Literature DB >> 24576172

Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry.

E David Crawford1, Mark C Scholz, Ashok J Kar, Jeffrey E Fegan, Abebe Haregewoin, Rajesh R Kaldate, Michael K Brawer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The cell cycle progression (CCP) test (Prolaris) is a novel prognostic assay that provides accurate risk of prostate cancer-specific disease progression and disease specific mortality when combined with standard clinicopathologic parameters. This prospective study evaluated the impact of the CCP report on physician treatment recommendations for prostate cancer.
METHODS: Physicians ordering the CCP test in clinical practice completed surveys regarding treatment recommendations before and after they received and discussed the test results with patients. Clinicians also rated the influence of the test result on treatment decisions. Treatment selections were confirmed via third-party audit of patient charts following final survey responses.
RESULTS: Overall, 65% of cases showed a change between intended treatment pre- and post-CCP test reporting. Pre-CCP testing, 164 of 305 cases received a recommendation for interventional treatment. Post-CCP test, interventional therapy was recommended for 103 of these cases, a reduction of 37.2%. Conversely, 141 of 305 cases were recommended pre-CCP testing for non-interventional treatment; 108 of these remained with non-interventional treatment while 33 shifted to interventional options, a 23.4% increase. There was a 49.5% reduction in surgical interventions and a 29.6% reduction in radiation treatment. A third-party audit identified 80.2% concordance between the post-CCP testing treatment recommendation and actual treatment. Re-assignment to intervention or non-intervention generally correlated with the result of the CCP report. Study limitations included physician selection of patients for testing, no evaluation of patient input in therapeutic choice, and other potential treatment decision factors not queried by the survey.
CONCLUSION: Based on responses of ordering physicians, the CCP report adds meaningful new information to risk assessment for localized prostate cancer patients. Test results led to changes in treatment with reductions and increases in interventional treatment that were directionally aligned with prostate cancer risk specified by the test.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomarker; CCP score; Clinical utility; Physician surveys; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24576172     DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2014.899208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin        ISSN: 0300-7995            Impact factor:   2.580


  33 in total

1.  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

2.  Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

Review 3.  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 4.  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

5.  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 6.  The role of radiomics in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Rodrigo Delgadillo; John C Ford; Matthew C Abramowitz; Alan Dal Pra; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 3.621

7.  Prostate cancer radiomics and the promise of radiogenomics.

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

8.  Functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance.

Authors:  Marc Zanaty; Khaled Ajib; Kevin Zorn; Assaad El-Hakim
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-04-21       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Evaluation of a 24-gene signature for prognosis of metastatic events and prostate cancer-specific mortality.

Authors:  Kathryn L Pellegrini; Martin G Sanda; Dattatraya Patil; Qi Long; María Santiago-Jiménez; Mandeep Takhar; Nicholas Erho; Kasra Yousefi; Elai Davicioni; Eric A Klein; Robert B Jenkins; R Jeffrey Karnes; Carlos S Moreno
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2017-02-11       Impact factor: 5.588

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.