Predictive and prognostic value of baseline PSMA-PET total tumor volume and SUV mean within ENZA-p, a randomized phase II trial of enzalutamide versus enzalutamide plus [ <sup>177</sup> Lu] Lu-PSMA-617 (ANZUP1901).

5011 Background: [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET (PSMA-PET) standardized uptake value (SUV)mean and total tumor volume (PSMA-TTV) have been respectively identified as predictive and prognostic of response to [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) monotherapy. The addition of LuPSMA to enzalutamide (enza + LuPSMA) improved overall survival (OS) compared to enza-alone in mCRPC in the ENZA-p trial. This pre-specified sub-study of ENZA-p evaluated baseline PSMA-PET quantitative parameters as predictive and prognostic biomarkers for enza+ LuPSMA and enza-alone. Methods: ENZA-p is an open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial. Participants (pts) with mCRPC not previously treated with chemotherapy or AR antagonist (abiraterone permitted) and [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-avid disease were randomized (1:1) to either enza-alone or enza + LuPSMA using adaptive-dosed [ 177 ]Lu LuPSMA-617 7.5 GBq for (2 or 4 doses). All pts had a baseline [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT to assess eligibility (SUVmax &gt;14 at a single site and SUVmax &gt;10 at all larger tumor sites). PSMA-PET were quantified with semi-automated software to derive PSMA-TTV and SUVmean. The pre-specified tertiary study objective was to evaluate associations between quantitative parameters on the baseline PSMA-PET and both PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and OS. Prespecified cut-points were based on SUVmean highest quartile (Q4 vs Q1-3) and PSMA-TTV median at baseline. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models. Results: This sub-study included the 160 of 162 randomized pts who received study treatment. Median follow-up was 34 months with 96 OS events. Baseline PSMA-PET SUVmean Q4 was 9.8 and median PSMA-TTV was 234 mL. Median OS for PSMA-TTV above or below the median for enza-alone were 20 vs 39 months respectively (p&lt;0.001). The corresponding median OS for enza + LuPSMA were 28 vs 35 months (p=0.18). The test for interaction between PSMA-TTV and treatment arm for OS was p=0.008. Median OS for SUVmean Q4 vs Q1-3 for enza alone were 29 vs 25 months (p=0.59). For enza + LuPSMA median OS for SUVmean Q4 vs Q1-3 were 32 vs 34 months (p=0.56). The test for interaction between SUVmean (Q4 vs Q1-3) and treatment for OS was p=0.88. Results for PSA-PFS are also tabulated below. Conclusions: Baseline PSMA-TTV was prognostic of shorter OS with enza-alone, but not with the addition of LuPSMA-617. In contrast to LuPSMA-617 monotherapy, PSMA SUVmean was neither predictive nor prognostic of improved OS, nor of PSA-PFS when LuPSMA-617 was given together with enza as first line treatment for mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT04419402 . Treatment Arm SUVmean Q4 SUVmean Q1-3 P Interaction PSMATTV&gt;234mls PSMATTV&lt;234mls p Interaction Enza-alone OS 29mo 25mo 0.59 0.88 20mo 39mo 0.001 0.008 Enza+LuPSMA OS 32mo 34mo 0.56 28mo 35mo 0.18 Enza-alone PSA-PFS 7.8mo 5mo 0.55 0.17 3mo 11mo 0.001 0.017 Enza+LuPSMA PSA-PFS 15mo 13mo 0.22 11mo 15mo 0.11

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.16_suppl.5011
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.08

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Predictive and prognostic value of baseline PSMA-PET total tumor volume and SUV mean within ENZA-p, a randomized phase II trial of enzalutamide versus enzalutamide plus [ 177 Lu] Lu-PSMA-617 (ANZUP1901).

Ian Kirkwood, Roslyn J. Francis, Andrew Martin, David A. Pattison et al.
3 citations
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
4.08
article

Predictive and prognostic value of baseline PSMA-PET total tumor volume and SUV mean within ENZA-p, a randomized phase II trial of enzalutamide versus enzalutamide plus [ 177 Lu] Lu-PSMA-617 (ANZUP1901).

Ian Kirkwood, Roslyn J. Francis, Andrew Martin, David A. Pattison, Andrew Weickhardt, Louise Emmett, Martin R. Stockler, Michael S. Hofman, Shahneen Kaur Sandhu, Ian D. Davis, Shalini Subramaniam, Hayley Thomas, Nathan Papa, Megan Crumbaker, Anthony M. Joshua, Andrew Nguyen, Jeffrey C. Goh, Thean Hsiang Tan, Sze Ting Lee, Siobhan Ng
article en
3 citations

Abstract

5011 Background: [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET (PSMA-PET) standardized uptake value (SUV)mean and total tumor volume (PSMA-TTV) have been respectively identified as predictive and prognostic of response to [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) monotherapy. The addition of LuPSMA to enzalutamide (enza + LuPSMA) improved overall survival (OS) compared to enza-alone in mCRPC in the ENZA-p trial. This pre-specified sub-study of ENZA-p evaluated baseline PSMA-PET quantitative parameters as predictive and prognostic biomarkers for enza+ LuPSMA and enza-alone. Methods: ENZA-p is an open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial. Participants (pts) with mCRPC not previously treated with chemotherapy or AR antagonist (abiraterone permitted) and [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-avid disease were randomized (1:1) to either enza-alone or enza + LuPSMA using adaptive-dosed [ 177 ]Lu LuPSMA-617 7.5 GBq for (2 or 4 doses). All pts had a baseline [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT to assess eligibility (SUVmax &gt;14 at a single site and SUVmax &gt;10 at all larger tumor sites). PSMA-PET were quantified with semi-automated software to derive PSMA-TTV and SUVmean. The pre-specified tertiary study objective was to evaluate associations between quantitative parameters on the baseline PSMA-PET and both PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and OS. Prespecified cut-points were based on SUVmean highest quartile (Q4 vs Q1-3) and PSMA-TTV median at baseline. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models. Results: This sub-study included the 160 of 162 randomized pts who received study treatment. Median follow-up was 34 months with 96 OS events. Baseline PSMA-PET SUVmean Q4 was 9.8 and median PSMA-TTV was 234 mL. Median OS for PSMA-TTV above or below the median for enza-alone were 20 vs 39 months respectively (p&lt;0.001). The corresponding median OS for enza + LuPSMA were 28 vs 35 months (p=0.18). The test for interaction between PSMA-TTV and treatment arm for OS was p=0.008. Median OS for SUVmean Q4 vs Q1-3 for enza alone were 29 vs 25 months (p=0.59). For enza + LuPSMA median OS for SUVmean Q4 vs Q1-3 were 32 vs 34 months (p=0.56). The test for interaction between SUVmean (Q4 vs Q1-3) and treatment for OS was p=0.88. Results for PSA-PFS are also tabulated below. Conclusions: Baseline PSMA-TTV was prognostic of shorter OS with enza-alone, but not with the addition of LuPSMA-617. In contrast to LuPSMA-617 monotherapy, PSMA SUVmean was neither predictive nor prognostic of improved OS, nor of PSA-PFS when LuPSMA-617 was given together with enza as first line treatment for mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT04419402 . Treatment Arm SUVmean Q4 SUVmean Q1-3 P Interaction PSMATTV&gt;234mls PSMATTV&lt;234mls p Interaction Enza-alone OS 29mo 25mo 0.59 0.88 20mo 39mo 0.001 0.008 Enza+LuPSMA OS 32mo 34mo 0.56 28mo 35mo 0.18 Enza-alone PSA-PFS 7.8mo 5mo 0.55 0.17 3mo 11mo 0.001 0.017 Enza+LuPSMA PSA-PFS 15mo 13mo 0.22 11mo 15mo 0.11

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(16_suppl)
The University of Sydney (AU), Royal Adelaide Hospital (AU), Garvan Institute of Medical Research (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), The University of Western Australia (AU), Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (AU), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU), Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital (AU), UNSW Sydney (AU), St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU), St Vincent's Hospital Sydney (AU), Eastern Health (AU), The Kinghorn Cancer Centre (AU), Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness & Research Centre (AU), Austin Health (AU), National Health and Medical Research Council (AU), Monash University (AU)
Cancer Australia
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
4.08
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.