Evaluation of ctDNA in patients with mCRPC with liver metastases.

Authors

null

Minqi Huang

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

Organizations

Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Department of Internal Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, School of Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, Tulane Medical University, New Orleans, LA, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

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 %ORLower CIUpper CIp-value
AR35%57%2.381.254.520.01
BRAF7%17%2.741.057.180.05
BRCA23%13%5.331.4919.020.01
CDK64%15%4.091.3512.420.01
EGFR7%19%3.121.227.990.02
FGFR13%17%5.691.8117.860.003
MYC5%19%4.551.6312.680.004
PIK3CA8%28%4.341.8710.060.001

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 Details

Meeting

2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session A: Prostate Cancer

Track

Prostate Cancer - Advanced,Prostate Cancer - Localized

Sub Track

Translational Research, Tumor Biology, Biomarkers, and Pathology

Citation

J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 (suppl 4; abstr 212)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2024.42.4_suppl.212

Abstract #

212

Poster Bd #

J20

Abstract Disclosures