Abstract
249 Background: Serum CGA has been identified as a candidate prognostic biomarker for mCRPC. In a two cohort study, we compared the prognostic value of serum CGA with a validated CTC assay. Methods: In the discovery cohort (DC), blood samples were collected from 256 men with mCRPC. In an independent validation cohort (VC), 92 men with mCRPC were enrolled in a biospecimen collection study. In both cohorts, men receiving proton pump inhibitors and those with non-castrate levels of testosterone ( > 50ng/dl) were excluded. Serum CGA was measured in a homogeneous automated immunofluorescent assay using time-resolved amplified cryptate emission. In the VC, CTC enumeration was performed using the FDA cleared CELLSEARCH CTC test prior to treatment with abiraterone acetate/ prednisone. Cox proportional hazard regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed for associations with elevated CGA (above reference range), unfavorable (≥ 5) CTCs, and overall survival (OS). Results: In the DC, 200 men were eligible for analysis. The median age was 72 years (yrs), 81/200 pts had a Gleason score (GS) ≥ 8, 34/200 had an elevated CGA. At a median follow up of 2.2 yrs, 156/200 were deceased. In the subset of men with GS ≥ 8, elevated CGA was associated with shorter OS [hazard ratio (HR) 2.19, p = 0.017]. In the VC, 71 men were eligible for analysis. The median age was 71 yrs, 36/71 tumors were GS ≥ 8, 31/71 pts had an elevated CGA, 26/66 had unfavorable CTCs (≥ 5). At a median follow up of 1.8 yrs, 31/71 were deceased. Elevated CGA (HR 1.91, p = 0.043) and unfavorable CTC counts (HR 2.97, p = 0.0012) were adversely associated with OS. In the high GS group, both CTCs and CGA had the same area under the curve (AUC) of 0.72. Pts with elevated CTC and CGA had the poorest OS (HR 3.76, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Elevated serum CGA was negatively associated with OS in men with mCRPC. Serum CGA represents a prognostic biomarker that may complement CTC enumeration. Clinical trial information: NCT#01953640.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
More From: Journal of Clinical Oncology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.