PURPOSE: The three main treatment options for primary prostate cancer are surgery, radiation, and active surveillance. Surgical and radiation intervention for prostate cancer can be associated with significant morbidity. Therefore, accurate stratification predictive of outcome for prostate cancer patients is essential for appropriate treatment decisions. Nomograms that use clinical and pathologic variables are often used for risk prediction. Favorable outcomes exist even among men classified by nomograms as being at high risk of recurrence. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Previously, we identified a set of DNA-based biomarkers termed Genomic Evaluators of Metastatic Prostate Cancer (GEMCaP) and have shown that they can predict risk of recurrence with 80% accuracy. Here, we examined the risk prediction ability of GEMCaP in a high-risk cohort and compared it to a Kattan nomogram. RESULTS: We determined that the GEMCaP genotype alone is comparable with the nomogram, and that for a subset of cases with negative lymph nodes improves upon it. CONCLUSION: Thus, GEMCaP shows promise for predicting unfavorable outcomes for negative lymph node high-risk cases, where the nomogram falls short, and suggests that addition of GEMCaP to nomograms may be warranted.
PURPOSE: The three main treatment options for primary prostate cancer are surgery, radiation, and active surveillance. Surgical and radiation intervention for prostate cancer can be associated with significant morbidity. Therefore, accurate stratification predictive of outcome for prostate cancerpatients is essential for appropriate treatment decisions. Nomograms that use clinical and pathologic variables are often used for risk prediction. Favorable outcomes exist even among men classified by nomograms as being at high risk of recurrence. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Previously, we identified a set of DNA-based biomarkers termed Genomic Evaluators of Metastatic Prostate Cancer (GEMCaP) and have shown that they can predict risk of recurrence with 80% accuracy. Here, we examined the risk prediction ability of GEMCaP in a high-risk cohort and compared it to a Kattan nomogram. RESULTS: We determined that the GEMCaP genotype alone is comparable with the nomogram, and that for a subset of cases with negative lymph nodes improves upon it. CONCLUSION: Thus, GEMCaP shows promise for predicting unfavorable outcomes for negative lymph node high-risk cases, where the nomogram falls short, and suggests that addition of GEMCaP to nomograms may be warranted.
Authors: Ajay N Jain; Taku A Tokuyasu; Antoine M Snijders; Richard Segraves; Donna G Albertson; Daniel Pinkel Journal: Genome Res Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Pamela L Paris; Donna G Albertson; Janneke C Alers; Armann Andaya; Peter Carroll; Jane Fridlyand; Ajay N Jain; Sherwin Kamkar; David Kowbel; Pieter-Jaap Krijtenburg; Daniel Pinkel; Fritz H Schröder; Kees J Vissers; Vivienne J E Watson; Mark F Wildhagen; Colin Collins; Herman Van Dekken Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Michael W Kattan; Shahrokh F Shariat; Ben Andrews; Kuichun Zhu; Eduardo Canto; Kazumasa Matsumoto; Masatoshi Muramoto; Peter T Scardino; Makoto Ohori; Thomas M Wheeler; Kevin M Slawin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-08-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pamela L Paris; Armann Andaya; Jane Fridlyand; Ajay N Jain; Vivian Weinberg; David Kowbel; John H Brebner; Jeff Simko; J E Vivienne Watson; Stas Volik; Donna G Albertson; Daniel Pinkel; Janneke C Alers; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Kees J Vissers; Fritz H Schroder; Mark F Wildhagen; Phillip G Febbo; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Kenneth J Pienta; Peter R Carroll; Mark A Rubin; Colin Collins; Herman van Dekken Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2004-05-11 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: D Pinkel; R Segraves; D Sudar; S Clark; I Poole; D Kowbel; C Collins; W L Kuo; C Chen; Y Zhai; S H Dairkee; B M Ljung; J W Gray; D G Albertson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Kerstin M Heselmeyer-Haddad; Lissa Y Berroa Garcia; Amanda Bradley; Leanora Hernandez; Yue Hu; Jens K Habermann; Christoph Dumke; Christoph Thorns; Sven Perner; Ekaterina Pestova; Catherine Burke; Salim A Chowdhury; Russell Schwartz; Alejandro A Schäffer; Pamela L Paris; Thomas Ried Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Albert M Levin; Karla J Lindquist; Andrew Avila; John S Witte; Pamela L Paris; Benjamin A Rybicki Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tobias Nordström; Erin L Van Blarigan; Vy Ngo; Ritu Roy; Vivian Weinberg; Xiaoling Song; Jeffry Simko; Peter R Carroll; June M Chan; Pamela L Paris Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 4.104