Literature DB >> 25548544

A guide for clinicians in the evaluation of emerging molecular diagnostics for newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Steven E Canfield1, Adam S Kibel2, Michael J Kemeter3, Phillip G Febbo3, H Jeffrey Lawrence3, Judd W Moul4.   

Abstract

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is associated with a decline in prostate cancer-related mortality. However, screening has also led to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors. Recently, certain national guidelines (eg, US Preventive Services Task Force) have recommended against PSA screening, which may lead to a reverse-stage migration. Although many prostate tumors are indolent at presentation, others are aggressive and are appropriate targets for treatment interventions. Utilization of molecular markers may improve our ability to measure tumor biology and allow better discrimination of indolent and aggressive tumors at diagnosis. Many emerging commercial molecular diagnostic assays have been designed to provide more accurate risk stratification for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Unfamiliarity with molecular diagnostics may make it challenging for some clinicians to navigate and interpret the medical literature to ascertain whether particular assays are appropriately developed and validated for clinical use. Herein, the authors provide a framework for practitioners to use when assessing new tissue-based molecular assays. This review outlines aspects of assay development, clinical and analytic validation and clinical utility studies, and regulatory issues, which collectively determine whether tests (1) are actionable for specific clinical indications, (2) measurably influence treatment decisions, and (3) are sufficiently validated to warrant incorporation into clinical practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse pathology; Biomarker; Clinical utility; Clinical validation; Genomic prostate score; Molecular diagnostics; Prostate cancer

Year:  2014        PMID: 25548544      PMCID: PMC4274174     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Urol        ISSN: 1523-6161


  26 in total

Review 1.  Clinical validity/utility, change in practice patterns, and economic implications of risk stratifiers to predict outcomes for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  John Hornberger; Michael D Alvarado; Chien Rebecca; Hialy R Gutierrez; Tiffany M Yu; William J Gradishar
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers.

Authors:  D F Hayes; R C Bast; C E Desch; H Fritsche; N E Kemeny; J M Jessup; G Y Locker; J S Macdonald; R G Mennel; L Norton; P Ravdin; S Taube; R J Winn
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1996-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Jack Cuzick; Gregory P Swanson; Gabrielle Fisher; Arthur R Brothman; Daniel M Berney; Julia E Reid; David Mesher; V O Speights; Elzbieta Stankiewicz; Christopher S Foster; Henrik Møller; Peter Scardino; Jorja D Warren; Jimmy Park; Adib Younus; Darl D Flake; Susanne Wagner; Alexander Gutin; Jerry S Lanchbury; Steven Stone
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 41.316

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

Authors:  E David Crawford; Mark C Scholz; Ashok J Kar; Jeffrey E Fegan; Abebe Haregewoin; Rajesh R Kaldate; Michael K Brawer
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 2.580

5.  Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX genomic diagnostic test for recurrence prognosis and therapeutic response prediction in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Maureen Cronin; Chithra Sangli; Mei-Lan Liu; Mylan Pho; Debjani Dutta; Anhthu Nguyen; Jennie Jeong; Jenny Wu; Kim Clark Langone; Drew Watson
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2007-04-26       Impact factor: 8.327

6.  Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jan-Erik Johansson; Ove Andrén; Swen-Olof Andersson; Paul W Dickman; Lars Holmberg; Anders Magnuson; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group.

Authors:  Steven M Teutsch; Linda A Bradley; Glenn E Palomaki; James E Haddow; Margaret Piper; Ned Calonge; W David Dotson; Michael P Douglas; Alfred O Berg
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Discovery and validation of a prostate cancer genomic classifier that predicts early metastasis following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Nicholas Erho; Anamaria Crisan; Ismael A Vergara; Anirban P Mitra; Mercedeh Ghadessi; Christine Buerki; Eric J Bergstralh; Thomas Kollmeyer; Stephanie Fink; Zaid Haddad; Benedikt Zimmermann; Thomas Sierocinski; Karla V Ballman; Timothy J Triche; Peter C Black; R Jeffrey Karnes; George Klee; Elai Davicioni; Robert B Jenkins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort.

Authors:  J Cuzick; D M Berney; G Fisher; D Mesher; H Møller; J E Reid; M Perry; J Park; A Younus; A Gutin; C S Foster; P Scardino; J S Lanchbury; S Stone
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients.

Authors:  Laurel A Habel; Steven Shak; Marlena K Jacobs; Angela Capra; Claire Alexander; Mylan Pho; Joffre Baker; Michael Walker; Drew Watson; James Hackett; Noelle T Blick; Deborah Greenberg; Louis Fehrenbacher; Bryan Langholz; Charles P Quesenberry
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2006-05-31       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  10 in total

1.  Is Ki67 prognostic for aggressive prostate cancer? A multicenter real-world study.

Authors:  Joseph J Fantony; Lauren E Howard; Ilona Csizmadi; Andrew J Armstrong; Amy L Lark; Colette Galet; William J Aronson; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Biomark Med       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.851

2.  Live-cell phenotypic-biomarker microfluidic assay for the risk stratification of cancer patients via machine learning.

Authors:  Michael S Manak; Jonathan S Varsanik; Brad J Hogan; Matt J Whitfield; Wendell R Su; Nikhil Joshi; Nicolai Steinke; Andrew Min; Delaney Berger; Robert J Saphirstein; Gauri Dixit; Thiagarajan Meyyappan; Hui-May Chu; Kevin B Knopf; David M Albala; Grannum R Sant; Ashok C Chander
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 25.671

Review 3.  Prolaris Cell Cycle Progression Test for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2017-05-01

4.  Large-scale evaluation of SLC18A2 in prostate cancer reveals diagnostic and prognostic biomarker potential at three molecular levels.

Authors:  Christa Haldrup; Anne-Sofie Lynnerup; Tine Maj Storebjerg; Søren Vang; Peter Wild; Tapio Visakorpi; Christian Arsov; Wolfgang A Schulz; Johan Lindberg; Henrik Grönberg; Lars Egevad; Michael Borre; Torben Falck Ørntoft; Søren Høyer; Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 7.449

Review 5.  The association of CXCR4 expression with clinicopathological significance and potential drug target in prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and literature review.

Authors:  Qi Chen; Tie Zhong
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 4.162

Review 6.  Emerging proteomics biomarkers and prostate cancer burden in Africa.

Authors:  Henry A Adeola; Jonathan M Blackburn; Timothy R Rebbeck; Luiz F Zerbini
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-06-06

7.  Systematic identification of functionally relevant risk alleles to stratify aggressive versus indolent prostate cancer.

Authors:  Salpie Nowinski; Aida Santaolalla; Ben O'Leary; Massimo Loda; Ayesha Mirchandani; Mark Emberton; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Anita Grigoriadis
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2018-02-05

8.  Baculoviral IAP Repeat Containing 6 (BIRC6) Is a Predictor of Prognosis in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Wenzhen Zhuang; Cuixia Zhang; Furong Hao; Xicai Sun
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-02-10

9.  Ex vivo metabolic fingerprinting identifies biomarkers predictive of prostate cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Peder R Braadland; Guro Giskeødegård; Elise Sandsmark; Helena Bertilsson; Leslie R Euceda; Ailin F Hansen; Ingrid J Guldvik; Kirsten M Selnæs; Helene H Grytli; Betina Katz; Aud Svindland; Tone F Bathen; Lars M Eri; Ståle Nygård; Viktor Berge; Kristin A Taskén; May-Britt Tessem
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Prognostic Genomic Tissue-Based Biomarkers in the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Gianluca Ingrosso; Emanuele Alì; Simona Marani; Simonetta Saldi; Rita Bellavita; Cynthia Aristei
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-01-07
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.