MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Baseline ctDNA analyses and associations with outcomes in taxane-naive patients with mCRPC treated with <sup>177</sup>Lu-PSMA-617 versus change of ARPI in PSMAfore.

2024· article· en· W4399394886 on OpenAlexaff
Johann S. de Bono, Michael J. Morris, Oliver Sartor, Xiao X. Wei, Karim Fizazi, Ken Herrmann, Josep M. Piulats, Hakim Mahammedi, Christopher J. Logothetis, Daniel J. George, Lamis Eldjerou, Connie Wong, Louise Barys, Nisha Rajagopal, Theodoulos Rodosthenous, Kim N.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxaneMedicineOncologyInternal medicineBaseline (sea)CancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5008 Background: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617) prolonged radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) versus androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) change in taxane-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in PSMAfore (NCT04689828). In this exploratory analysis, associations between baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and outcomes were assessed. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq Q6W; 6 cycles) or ARPI change (abiraterone/enzalutamide). Patients known to have actionable mutations (e.g. BRCA) were excluded. The primary endpoint was rPFS. Baseline plasma ctDNA was analyzed using a customized 585-gene sequencing assay. ctDNA fraction was assessed in all samples passing quality control. Alterations in key prostate cancer drivers (prevalent in >10% participants) were assessed in samples with ctDNA fraction >1%. Univariate Cox regression (reference: ARPI change) was used to assess association of ctDNA fraction or alterations with rPFS, prostate-specific antigen response (≥50% decline; PSA50) and RECIST response (RR) at the June 21, 2023 data cutoff. Results: Of 360 samples from 468 patients, 255 passed quality control and 156 had ctDNA fraction >1% (median 5.85%; range 0–85). Detection of ctDNA alterations was comparable between arms and with published data. Median rPFS was shorter for patients with ctDNA fraction > versus ≤1% (HR 2.753; 95% CI 1.957–3.872; p<0.0001) (Table); ctDNA fraction >1% was also associated with worse RR and PSA50 response. Median rPFS was shorter for patients with detected versus undetected AR(HR 1.954; 95% CI 1.333–2.865; p<0.001), TP53(1.655; 1.13–2.426; p<0.01) and PTEN(1.62; 1.018–2.578; p<0.05) alterations. Median rPFS was longer with 177Lu-PSMA-617 versus ARPI change in patients with detected AR, TP53, PTEN(Table) , PI3K pathway and DNA repair pathway alterations. There was no significant association between ctDNA alterations and PSA50 or RR. Conclusions: ctDNA fraction >1% and AR, TP53and PTENalterations were associated with worse outcomes in PSMAfore regardless of treatment. Nonetheless, patients with these negative prognostic biomarkers did better with 177Lu-PSMA-617 than with ARPI change. Clinical trial information: NCT04689828 . [Table: see text]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.247
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207