Literature DB >> 25733599

Development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy-based multimarker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer.

Peter Blume-Jensen1, David M Berman2, David L Rimm3, Michail Shipitsin1, Mathew Putzi4, Thomas P Nifong1, Clayton Small1, Sibgat Choudhury1, Teresa Capela1, Louis Coupal5, Christina Ernst1, Aeron Hurley1, Alex Kaprelyants1, Hua Chang1, Eldar Giladi1, Julie Nardone1, James Dunyak1, Massimo Loda6, Eric A Klein7, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi8, Mathieu Latour9, Jonathan I Epstein10, Philip Kantoff6, Fred Saad11.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer aggressiveness and appropriate therapy are routinely determined following biopsy sampling. Current clinical and pathologic parameters are insufficient for accurate risk prediction leading primarily to overtreatment and also missed opportunities for curative therapy. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: An 8-biomarker proteomic assay for intact tissue biopsies predictive of prostate pathology was defined in a study of 381 patient biopsies with matched prostatectomy specimens. A second blinded study of 276 cases validated this assay's ability to distinguish "favorable" versus "nonfavorable" pathology independently and relative to current risk classification systems National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN and D'Amico).
RESULTS: A favorable biomarker risk score of ≤0.33, and a nonfavorable risk score of >0.80 (possible range between 0 and 1) were defined on "false-negative" and "false-positive" rates of 10% and 5%, respectively. At a risk score ≤0.33, predictive values for favorable pathology in very low-risk and low-risk NCCN and low-risk D'Amico groups were 95%, 81.5%, and 87.2%, respectively, higher than for these current risk classification groups themselves (80.3%, 63.8%, and 70.6%, respectively). The predictive value for nonfavorable pathology was 76.9% at biomarker risk scores >0.8 across all risk groups. Increased biomarker risk scores correlated with decreased frequency of favorable cases across all risk groups. The validation study met its two coprimary endpoints, separating favorable from nonfavorable pathology (AUC, 0.68; P < 0.0001; OR, 20.9) and GS-6 versus non-GS-6 pathology (AUC, 0.65; P < 0.0001; OR, 12.95).
CONCLUSIONS: The 8-biomarker assay provided individualized, independent prognostic information relative to current risk stratification systems, and may improve the precision of clinical decision making following prostate biopsy. ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25733599     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2603

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  57 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

2.  The Proteogenomic Landscape of Curable Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ankit Sinha; Vincent Huang; Julie Livingstone; Jenny Wang; Natalie S Fox; Natalie Kurganovs; Vladimir Ignatchenko; Katharina Fritsch; Nilgun Donmez; Lawrence E Heisler; Yu-Jia Shiah; Cindy Q Yao; Javier A Alfaro; Stas Volik; Anna Lapuk; Michael Fraser; Ken Kron; Alex Murison; Mathieu Lupien; Cenk Sahinalp; Colin C Collins; Bernard Tetu; Mehdi Masoomian; David M Berman; Theodorus van der Kwast; Robert G Bristow; Thomas Kislinger; Paul C Boutros
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 31.743

Review 3.  [Molecular biomarkers and prognostic factors for prostate cancer].

Authors:  A Kretschmer; Y Tolkach; J Ellinger; G Kristiansen
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2016

5.  Cost-Effectiveness of a Biopsy-Based 8-Protein Prostate Cancer Prognostic Assay to Optimize Treatment Decision Making in Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 Early Stage Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Joshua A Roth; Scott D Ramsey; Josh J Carlson
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-10-19

Review 6.  Clinical and Novel Biomarkers in the Management of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Cristóbal Sanhueza; Manish Kohli
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2018-02-08

Review 7.  Androgen receptor and miR-206 regulation in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Fu Y Chua; Brian D Adams
Journal:  Transcription       Date:  2017-06-09

Review 8.  Which, when and why? Rational use of tissue-based molecular testing in localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A E Ross; A V D'Amico; S J Freedland
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 9.  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

Review 10.  PSA and beyond: alternative prostate cancer biomarkers.

Authors:  Sharanjot Saini
Journal:  Cell Oncol (Dordr)       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 6.730

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.