The prognostic significance of circulating tumor DNA in patients with positive lymph node disease after robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: A contemporary analysis.

Circulating tumor DNA Nonmuscle invasive bladder neoplasms Tumor biomarkers Urinary bladder neoplasms

Journal

Urologic oncology
ISSN: 1873-2496
Titre abrégé: Urol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9805460

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 03 06 2024
revised: 30 07 2024
accepted: 12 08 2024
medline: 15 9 2024
pubmed: 15 9 2024
entrez: 14 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical cystectomy with lymphadenectomy remains the gold standard of treatment in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Pathologically positive lymph node (pN+) disease is known to convey a poor prognosis. Tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a possible novel prognostic biomarker in the field. We seek to assess recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (ePLND) and to assess whether ctDNA status can be a prognostic marker for RFS outcomes in patients with pN+ disease. Patients who underwent RARC + ePLND during 2015 to 2023 were included. A sub-group analysis (n = 109) of patients who had prospectively collected serial-longitudinal tumor-informed ctDNA analyses during 2021-2023 was performed. Survival analysis and Cox-regression models were conducted. Included were 458 patients with a median age of 69 (IQR 63-76), and a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR 10-37). RFS for pN0 (n = 353) and pN+ (n = 105) at 12, 24 and 36 months were 87% vs. 54%, 80% vs. 39%, and 74% vs. 35%, respectively (log-rank, P < 0.0001). On Cox multivariate analysis ≥pT3 disease (Hazzard ratio [HR] = 3.36 [2.18-5.18], P < 0.001), pN+ disease (HR = 2.39 [1.55-3.7], P < 0.001), and recipients of neoadjuvant treatment (HR = 1.61 [1.11-2.34], P = 0.013) were predictive of disease relapse. Patients with pN+ disease and undetectable precystectomy or postcystectomy ctDNA status had similar RFS to patients with pN0 with undetectable ctDNA. On Cox-regression multivariate sub-group analysis, detectable precystectomy ctDNA status (HR = 3.89 [1.32-11.4], P = 0.014), detectable ctDNA status in the minimal residual disease window ([MRD], HR = 2.89 [1.12-7.47], P = 0.028), and having ≥pT3 with pN+ disease (HR = 4.2 [1.43-12.3], P = 0.009) were predictive of disease relapse. Patients with pN+ .after RARC had worse oncological outcomes than patients with pN0 disease. Undetectable ctDNA status was informative of RFS regardless of nodal status at both the precystectomy and the MRD window. Patients with undetectable ctDNA status and pN+ disease may benefit from treatment de-escalation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical cystectomy with lymphadenectomy remains the gold standard of treatment in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Pathologically positive lymph node (pN+) disease is known to convey a poor prognosis. Tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a possible novel prognostic biomarker in the field. We seek to assess recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (ePLND) and to assess whether ctDNA status can be a prognostic marker for RFS outcomes in patients with pN+ disease.
METHODS METHODS
Patients who underwent RARC + ePLND during 2015 to 2023 were included. A sub-group analysis (n = 109) of patients who had prospectively collected serial-longitudinal tumor-informed ctDNA analyses during 2021-2023 was performed. Survival analysis and Cox-regression models were conducted.
RESULTS RESULTS
Included were 458 patients with a median age of 69 (IQR 63-76), and a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR 10-37). RFS for pN0 (n = 353) and pN+ (n = 105) at 12, 24 and 36 months were 87% vs. 54%, 80% vs. 39%, and 74% vs. 35%, respectively (log-rank, P < 0.0001). On Cox multivariate analysis ≥pT3 disease (Hazzard ratio [HR] = 3.36 [2.18-5.18], P < 0.001), pN+ disease (HR = 2.39 [1.55-3.7], P < 0.001), and recipients of neoadjuvant treatment (HR = 1.61 [1.11-2.34], P = 0.013) were predictive of disease relapse. Patients with pN+ disease and undetectable precystectomy or postcystectomy ctDNA status had similar RFS to patients with pN0 with undetectable ctDNA. On Cox-regression multivariate sub-group analysis, detectable precystectomy ctDNA status (HR = 3.89 [1.32-11.4], P = 0.014), detectable ctDNA status in the minimal residual disease window ([MRD], HR = 2.89 [1.12-7.47], P = 0.028), and having ≥pT3 with pN+ disease (HR = 4.2 [1.43-12.3], P = 0.009) were predictive of disease relapse.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Patients with pN+ .after RARC had worse oncological outcomes than patients with pN0 disease. Undetectable ctDNA status was informative of RFS regardless of nodal status at both the precystectomy and the MRD window. Patients with undetectable ctDNA status and pN+ disease may benefit from treatment de-escalation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39277526
pii: S1078-1439(24)00576-3
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.08.006
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Reuben Ben-David (R)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY. Electronic address: reuben.bendavid@mountsinai.org.

Sarah Lidagoster (S)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Jack Geduldig (J)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Kaushik P Kolanukuduru (KP)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Yuval Elkun (Y)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Neeraja Tillu (N)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Shivaram Cumarasamy (S)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Jordan M Rich (JM)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Mohammed Almoflihi (M)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Kyrollis Attalla (K)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Reza Mehrazin (R)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Peter Wiklund (P)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

John P Sfakianos (JP)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.

Classifications MeSH