PURPOSE: We aimed to validate a previously described genetic risk score, denoted the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score, in predicting contemporary radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes. METHODS: RNA was quantified from paraffin-embedded RP specimens. The CCP score was calculated as average expression of 31 CCP genes, normalized to 15 housekeeper genes. Recurrence was defined as two prostate-specific antigen levels ≥ 0.2 ng/mL or any salvage treatment. Associations between CCP score and recurrence were examined, with adjustment for clinical and pathologic variables using Cox proportional hazards regression and partial likelihood ratio tests. The CCP score was assessed for independent prognostic utility beyond a standard postoperative risk assessment (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment post-Surgical [CAPRA-S] score), and a score combining CAPRA-S and CCP was validated. RESULTS: Eighty-two (19.9%) of 413 men experienced recurrence. The hazard ratio (HR) for each unit increase in CCP score (range, -1.62 to 2.16) was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.6 to 2.9); with adjustment for CAPRA-S, the HR was 1.7 (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.4). The score was able to substratify patients with low clinical risk as defined by CAPRA-S ≤ 2 (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.7). Combining the CCP and CAPRA-S improved the concordance index for both the overall cohort and low-risk subset; the combined CAPRA-S + CCP score consistently predicted outcomes across the range of clinical risk. This combined score outperformed both individual scores on decision curve analysis. CONCLUSION: The CCP score was validated to have significant prognostic accuracy after controlling for all available clinical and pathologic data. The score may improve accuracy of risk stratification for men with clinically localized prostate cancer, including those with low-risk disease.
PURPOSE: We aimed to validate a previously described genetic risk score, denoted the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score, in predicting contemporary radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes. METHODS: RNA was quantified from paraffin-embedded RP specimens. The CCP score was calculated as average expression of 31 CCP genes, normalized to 15 housekeeper genes. Recurrence was defined as two prostate-specific antigen levels ≥ 0.2 ng/mL or any salvage treatment. Associations between CCP score and recurrence were examined, with adjustment for clinical and pathologic variables using Cox proportional hazards regression and partial likelihood ratio tests. The CCP score was assessed for independent prognostic utility beyond a standard postoperative risk assessment (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment post-Surgical [CAPRA-S] score), and a score combining CAPRA-S and CCP was validated. RESULTS: Eighty-two (19.9%) of 413 men experienced recurrence. The hazard ratio (HR) for each unit increase in CCP score (range, -1.62 to 2.16) was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.6 to 2.9); with adjustment for CAPRA-S, the HR was 1.7 (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.4). The score was able to substratify patients with low clinical risk as defined by CAPRA-S ≤ 2 (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.7). Combining the CCP and CAPRA-S improved the concordance index for both the overall cohort and low-risk subset; the combined CAPRA-S + CCP score consistently predicted outcomes across the range of clinical risk. This combined score outperformed both individual scores on decision curve analysis. CONCLUSION: The CCP score was validated to have significant prognostic accuracy after controlling for all available clinical and pathologic data. The score may improve accuracy of risk stratification for men with clinically localized prostate cancer, including those with low-risk disease.
Authors: Andrea K Miyahira; Joshua M Lang; Robert B Den; Isla P Garraway; Tamara L Lotan; Ashley E Ross; Tanya Stoyanova; Steve Y Cho; Jonathan W Simons; Kenneth J Pienta; Howard R Soule Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Daniel E Spratt; Jingbin Zhang; María Santiago-Jiménez; Robert T Dess; John W Davis; Robert B Den; Adam P Dicker; Christopher J Kane; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova; Firas Abdollah; Ashley E Ross; Adam Cole; Edward Uchio; Josh M Randall; Hao Nguyen; Shuang G Zhao; Rohit Mehra; Andrew G Glass; Lucia L C Lam; Jijumon Chelliserry; Marguerite du Plessis; Voleak Choeurng; Maria Aranes; Tyler Kolisnik; Jennifer Margrave; Jason Alter; Jennifer Jordan; Christine Buerki; Kasra Yousefi; Zaid Haddad; Elai Davicioni; Edouard J Trabulsi; Stacy Loeb; Ashutosh Tewari; Peter R Carroll; Sheila Weinmann; Edward M Schaeffer; Eric A Klein; R Jeffrey Karnes; Felix Y Feng; Paul L Nguyen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rohina Rubicz; Shanshan Zhao; Craig April; Jonathan L Wright; Suzanne Kolb; Ilsa Coleman; Daniel W Lin; Peter S Nelson; Elaine A Ostrander; Ziding Feng; Jian-Bing Fan; Janet L Stanford Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Hao G Nguyen; Crystal S Conn; Yae Kye; Lingru Xue; Craig M Forester; Janet E Cowan; Andrew C Hsieh; John T Cunningham; Charles Truillet; Feven Tameire; Michael J Evans; Christopher P Evans; Joy C Yang; Byron Hann; Constantinos Koumenis; Peter Walter; Peter R Carroll; Davide Ruggero Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Zachary Klaassen; Abhay A Singh; Lauren E Howard; Zhaoyong Feng; Bruce Trock; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Alan Partin; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alison Y Zhang; Karen Chiam; Ygal Haupt; Stephen Fox; Simone Birch; Wayne Tilley; Lisa M Butler; Karen Knudsen; Clay Comstock; Krishan Rasiah; Judith Grogan; Kate L Mahon; Tina Bianco-Miotto; Carmela Ricciardelli; Maret Böhm; Susan Henshall; Warick Delprado; Phillip Stricker; Lisa G Horvath; James G Kench Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 7.396