Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Minqi Huang , Georges Gebrael , Nicolas Sayegh , Crystal Casado , Nicholas Habibian , Opeoluwa Akerele , Kanika Gupta , Alexandra Lieberman , Jennifer Schwartz , Jodi Lyn Layton , Patrick L Sweeney , Brian E. Lewis , Neeraj Agarwal , A. Oliver Sartor , Elisa M. Ledet
Background: Patients with prostate cancer with liver metastases are known to have a worse prognosis. In this study, we evaluated ctDNA in mCRPC (metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer) patients with and without liver metastases. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified mCRPC patients with liver metastases at Tulane Cancer Center and Huntsman Cancer Institute. Liver metastases were confirmed via molecular or conventional imaging. All patients had ctDNA assessed with a multi-gene cancer panel via the Guardant 360 assay. Alterations with <0.1% allelic fraction, synonymous alterations, and variants of unknown significance were excluded from analyses. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s Exact and Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests. Correction for multiple testing was not performed, hence these alterations may be subject to a type 1 error. Results: 53 mCRPC patients with liver metastases and 144 mCRPC patients without liver metastases were included in the study. We found seven genes that are more likely to be pathologically altered in ctDNA in mCRPC patients with liver metastases (See Tables 1-3): AR (OR=2.38, 95% CI: [1.25, 4.52], p=0.01), BRAF (OR=2.74, 95% CI:[1.05, 7.18], p=0.05), BRCA2 (OR=5.33, 95% CI:[1.49, 19.02], p=0.01), CDK6 (OR=4.09, 95% CI:[1.35, 12.42], p=0.01), EGFR (OR=3.12, 95% CI:[1.22, 7.99], p=0.02), FGFR1 (OR=5.69, 95% CI:[1.81, 17.86], p-value=0.003), MYC (OR=4.55, 95% CI:[1.63, 12.68], p=0.004), and PIK3CA (OR=4.34, 95% CI:[1.87, 10.06], p=0.01). Additionally, mCRPC patients with liver metastases are more likely to have copy number alterations (CNA) (p= 0.01) compared to mCRPC patients without liver involvement. There were no other significant differences in the remaining 70 genes interrogated. Germline pathogenic alterations did not vary between the two groups. Conclusions: In mCRPC patients with liver metastases, these exploratory analyses suggest ctDNA testing is more likely to detect pathologic alterations in AR, BRAF, BRCA2, CDK6, EGFR, FGFR1, MYC, and PIK3CA. Additionally, mCRPC patients were more likely to have copy number alterations (CNA). Limitations of the Guardant 360 assays are notable in this setting given the incomplete ascertainment of gene deletions and the incomplete number of prostate-relevant genes assessed.
+CTRL% | +Liver % | OR | Lower CI | Upper CI | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AR | 35% | 57% | 2.38 | 1.25 | 4.52 | 0.01 |
BRAF | 7% | 17% | 2.74 | 1.05 | 7.18 | 0.05 |
BRCA2 | 3% | 13% | 5.33 | 1.49 | 19.02 | 0.01 |
CDK6 | 4% | 15% | 4.09 | 1.35 | 12.42 | 0.01 |
EGFR | 7% | 19% | 3.12 | 1.22 | 7.99 | 0.02 |
FGFR1 | 3% | 17% | 5.69 | 1.81 | 17.86 | 0.003 |
MYC | 5% | 19% | 4.55 | 1.63 | 12.68 | 0.004 |
PIK3CA | 8% | 28% | 4.34 | 1.87 | 10.06 | 0.001 |
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Cameron Herberts
2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Eli Tran
First Author: Arun Azad
2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Miguel Muniz