MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

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.

2025· article· en· W4407701126 on OpenAlexaff
Johann S. de Bono, Michael J. Morris, Alton Oliver Sartor, Xiao X. Wei, Karim Fizazi, Ken Herrmann, Josep M. Piulats, Hakim Mahammedi, Christopher J. Logothetis, Daniel J. George, Connie Wong, Louise Barys, Nisha Rajagopal, Shaheen Alanee, Kim N.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 < 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); < 0.0001 82.7 (16.4–417.0); < 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); < 0.0001 52.5 (7.6–362.0); < 0.0001 C-index ± SE 0.72 ± 0.03 0.79 ± 0.03 a HRs correspond to 1 unit change in ctDNA fraction.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.408 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→