A E Ross1, F Y Feng2, M Ghadessi3, N Erho3, A Crisan3, C Buerki3, D Sundi1, A P Mitra4, I A Vergara3, D J S Thompson5, T J Triche6, E Davicioni3, E J Bergstralh7, R B Jenkins8, R J Karnes9, E M Schaeffer1. 1. Brady Urological Institute, John Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. GenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. Department of Pathology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. EMMES Canada, Burnaby, BC, Canada. 6. 1] GenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada [2] Department of Pathology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 8. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 9. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to their varied outcomes, men with biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP) present a management dilemma. Here, we evaluate Decipher, a genomic classifier (GC), for its ability to predict metastasis following BCR. METHODS: The study population included 85 clinically high-risk patients who developed BCR after RP. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, weighted Cox proportional hazard models and decision curves were used to compare GC scores to Gleason score (GS), PSA doubling time (PSAdT), time to BCR (ttBCR), the Stephenson nomogram and CAPRA-S for predicting metastatic disease progression. All tests were two-sided with a type I error probability of 5%. RESULTS: GC scores stratified men with BCR into those who would or would not develop metastasis (8% of patients with low versus 40% with high scores developed metastasis, P<0.001). The area under the curve for predicting metastasis after BCR was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.86) for GC, compared to GS 0.64 (0.58-0.70), PSAdT 0.69 (0.61-0.77) and ttBCR 0.52 (0.46-0.59). Decision curve analysis showed that GC scores had a higher overall net benefit compared to models based solely on clinicopathologic features. In multivariable modeling with clinicopathologic variables, GC score was the only significant predictor of metastasis (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: When compared to clinicopathologic variables, GC better predicted metastatic progression among this cohort of men with BCR following RP. While confirmatory studies are needed, these results suggest that use of GC may allow for better selection of men requiring earlier initiation of treatment at the time of BCR.
BACKGROUND: Due to their varied outcomes, men with biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP) present a management dilemma. Here, we evaluate Decipher, a genomic classifier (GC), for its ability to predict metastasis following BCR. METHODS: The study population included 85 clinically high-risk patients who developed BCR after RP. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, weighted Cox proportional hazard models and decision curves were used to compare GC scores to Gleason score (GS), PSA doubling time (PSAdT), time to BCR (ttBCR), the Stephenson nomogram and CAPRA-S for predicting metastatic disease progression. All tests were two-sided with a type I error probability of 5%. RESULTS: GC scores stratified men with BCR into those who would or would not develop metastasis (8% of patients with low versus 40% with high scores developed metastasis, P<0.001). The area under the curve for predicting metastasis after BCR was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.86) for GC, compared to GS 0.64 (0.58-0.70), PSAdT 0.69 (0.61-0.77) and ttBCR 0.52 (0.46-0.59). Decision curve analysis showed that GC scores had a higher overall net benefit compared to models based solely on clinicopathologic features. In multivariable modeling with clinicopathologic variables, GC score was the only significant predictor of metastasis (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: When compared to clinicopathologic variables, GC better predicted metastatic progression among this cohort of men with BCR following RP. While confirmatory studies are needed, these results suggest that use of GC may allow for better selection of men requiring earlier initiation of treatment at the time of BCR.
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Michael L Blute; Jeffrey M Slezak; Eric J Bergstralh; Bradley C Leibovich Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Christopher J DiBlasio; Alwyn Reuther; Eric A Klein; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Jeffrey Karnes; Eric J Bergstralh; Elai Davicioni; Mercedeh Ghadessi; Christine Buerki; Anirban P Mitra; Anamaria Crisan; Nicholas Erho; Ismael A Vergara; Lucia L Lam; Rachel Carlson; Darby J S Thompson; Zaid Haddad; Benedikt Zimmermann; Thomas Sierocinski; Timothy J Triche; Thomas Kollmeyer; Karla V Ballman; Peter C Black; George G Klee; Robert B Jenkins Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Judd W Moul; Hongyu Wu; Leon Sun; David G McLeod; Christopher Amling; Timothy Donahue; Leo Kusuda; Wade Sexton; Keith O'Reilly; Javier Hernandez; Andrew Chung; Douglas Soderdahl Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: R Jeffrey Karnes; Voleak Choeurng; Ashley E Ross; Edward M Schaeffer; Eric A Klein; Stephen J Freedland; Nicholas Erho; Kasra Yousefi; Mandeep Takhar; Elai Davicioni; Matthew R Cooperberg; Bruce J Trock Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-04-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Radka Stoyanova; Mandeep Takhar; Yohann Tschudi; John C Ford; Gabriel Solórzano; Nicholas Erho; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Sanoj Punnen; Elai Davicioni; Robert J Gillies; Alan Pollack Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.241
Authors: Christoph Burdelski; Tatsiana Dieckmann; Asmus Heumann; Claudia Hube-Magg; Martina Kluth; Burkhard Beyer; Thomas Steuber; Raisa Pompe; Markus Graefen; Ronald Simon; Sarah Minner; Maria Christina Tsourlakis; Christina Koop; Jakob Izbicki; Guido Sauter; Till Krech; Thorsten Schlomm; Waldemar Wilczak; Patrick Lebok Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2016-07-21
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Elai Davicioni; Anamaria Crisan; Robert B Jenkins; Mercedeh Ghadessi; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alba Torres; Mohammed Alshalalfa; Elai Davicioni; Anuj Gupta; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Sarah J Wheelan; Jonathan I Epstein; Angelo M De Marzo; Tamara L Lotan Journal: Prostate Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.104