNA collection ≥2 years prior to death or most recent follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed using Pearson Chi-Square Test or Fisher Exact Test whenever appropriate. Furthermore, survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: There were 70 patients in lethal mCRPC group and 157 patients in CTRL group. Compared to the CTRL group, in lethal mCRPC, somatic mutations and/or amplifications in BRAF(OR=2.1549, 95% C.I. [1.1136,4.1523], p=0.0298), CCND2 (OR=3.7925, 95% C.I.[1.1937,13.3380], p=0.03326), MYC (OR=2.6332, 95%C.I. [1.4158, 4.9120], p=0.0029), PDGFRA (OR=2.5235, 95% C.I. [1.1438, 5.5793], p=0.0291), and PIK3CA (OR=2.0328, 95% C.I. [1.1098, 3.7166], p=0.02846) were significantly more frequent. Additionally, lethal mCRPC patients were more likely to have missense (OR=4.3194, 95% C.I. [1.443456,19.3338], p=0.01687) and nonsense (OR=1.9364, 95% C.I. [1.06091,3.5250], p=0.04112) mutations at the end-of-life. Patients with a higher allelic fraction (≥0.6%) of TP53 alterations had a shorter median survival (p-value= 0.034). Conclusions: ctDNA mutations and/or amplifications in BRAF, CCND2, MYC, PDGFRA, and PIK3CA were more frequently detected in lethal mCRPC compared to matched CTRLs. Additionally, mCRPC patients with a lethal phenotype were more likely to have missense and nonsense mutations compared to the CTRL group. CtDNA assessment of copy number alterations was limited to amplifications only; additionally, with this assay, distinguishing between gene level and large scale chromosomal amplification is not assessable. Though this study is limited to a single-institution with retrospective analyses of clinical testing, understanding the somatic landscape of lethal mCRPC is critical for development of new biomarkers, strategies and ultimately druggable targets.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(5_suppl)
Tulane University (US), Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.