PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 29, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology0 citations

PROTRACT: A randomized phase II trial comparing ctDNA-guided biomarker directed therapy vs patient/clinician’s choice for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after abiraterone plus prednisone (AAP).

View Full Paper
CMCorinne Maurice-DrorKPKaran ParekhSFSimon Fu

Key Points

  • To assess whether ctDNA%-guided selection of treatment improves outcomes in mCRPC progressing after abiraterone.
  • Randomized phase II trial with 42 mCRPC patients assigned 1:1 to biomarker-directed therapy or clinician’s choice.
  • Baseline ctDNA% assessed using somatic mutations and genome-wide ploidy models.
  • Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed with Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests.
  • Arm A (biomarker-directed therapy) showed median PFS of 5.6 months vs 2.5 months in Arm B (p=0.01).
  • PSA50 response rates were 52.9% for Arm A and 28.0% for Arm B (p=0.12).
  • Overall survival was 46.3 months in Arm A compared to 15.3 months in Arm B (p=0.04).

Abstract

5017 Background: A subset of mCRPC patients (pts) will benefit from enzalutamide (ENZA) following disease progression on AAP. Preliminary data suggests that higher plasma ctDNA/total cfDNA fraction (ctDNA%) post-AAP predicts poor response to ENZA but preserved sensitivity to docetaxel (DOC). We hypothesize that ctDNA%-guided selection of enzalutamide or docetaxel in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC post-abiraterone will improve clinical outcomes versus patient/clinician’s choice of treatment. Methods: A multi-centre, open-label, phase II trial randomized mCRPC pts progressing after AAP 1:1 to biomarker-directed therapy (Arm A: ctDNA% ≥2% receives DOC; ctDNA% <2% receives ENZA) or clinician’s choice of ENZA or DOC (Arm B, ctDNA% blinded). Baseline ctDNA% was assessed at screening using somatic mutations and genome-wide ploidy models. At progression, eligible pts could cross over to the alternative therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) defined as the time from treatment initiation to first documented disease progression (clinical, radiological, or PSA) or death from any cause. PFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between arms using the log-rank tests. Secondary endpoints included PSA50 response (PSA decline ≥50% from baseline) and overall survival (OS). Results: Between October 2020 and June 2025, 56 pts were screened and 42 randomized 1:1 to Arm A (n=17) or Arm B (n=25). The trial was terminated due to slow accrual prior to the planned enrollment of 100 patients. At data cut-off (January 7, 2026), median follow-up was 38.0 months, and 94% (Arm A) and 92% (Arm B) had experienced disease progression or death. Baseline characteristics were balanced. ctDNA% <2% was observed in 35.3% and 32% of pts in Arm A and B, respectively. In Arm A, 11 pts were assigned to and received DOC (ctDNA% ≥2%) and 6 pts to ENZA (ctDNA <2%). In Arm B patient/clinician choice was DOC in 4 patients (3 pts with ctDNA ≥2%) and ENZA in 21 patients (7 pts with ctDNA <2%). PFS, OS and PSA50 all favoured biomarker directed therapy (Arm A) (Table). Conclusions: In this clinical utility study, ctDNA% to guide ENZA or DOC selection in patients previously treated with AAP led to superior PFS and OS compared to patient/clinician-selected therapy. These hypothesis-generating results illustrate the potential for ctDNA% as a predictive biomarker to assist in clinical decision making and support further studies. Clinical trial information: NCT04015622 . Primary & secondary outcomes. Biomarker-Directed (Arm A, n=17) Clinician’s Choice (Arm B, n=25) HR (95% CI) P-Value Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Months, median (95% CI) 5.6 (3.2-8.2) 2.5 (1.5-3.7) 0.4 (0.2-0.8) p = 0.01 PSA50 Response (%) 52.9% 28.0% p = 0.12 Overall Survival (OS), months, median (95% CI) 46.3 (12.2-NR) 15.3 (13.5-20.7) 0.4 (0.2-0.9) p = 0.04

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Maurice-Dror et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a192d13fab5b468c4415ec6https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.5017
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Data from Circulating Tumor DNA Assessment for Treatment Monitoring Adds Value to PSA in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer2024
  2. 2Circulating Tumor DNA Assessment for Treatment Monitoring Adds Value to PSA in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer2024 · 34 citations
  3. 3Abstract 973: Plasma androgen receptor (AR) copy number gain at progression in patients randomized in the STAMPEDE phase 3 abiraterone acetate, prednisolone (AAP) and enzalutamide (ENZ) trial: An ancillary biomarker study2024
  4. 4Blood-based markers of differential efficacy of bipolar androgen therapy and enzalutamide in the randomized TRANSFORMER trial.2024
  5. 5Data from Early on-treatment changes in circulating tumor DNA fraction and response to enzalutamide or abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer2024