Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Imaging and outcome correlates of ctDNA methylation markers in prostate cancer: a comparative, cross-sectional [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT study

K. Kluge, V. Lotz, H. Einspieler, D. Haberl, C. Spielvogel, D. Amereller, G. Kramer, B. Grubmüller, S. Shariat, A. Haug, M. Hacker, L. Kenner, G. Egger

. 2025 ; 17 (1) : 36. [pub] 20250225

Language English Country Germany

Document type Journal Article, Comparative Study

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25009804

Grant support
CD10277102 Christian Doppler Forschungsgesellschaft
CD10277102 Christian Doppler Forschungsgesellschaft
P32771 Austrian Science Fund

BACKGROUND: To validate the clinical utility of a previously identified circulating tumor DNA methylation marker (meth-ctDNA) panel for disease detection and survival outcomes, meth-ctDNA markers were compared to PSA levels and PSMA PET/CT findings in men with different stages of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: 122 PCa patients who underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and plasma sampling (03/2019-08/2021) were analyzed. cfDNA was extracted, and a panel of 8 individual meth-ctDNA markers was queried. PET scans were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. PSA and meth-ctDNA markers were compared to PET findings, and their relative prognostic value was evaluated. RESULTS: PSA discriminated best between negative and tumor-indicative PET scans in all (AUC 0.77) and hormone-sensitive (hsPC) patients (0.737). In castration-resistant PCa (CRPC), the meth-ctDNA marker KLF8 performed best (AUC 0.824). CHST11 differentiated best between non- and metastatic scans (AUC 0.705) overall, KLF8 best in hsPC and CRPC (AUC 0.662, 0.85). Several meth-ctDNA markers correlated low to moderate with the tumor volume in all (5/8) and CRPC patients (6/8), while PSA levels correlated moderately to strongly with the tumor volume in all groups (all p < 0.001). CRPC overall survival was independently associated with LDAH and PSA (p = 0.0168, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The studied meth-ctDNA markers are promising for the minimally-invasive detection and prognostication of CRPC but do not allow for clinical characterization of hsPC. Prospective studies are warranted for their use in therapy response and outcome prediction in CRPC and potential incremental value for PCa monitoring in PSA-low settings.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25009804
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250429135350.0
007      
ta
008      
250415s2025 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s13148-025-01811-5 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)40001235
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Kluge, Kilian $u Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Christian Doppler Laboratory for Applied Metabolomics (CDLAM), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $1 https://orcid.org/0000000242247314
245    10
$a Imaging and outcome correlates of ctDNA methylation markers in prostate cancer: a comparative, cross-sectional [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT study / $c K. Kluge, V. Lotz, H. Einspieler, D. Haberl, C. Spielvogel, D. Amereller, G. Kramer, B. Grubmüller, S. Shariat, A. Haug, M. Hacker, L. Kenner, G. Egger
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: To validate the clinical utility of a previously identified circulating tumor DNA methylation marker (meth-ctDNA) panel for disease detection and survival outcomes, meth-ctDNA markers were compared to PSA levels and PSMA PET/CT findings in men with different stages of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: 122 PCa patients who underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and plasma sampling (03/2019-08/2021) were analyzed. cfDNA was extracted, and a panel of 8 individual meth-ctDNA markers was queried. PET scans were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. PSA and meth-ctDNA markers were compared to PET findings, and their relative prognostic value was evaluated. RESULTS: PSA discriminated best between negative and tumor-indicative PET scans in all (AUC 0.77) and hormone-sensitive (hsPC) patients (0.737). In castration-resistant PCa (CRPC), the meth-ctDNA marker KLF8 performed best (AUC 0.824). CHST11 differentiated best between non- and metastatic scans (AUC 0.705) overall, KLF8 best in hsPC and CRPC (AUC 0.662, 0.85). Several meth-ctDNA markers correlated low to moderate with the tumor volume in all (5/8) and CRPC patients (6/8), while PSA levels correlated moderately to strongly with the tumor volume in all groups (all p < 0.001). CRPC overall survival was independently associated with LDAH and PSA (p = 0.0168, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The studied meth-ctDNA markers are promising for the minimally-invasive detection and prognostication of CRPC but do not allow for clinical characterization of hsPC. Prospective studies are warranted for their use in therapy response and outcome prediction in CRPC and potential incremental value for PCa monitoring in PSA-low settings.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    12
$a PET/CT $x metody $7 D000072078
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    12
$a metylace DNA $x genetika $7 D019175
650    12
$a nádory prostaty $x genetika $x krev $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D011471
650    12
$a radioizotopy galia $7 D005710
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    12
$a nádorové biomarkery $x genetika $x krev $7 D014408
650    12
$a prostatický specifický antigen $x krev $x genetika $7 D017430
650    12
$a izotopy gallia $7 D005709
650    _2
$a průřezové studie $7 D003430
650    _2
$a cirkulující nádorová DNA $x genetika $x krev $7 D000074141
650    _2
$a prognóza $7 D011379
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a nádory prostaty rezistentní na kastraci $x genetika $x krev $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D064129
650    _2
$a EDTA $x analogy a deriváty $7 D004492
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
700    1_
$a Lotz, Vincent $u Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Einspieler, Holger $u Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Haberl, David $u Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Christian Doppler Laboratory for Applied Metabolomics (CDLAM), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Spielvogel, Clemens $u Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Amereller, Dominik $u Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Kramer, Gero $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Grubmüller, Bernhard $u Department of Urology and Andrology, University Hospital Krems, Krems, Austria $u Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA $u Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
700    1_
$a Haug, Alexander $u Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Christian Doppler Laboratory for Applied Metabolomics (CDLAM), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Hacker, Marcus $u Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Kenner, Lukas $u Christian Doppler Laboratory for Applied Metabolomics (CDLAM), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Clinical Institute of Pathology, Department for Experimental and Laboratory Animal Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Unit of Laboratory Animal Pathology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Molecular Biology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
700    1_
$a Egger, Gerda $u Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. gerda.egger@meduniwien.ac.at $u Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. gerda.egger@meduniwien.ac.at
773    0_
$w MED00186202 $t Clinical epigenetics $x 1868-7083 $g Roč. 17, č. 1 (2025), s. 36
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40001235 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250415 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250429135346 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2311284 $s 1246885
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2025 $b 17 $c 1 $d 36 $e 20250225 $i 1868-7083 $m Clinical epigenetics $n Clin Epigenetics $x MED00186202
GRA    __
$a CD10277102 $p Christian Doppler Forschungsgesellschaft
GRA    __
$a CD10277102 $p Christian Doppler Forschungsgesellschaft
GRA    __
$a P32771 $p Austrian Science Fund
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250415

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options