Neal D Shore1, Naveen Kella2, Brian Moran3, Judd Boczko4, Fernando J Bianco5, E David Crawford6, Thaylon Davis7, Kirstin M Roundy7, Kristen Rushton7, Charles Grier7, Rajesh Kaldate7, Michael K Brawer7, Mark L Gonzalgo8. 1. Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Electronic address: nshore@gsuro.com. 2. The Urology and Prostate Institute, San Antonio, Texas. 3. Prostate Cancer Foundation of Chicago, Westmont, Illinois. 4. WESTMED Medical Group, Woodmere, New York. 5. Urological Research Network, Miami Lakes, Florida. 6. University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, Colorado. 7. Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah. 8. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The cell cycle progression test is a validated molecular assay that assesses prostate cancer specific disease progression and mortality risk when combined with clinicopathological parameters. We present the results from PROCEDE-1000, a large, prospective registry designed to evaluate the impact of the cell cycle progression test on shared treatment decision making for patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with newly diagnosed prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the study and the cell cycle progression test was performed on the initial prostate biopsy tissue. A set of 4 sequential surveys tracked changes relative to initial therapy recommendations (before cell cycle progression) based on clinicopathological parameters following physician review of the cell cycle progression test result, physician/patient review of the cell cycle progression test results and a minimum of 3 months of clinical followup (actual treatment). RESULTS: Of the 1,596 patients enrolled in this registry 1,206 were eligible for analysis. There was a significant reduction in the treatment burden recorded at each successive evaluation (p <0.0001), with the mean number of treatments per patient decreasing from 1.72 before the cell cycle progression test to 1.16 in actual followup. The cell cycle progression test caused a change in actual treatment in 47.8% of patients. Of these changes 72.1% were reductions and 26.9% were increases in treatment. For each clinical risk category there was a significant change in treatment modality (intervention vs nonintervention) before vs after cell cycle progression testing (p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The cell cycle progression test has a significant impact in assisting physicians and patients reach personalized treatment decisions.
PURPOSE: The cell cycle progression test is a validated molecular assay that assesses prostate cancer specific disease progression and mortality risk when combined with clinicopathological parameters. We present the results from PROCEDE-1000, a large, prospective registry designed to evaluate the impact of the cell cycle progression test on shared treatment decision making for patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with newly diagnosed prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the study and the cell cycle progression test was performed on the initial prostate biopsy tissue. A set of 4 sequential surveys tracked changes relative to initial therapy recommendations (before cell cycle progression) based on clinicopathological parameters following physician review of the cell cycle progression test result, physician/patient review of the cell cycle progression test results and a minimum of 3 months of clinical followup (actual treatment). RESULTS: Of the 1,596 patients enrolled in this registry 1,206 were eligible for analysis. There was a significant reduction in the treatment burden recorded at each successive evaluation (p <0.0001), with the mean number of treatments per patient decreasing from 1.72 before the cell cycle progression test to 1.16 in actual followup. The cell cycle progression test caused a change in actual treatment in 47.8% of patients. Of these changes 72.1% were reductions and 26.9% were increases in treatment. For each clinical risk category there was a significant change in treatment modality (intervention vs nonintervention) before vs after cell cycle progression testing (p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The cell cycle progression test has a significant impact in assisting physicians and patients reach personalized treatment decisions.
Authors: Priscilla Léon; Geraldine Cancel-Tassin; Sara Drouin; Marie Audouin; Justine Varinot; Eva Comperat; Xavier Cathelineau; François Rozet; Christophe Vaessens; Steven Stone; Julia Reid; Zaina Sangale; Patrick Korman; Morgan Rouprêt; Gaelle Fromond-Hankard; Olivier Cussenot Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: David Albala; Michael J Kemeter; Phillip G Febbo; Ruixiao Lu; Vincy John; Dylan Stoy; Bela Denes; Marybeth McCall; Alan W Shindel; Frank Dubeck Journal: Rev Urol Date: 2016
Authors: Jonathan C Hu; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Ji Qi; Deborah Kaye; Anna Johnson; Susan Linsell; James E Montie; Khurshid R Ghani; David C Miller; Kirk Wojno; Frank N Burks; Daniel E Spratt; Todd M Morgan Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-10-19
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: 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