Literature DB >> 24991397

Reduced Rate of Repeated Prostate Biopsies Observed in ConfirmMDx Clinical Utility Field Study.

Kirk J Wojno1, Frank J Costa2, Robert J Cornell3, Jeffrey D Small4, Erik Pasin5, Wim Van Criekinge6, Joseph W Bigley7, Leander Van Neste8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of prostate cancer is dependent on histologic confirmation in biopsy core tissues. The biopsy procedure is invasive, puts the patient at risk for complications, and is subject to significant sampling errors. An epigenetic test that uses methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction to determine the epigenetic status of the prostate cancer-associated genes GSTP1, APC, and RASSF1 has been clinically validated and is used in clinical practice to increase the negative predictive value in men with no history of prostate cancer compared with standard histopathology. Such information can help to avoid unnecessary repeat biopsies. The repeat biopsy rate may provide preliminary clinical utility evidence in relation to this assay's potential impact on the number of unnecessary repeat prostate biopsies performed in US urology practices.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this preliminary study was to quantify the number of repeat prostate biopsy procedures to demonstrate a low repeat biopsy rate for men with a history of negative histopathology who received a negative epigenetic assay result on testing of the residual prostate tissue.
METHODS: In this recently completed field observation study, practicing urologists used the epigenetic test called ConfirmMDx for Prostate Cancer (MDxHealth, Inc, Irvine, CA) to evaluate cancer-negative men considered at risk for prostate cancer. This test has been previously validated in 2 blinded multicenter studies that showed the superior negative predictive value of the epigenetic test over standard histopathology for cancer detection in prostate biopsies. A total of 5 clinical urology practices that had ordered a minimum of 40 commercial epigenetic test requisitions for patients with previous, cancer-negative biopsies over the course of the previous 18 months were contacted to assess their interest to participate in the study. Select demographic and prostate-screening parameter information, as well as the incidence of repeat biopsy, specifically for patients with a negative test result, was collected and merged into 1 collective database. All men from each of the 5 sites who had negative assay results were included in the analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 138 patients were identified in these urology practices and were included in the analysis. The median age of the men was 63 years, and the current median serum prostate-specific antigen level was 4.7 ng/mL. Repeat biopsies had been performed in 6 of the 138 (4.3%) men with a negative epigenetic assay result, in whom no evidence of cancer was found on histopathology.
CONCLUSION: In this study, a low rate of repeat prostatic biopsies was observed in the group of men with previous histopathologically negative biopsies who were considered to be at risk for harboring cancer. The data suggest that patients managed using the ConfirmMDx for Prostate Cancer negative results had a low rate of repeat prostate biopsies. These results warrant a large, controlled, prospective study to further evaluate the clinical utility of the epigenetic test to lower the unnecessary repeat biopsy rate.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 24991397      PMCID: PMC4070628     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits        ISSN: 1942-2962


  17 in total

Review 1.  The epigenetic promise for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Leander Van Neste; James G Herman; Gaëtan Otto; Joseph W Bigley; Jonathan I Epstein; Wim Van Criekinge
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 4.104

2.  Evaluation of GSTP1 and APC methylation as indicators for repeat biopsy in a high-risk cohort of men with negative initial 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

3.  Repeat prostate biopsy in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; E David Crawford; Barnett S Kramer; Gerald L Andriole; Edward P Gelmann; Robert Grubb; Robert Greenlee; John K Gohagan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Clinical utility of an epigenetic assay to detect occult prostate cancer in histopathologically negative biopsies: results of the MATLOC study.

Authors:  Grant D Stewart; Leander Van Neste; Philippe Delvenne; Paul Delrée; Agnès Delga; S Alan McNeill; Marie O'Donnell; James Clark; Wim Van Criekinge; Joseph Bigley; David J Harrison
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Cancer statistics, 2012.

Authors:  Rebecca Siegel; Deepa Naishadham; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop?

Authors:  B Djavan; V Ravery; A Zlotta; P Dobronski; M Dobrovits; M Fakhari; C Seitz; M Susani; A Borkowski; L Boccon-Gibod; C C Schulman; M Marberger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Budget impact model: epigenetic assay can help avoid unnecessary repeated prostate biopsies and reduce healthcare spending.

Authors:  Wade Aubry; Robert Lieberthal; Arnold Willis; Grant Bagley; Simon M Willis; Andrew Layton
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2013-01

Review 10.  Three-dimensional sonography with needle tracking: role in diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Feimo Shen; Katsuto Shinohara; Dinesh Kumar; Animesh Khemka; Anne R Simoneau; Priya N Werahera; Lu Li; Yujun Guo; Ramkrishnan Narayanan; Liyang Wei; Al Barqawi; E David Crawford; Christos Davatzikos; Jasjit S Suri
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.153

View more
  15 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

Review 2.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging and molecular pathology at the crossroad of the management of early prostate cancer.

Authors:  Raphaele Renard-Penna; Geraldine Cancel-Tassin; Eva Comperat; Morgan Roupret; Pierre Mozer; Olivier Cussenot
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Optimal Use of Tumor-Based Molecular Assays for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Soum D Lokeshwar; Jamil S Syed; Daniel Segal; Syed N Rahman; Preston C Sprenkle
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 4.  DNA Methylation and Urological Cancer, a Step Towards Personalized Medicine: Current and Future Prospects.

Authors:  Javier C Angulo; Jose I López; Santiago Ropero
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 5.  Clinical Utility of Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Michael S Leapman; Hao G Nguyen; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 6.  The Use of Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment.

Authors:  Ashley V Alford; Joseph M Brito; Kamlesh K Yadav; Shalini S Yadav; Ashutosh K Tewari; Joseph Renzulli
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017

7.  Tissue-based biomarkers in prostate cancer.

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

Review 8.  The Present and Future of Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer: Proteomics, Genomics, and Immunology Advancements.

Authors:  Pierre-Olivier Gaudreau; John Stagg; Denis Soulières; Fred Saad
Journal:  Biomark Cancer       Date:  2016-05-05

Review 9.  Tissue-Based Biomarkers for the Risk Stratification of Men With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

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

Review 10.  Incorporation of tissue-based genomic biomarkers into localized prostate cancer clinics.

Authors:  Marco Moschini; Martin Spahn; Agostino Mattei; John Cheville; R Jeffrey Karnes
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.