PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 4, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology0 citations

Prevalence of treatment-acquired homozygous losses (homozygous deletions) of PTEN from androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) in metastatic prostate cancer.

View Full Paper
MBMarijo BilušićRBR. BoseJVJoseph Vento

Key Points

  • The research aimed to assess the prevalence of PTEN homozygous losses in metastatic prostate cancer and how these losses relate to treatment with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors.
  • Utilized the Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine clinico-genomic database for analysis.
  • Included 1990 specimens from 1984 unique patients with genomic testing.
  • Compared prevalence of PTEN loss before and after androgen receptor pathway inhibitor treatments.
  • Adjusted analyses for ECOG performance score, age, baseline PSA, and socioeconomic status.
  • PTEN loss prevalence varied significantly: 17.1% in treatment-naïve, 24.8% in ADT-exposed, and 33.5% in ARPI-exposed patients (p < 0.001).
  • Observed less favorable treatment outcomes in patients with PTEN loss, including higher risks for time to next treatment (HR: 1.81) and overall survival (HR: 1.65).
  • Only 2.8% of patients had both PTEN loss and HRR gene alteration in the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer setting.

Abstract

27 Background: Validated homozygous loss detection is becoming increasingly important in clinical practice, with prostate NCCN guideline inclusion of BRCA1/2 loss (often portending durable PARP inhibitor benefit) and multi-tumor trials of PRMT5 and MAT2A inhibitors ongoing (biomarker: MTAP loss). Homozygous losses are challenging to detect and require intentional NGS assay design and validations. Using an FDA-approved NGS assay, we evaluated the most frequent losses identified in metastatic prostate cancer, evaluated prognostic associations on ARPI, and prevalence before and after ARPI treatments. Methods: This study used the nationwide (US-based) de-identified Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine Prostate Cancer clinico-genomic database (FH-FMI CGDB), originating from approximately 280 US cancer clinics (~800 sites of care). Patients with metastatic prostate cancer and tissue tumor genomic testing by FoundationOne CDx were eligible for analysis. Alteration prevalence was compared between non-sequential groups of specimens obtained from patients naïve to ADT and ARPI, naïve to ARPI but not ADT, or exposed to any ARPI. Outcome analyses adjusted for: ECOG performance score, age, baseline PSA, and socioeconomic status. To limit immortal time confounding, outcome analyses were restricted to patients with specimens tested prior to initiation of ARPI. Results: 1990 specimens from 1984 unique patients met criteria for assessment. The most common losses and respective ADT & ARPI naïve vs ADT exposed & ARPI-naïve vs ARPI-exposed prevalence were PTEN (17.1% vs 24.8% vs. 33.5%, p < 0.001), FAS (2.4% vs 5.0% vs 5.8%, p = 0.003), BRCA2 (4.2% vs 3.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.36), RB1 (1.6% vs 3.0% vs 3.5%, p = 0.062), and TP53 (2.3% vs 2.3% vs 4.4%, p = 0.064). 227 patients had tissue specimens obtained and NGS results reported prior to initiation of ARPI. Sufficient patients with PTEN loss were present for nominal outcome associations, observing less favorable time to next treatment (HR: 1.81, 95%CI: 1.24 – 2.65, p = 0.002) and overall survival (HR: 1.65, 95%CI: 1.02 – 2.65, p = 0.040) from the initiation of ARPI. In the mHSPC (ADT and ARPI naïve) setting, 17.1% had PTEN loss, 32.8% had an HRR gene alteration, and 2.8% had both. Conclusions: Our results are consistent with homozygous losses of certain genes, notably PTEN , potentially being acquired resistance alterations to ARPI. Prostate cancer trials often do not specify timing of specimen acquisition relative to treatment initiation. For trials like IPATential-150 or CAPItello-280 that evaluate AKT inhibitors in post-ARPI setting, patients with PTEN status determined by archival tissue could be false negatives and reduce power of analysis in biomarker(+) group. Our results underscore the importance of clinical context, especially prior treatment exposures, when interpreting biomarker prevalence.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bilušić et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a7ccf7d48f933b5eed8ed0https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.7_suppl.27
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper