OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of an individualized genomic classifier (GC) test, for predicting metastasis following radical prostatectomy (RP), on urologists' adjuvant treatment decisions when caring for high-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were submitted by US board-certified urologists in community practices (n = 15), who ordered the GC test for 146 prostate cancer patients with adverse pathologic features following RP (i.e., pathologic stage pT3 or positive surgical margins). Treatment recommendations were reported using an electronic data collection instrument, before and after reviewing the GC test report. Physicians also completed a Decision Conflict Scale (DCS), a decisional conflict measure, to assess their confidence with their treatment recommendations. RESULTS: Over 60% of high-risk patients were re-classified as low risk after review of the GC test results. Overall, adjuvant treatment recommendations were modified for 30.8% (95% CI = 23-39%) of patients. With GC test results, 42.5% of patients who were initially recommended adjuvant therapy were subsequently recommended observation. Although the number of patients recommended adjuvant therapy remained the same before and after review of the GC test results, it did influence patient treatment strategies. Multivariable analysis confirmed GC risk was the only significant predictor of treatment recommendations (OR = 4.04; 95% CI = 2.36, 6.92; p < 0.0001). Decisional conflict with regard to adjuvant treatment decisions was significantly less with the use of the GC test (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Information on individualized metastasis risk based on a patient's tumor biology, with use of the GC test, significantly changed urologists' adjuvant treatment recommendations for post-operative patients with prostate cancer, who were at high risk of metastasis. Namely, the results of this study provide evidence for the utility of the GC test, and show it may guide use of adjuvant radiation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of an individualized genomic classifier (GC) test, for predicting metastasis following radical prostatectomy (RP), on urologists' adjuvant treatment decisions when caring for high-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were submitted by US board-certified urologists in community practices (n = 15), who ordered the GC test for 146 prostate cancerpatients with adverse pathologic features following RP (i.e., pathologic stage pT3 or positive surgical margins). Treatment recommendations were reported using an electronic data collection instrument, before and after reviewing the GC test report. Physicians also completed a Decision Conflict Scale (DCS), a decisional conflict measure, to assess their confidence with their treatment recommendations. RESULTS: Over 60% of high-risk patients were re-classified as low risk after review of the GC test results. Overall, adjuvant treatment recommendations were modified for 30.8% (95% CI = 23-39%) of patients. With GC test results, 42.5% of patients who were initially recommended adjuvant therapy were subsequently recommended observation. Although the number of patients recommended adjuvant therapy remained the same before and after review of the GC test results, it did influence patient treatment strategies. Multivariable analysis confirmed GC risk was the only significant predictor of treatment recommendations (OR = 4.04; 95% CI = 2.36, 6.92; p < 0.0001). Decisional conflict with regard to adjuvant treatment decisions was significantly less with the use of the GC test (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Information on individualized metastasis risk based on a patient's tumor biology, with use of the GC test, significantly changed urologists' adjuvant treatment recommendations for post-operative patients with prostate cancer, who were at high risk of metastasis. Namely, the results of this study provide evidence for the utility of the GC test, and show it may guide use of adjuvant radiation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision impact; Metastasis; Patient management; Prognosis; Prostate cancer
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: 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
Authors: Timothy N Clinton; Aditya Bagrodia; Yair Lotan; Vitaly Margulis; Ganesh V Raj; Solomon L Woldu Journal: Expert Rev Precis Med Drug Dev Date: 2017-09-05
Authors: Agnes Sebastian; June C Carroll; Leslie E Oldfield; Chloe Mighton; Salma Shickh; Elizabeth Uleryk; Yvonne Bombard Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Spyridon P Basourakos; Michael Tzeng; Patrick J Lewicki; Krishnan Patel; Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Siv Venkat; Jonathan E Shoag; Michael A Gorin; Christopher E Barbieri; Jim C Hu Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: J Scott Ferguson; Ryan Van Wert; Yoonha Choi; Michael J Rosenbluth; Kate Porta Smith; Jing Huang; Avrum Spira Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.317