Literature DB >> 24508632

Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy.

Jay T Bishoff1, Stephen J Freedland2, Leah Gerber2, Pierre Tennstedt2, Julia Reid2, William Welbourn2, Markus Graefen2, Zaina Sangale2, Eliso Tikishvili2, Jimmy Park2, Adib Younus2, Alexander Gutin2, Jerry S Lanchbury2, Guido Sauter2, Michael Brawer2, Steven Stone2, Thorsten Schlomm2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The cell cycle progression score is associated with prostate cancer outcomes in various clinical settings. However, previous studies of men treated with radical prostatectomy evaluated cell cycle progression scores generated from resected tumor tissue. We evaluated the prognostic usefulness of the score derived from biopsy specimens in men treated with radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the cell cycle progression score in cohorts of patients from the Martini Clinic (283), Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (176) and Intermountain Healthcare (123). The score was derived from simulated biopsy (Martini Clinic) or diagnostic biopsy (Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Intermountain Healthcare) and evaluated for an association with biochemical recurrence and metastatic disease.
RESULTS: In all 3 cohorts the cell cycle progression score was associated with biochemical recurrence and metastatic disease. The association with biochemical recurrence remained significant after adjusting for other prognostic clinical variables. On combined analysis of all cohorts (total 582 patients) the score was a strong predictor of biochemical recurrence on univariate analysis (HR per score unit 1.60, 95% CI 1.35-1.90, p=2.4×10(-7)) and multivariate analysis (HR per score unit 1.47, 95% CI 1.23-1.76, p=4.7×10(-5)). Although there were few events (12), the cell cycle progression score was the strongest predictor of metastatic disease on univariate analysis (HR per score unit 5.35, 95% CI 2.89-9.92, p=2.1×10(-8)) and after adjusting for clinical variables (HR per score unit 4.19, 95% CI 2.08-8.45, p=8.2×10(-6)).
CONCLUSIONS: The cell cycle progression score derived from a biopsy sample was associated with adverse outcomes after surgery. These results indicate that the score can be used at disease diagnosis to better define patient prognosis and enable more appropriate clinical care.
Copyright © 2014 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; prognosis; prostate; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24508632     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  62 in total

Review 1.  Multidisciplinary intervention of early, lethal metastatic prostate cancer: Report from the 2015 Coffey-Holden Prostate Cancer Academy Meeting.

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

2.  Utilization of individualized prostate cancer and genomic biomarkers for the practicing urologist.

Authors:  Gregory C McMahon; Gordon A Brown; Thomas J Mueller
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017

3.  Expression of cell cycle-regulated genes and prostate cancer prognosis in a population-based cohort.

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

Review 4.  Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies.

Authors:  Jonathan H Wang; Tracy M Downs; E Jason Abel; Kyle A Richards; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  [Molecular biomarkers and prognostic factors for prostate cancer].

Authors:  A Kretschmer; Y Tolkach; J Ellinger; G Kristiansen
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  Genomic testing for localized prostate cancer: where do we go from here?

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Ashley E Ross
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 7.  Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2016

8.  Cost-Effectiveness of a Biopsy-Based 8-Protein Prostate Cancer Prognostic Assay to Optimize Treatment Decision Making in Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 Early Stage Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Joshua A Roth; Scott D Ramsey; Josh J Carlson
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-10-19

Review 9.  Clinically relevant genetic characterization of prostate tumors: how close are we to the goal?

Authors:  Yuri Tolkach; Florian Imkamp; Konstantin Godin; Hendrik Van Poppel
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-01-30

Review 10.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; H Ballentine Carter; Abbey Lepor; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.