Alan W Partin1, Leander Van Neste2, Eric A Klein3, Leonard S Marks4, Jason R Gee5, Dean A Troyer6, Kimberly Rieger-Christ5, J Stephen Jones3, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi3, Leslie A Mangold7, Bruce J Trock7, Raymond S Lance6, Joseph W Bigley8, Wim Van Criekinge9, Jonathan I Epstein7. 1. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: apartin@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Pathology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands; MDxHealth, Inc., Irvine, California. 3. Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Urology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 5. Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. 6. Leroy T. Canoles Jr. Cancer Research Center, East Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia. 7. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 8. MDxHealth, Inc., Irvine, California. 9. MDxHealth, Inc., Irvine, California; Laboratory of Bioinformatics and Computational Genomics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: wim.vancriekinge@mdxhealth.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The DOCUMENT multicenter trial in the United States validated the performance of an epigenetic test as an independent predictor of prostate cancer risk to guide decision making for repeat biopsy. Confirming an increased negative predictive value could help avoid unnecessary repeat biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the archived, cancer negative prostate biopsy core tissue samples of 350 subjects from a total of 5 urological centers in the United States. All subjects underwent repeat biopsy within 24 months with a negative (controls) or positive (cases) histopathological result. Centralized blinded pathology evaluation of the 2 biopsy series was performed in all available subjects from each site. Biopsies were epigenetically profiled for GSTP1, APC and RASSF1 relative to the ACTB reference gene using quantitative methylation specific polymerase chain reaction. Predetermined analytical marker cutoffs were used to determine assay performance. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate all risk factors. RESULTS: The epigenetic assay resulted in a negative predictive value of 88% (95% CI 85-91). In multivariate models correcting for age, prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination, first biopsy histopathological characteristics and race the test proved to be the most significant independent predictor of patient outcome (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.60-4.51). CONCLUSIONS: The DOCUMENT study validated that the epigenetic assay was a significant, independent predictor of prostate cancer detection in a repeat biopsy collected an average of 13 months after an initial negative result. Due to its 88% negative predictive value adding this epigenetic assay to other known risk factors may help decrease unnecessary repeat prostate biopsies.
PURPOSE: The DOCUMENT multicenter trial in the United States validated the performance of an epigenetic test as an independent predictor of prostate cancer risk to guide decision making for repeat biopsy. Confirming an increased negative predictive value could help avoid unnecessary repeat biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the archived, cancer negative prostate biopsy core tissue samples of 350 subjects from a total of 5 urological centers in the United States. All subjects underwent repeat biopsy within 24 months with a negative (controls) or positive (cases) histopathological result. Centralized blinded pathology evaluation of the 2 biopsy series was performed in all available subjects from each site. Biopsies were epigenetically profiled for GSTP1, APC and RASSF1 relative to the ACTB reference gene using quantitative methylation specific polymerase chain reaction. Predetermined analytical marker cutoffs were used to determine assay performance. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate all risk factors. RESULTS: The epigenetic assay resulted in a negative predictive value of 88% (95% CI 85-91). In multivariate models correcting for age, prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination, first biopsy histopathological characteristics and race the test proved to be the most significant independent predictor of patient outcome (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.60-4.51). CONCLUSIONS: The DOCUMENT study validated that the epigenetic assay was a significant, independent predictor of prostate cancer detection in a repeat biopsy collected an average of 13 months after an initial negative result. Due to its 88% negative predictive value adding this epigenetic assay to other known risk factors may help decrease unnecessary repeat prostate biopsies.
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Michelle J Brotzman; Leslie A Mangold; Joseph W Bigley; Jonathan I Epstein; David McLeod; Eric A Klein; J Stephen Jones; Songbai Wang; Theresa McAskill; Jyoti Mehrotra; Bhargavi Raghavan; Alan W Partin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Pascal A Mancuso; Charles Chabert; Peter Chin; Paul Kovac; Timothy Skyring; William H Watt; Sabar Napaki Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Matthew Truong; Bing Yang; Andrew Livermore; Jennifer Wagner; Puspha Weeratunga; Wei Huang; Rajiv Dhir; Joel Nelson; Daniel W Lin; David F Jarrard Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: W H Lee; R A Morton; J I Epstein; J D Brooks; P A Campbell; G S Bova; W S Hsieh; W B Isaacs; W G Nelson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1994-11-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Moamen M Amin; Suganthiny Jeyaganth; Nader Fahmy; Louis Bégin; Samuel Aronson; Stephen Jacobson; Simon Tanguay; Armen G Aprikian Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Leander Van Neste; Joseph Bigley; Adam Toll; Gaëtan Otto; James Clark; Paul Delrée; Wim Van Criekinge; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 2.090
Authors: Kornel E Schuebel; Wei Chen; Leslie Cope; Sabine C Glöckner; Hiromu Suzuki; Joo-Mi Yi; Timothy A Chan; Leander Van Neste; Wim Van Criekinge; Sandra van den Bosch; Manon van Engeland; Angela H Ting; Kamwing Jair; Wayne Yu; Minoru Toyota; Kohzoh Imai; Nita Ahuja; James G Herman; Stephen B Baylin Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2007-07-31 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Kirk J Wojno; Frank J Costa; Robert J Cornell; Jeffrey D Small; Erik Pasin; Wim Van Criekinge; Joseph W Bigley; Leander Van Neste Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2014-05