Literature DB >> 24836057

A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling.

Eric A Klein1, Matthew R Cooperberg2, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi3, Jeffry P Simko4, Sara M Falzarano3, Tara Maddala5, June M Chan2, Jianbo Li5, Janet E Cowan6, Athanasios C Tsiatis5, Diana B Cherbavaz5, Robert J Pelham5, Imelda Tenggara-Hunter6, Frederick L Baehner7, Dejan Knezevic5, Phillip G Febbo5, Steven Shak5, Michael W Kattan8, Mark Lee5, Peter R Carroll9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate tumor heterogeneity and biopsy undersampling pose challenges to accurate, individualized risk assessment for men with localized disease.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and validate a biopsy-based gene expression signature that predicts clinical recurrence, prostate cancer (PCa) death, and adverse pathology. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Gene expression was quantified by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction for three studies-a discovery prostatectomy study (n=441), a biopsy study (n=167), and a prospectively designed, independent clinical validation study (n=395)-testing retrospectively collected needle biopsies from contemporary (1997-2011) patients with low to intermediate clinical risk who were candidates for active surveillance (AS). OUTCOME MEASURES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The main outcome measures defining aggressive PCa were clinical recurrence, PCa death, and adverse pathology at prostatectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the association between gene expression and time to event end points. Results from the prostatectomy and biopsy studies were used to develop and lock a multigene-expression-based signature, called the Genomic Prostate Score (GPS); in the validation study, logistic regression was used to test the association between the GPS and pathologic stage and grade at prostatectomy. Decision-curve analysis and risk profiles were used together with clinical and pathologic characteristics to evaluate clinical utility. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 732 candidate genes analyzed, 288 (39%) were found to predict clinical recurrence despite heterogeneity and multifocality, and 198 (27%) were predictive of aggressive disease after adjustment for prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and clinical stage. Further analysis identified 17 genes representing multiple biological pathways that were combined into the GPS algorithm. In the validation study, GPS predicted high-grade (odds ratio [OR] per 20 GPS units: 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.7; p<0.001) and high-stage (OR per 20 GPS units: 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0; p=0.003) at surgical pathology. GPS predicted high-grade and/or high-stage disease after controlling for established clinical factors (p<0.005) such as an OR of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.4-3.2) when adjusting for Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score. A limitation of the validation study was the inclusion of men with low-volume intermediate-risk PCa (Gleason score 3+4), for whom some providers would not consider AS.
CONCLUSIONS: Genes representing multiple biological pathways discriminate PCa aggressiveness in biopsy tissue despite tumor heterogeneity, multifocality, and limited sampling at time of biopsy. The biopsy-based 17-gene GPS improves prediction of the presence or absence of adverse pathology and may help men with PCa make more informed decisions between AS and immediate treatment. PATIENT
SUMMARY: Prostate cancer (PCa) is often present in multiple locations within the prostate and has variable characteristics. We identified genes with expression associated with aggressive PCa to develop a biopsy-based, multigene signature, the Genomic Prostate Score (GPS). GPS was validated for its ability to predict men who have high-grade or high-stage PCa at diagnosis and may help men diagnosed with PCa decide between active surveillance and immediate definitive treatment.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical utility; Clinical validation; Gene expression; Genomic Prostate Score; Heterogeneity; Prostate neoplasms; Surgical pathology

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24836057     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  205 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

Review 2.  Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Prostate Cancer Development: Therapeutic Implications.

Authors:  Ugo Testa; Germana Castelli; Elvira Pelosi
Journal:  Medicines (Basel)       Date:  2019-07-30

3.  Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Daniel E Spratt; Jingbin Zhang; María Santiago-Jiménez; Robert T Dess; John W Davis; Robert B Den; Adam P Dicker; Christopher J Kane; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova; Firas Abdollah; Ashley E Ross; Adam Cole; Edward Uchio; Josh M Randall; Hao Nguyen; Shuang G Zhao; Rohit Mehra; Andrew G Glass; Lucia L C Lam; Jijumon Chelliserry; Marguerite du Plessis; Voleak Choeurng; Maria Aranes; Tyler Kolisnik; Jennifer Margrave; Jason Alter; Jennifer Jordan; Christine Buerki; Kasra Yousefi; Zaid Haddad; Elai Davicioni; Edouard J Trabulsi; Stacy Loeb; Ashutosh Tewari; Peter R Carroll; Sheila Weinmann; Edward M Schaeffer; Eric A Klein; R Jeffrey Karnes; Felix Y Feng; Paul L Nguyen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Associations Between Serum Vitamin D and Adverse Pathology in Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Yaw A Nyame; Adam B Murphy; Diana K Bowen; Gregory Jordan; Ken Batai; Michael Dixon; Courtney M P Hollowell; Stephanie Kielb; Joshua J Meeks; Peter H Gann; Virgilia Macias; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; William J Catalona; Rick Kittles
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  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

6.  Prostate cancer: MR-TRUS fusion biopsy--defining a new standard.

Authors:  Eric A Klein
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 66.675

7.  Prostate imaging--the future is now: current concepts and future potentials.

Authors:  Felix K-H Chun; Thomas R W Herrmann
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Prostatectomy: Effect of Preoperative Risk on Oncologic Outcomes.

Authors:  Mariam Imnadze; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  A four-gene transcript score to predict metastatic-lethal progression in men treated for localized prostate cancer: Development and validation studies.

Authors:  Anqi Cheng; Shanshan Zhao; Liesel M FitzGerald; Jonathan L Wright; Suzanne Kolb; R Jeffrey Karnes; Robert B Jenkins; Elai Davicioni; Elaine A Ostrander; Ziding Feng; Jian-Bing Fan; James Y Dai; Janet L Stanford
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 4.104

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.