Literature DB >> 26723180

Patient-specific Meta-analysis of 2 Clinical Validation Studies to Predict Pathologic Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Using the 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score.

Timothy C Brand1, Nan Zhang2, Michael R Crager3, Tara Maddala3, Anne Dee3, Isabell A Sesterhenn4, Jeffry P Simko5, Matthew R Cooperberg5, Shiv Srivastava6, Inger L Rosner7, June M Chan5, Phillip G Febbo3, Peter R Carroll5, Jennifer Cullen6, H Jeffrey Lawrence3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform patient-specific meta-analysis (MA) of two independent clinical validation studies of a 17-gene biopsy-based genomic assay as a predictor of favorable pathology at radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-specific MA was performed on data from 2 studies (732 patients) using the Genomic Prostate Score (GPS; scale 0-100) together with Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score or National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group as predictors of the likelihood of favorable pathology (LFP). Risk profile curves associating GPS with LFP by CAPRA score and NCCN risk group were generated. Decision curves and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated using patient-specific MA risk estimates.
RESULTS: Patient-specific MA-generated risk profiles ensure more precise estimates of LFP with narrower confidence intervals than either study alone. GPS added significant predictive value to each clinical classifier. A model utilizing GPS and CAPRA provided the most risk discrimination. In decision-curve analysis, greater net benefit was shown when combining GPS with each clinical classifier compared with the classifier alone. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve improved from 0.68 to 0.73 by adding GPS to CAPRA, and 0.64 to 0.70 by adding GPS to NCCN risk group. The proportion of patients with LFP >80% increased from 11% using NCCN risk group alone to 23% using GPS with NCCN. Using GPS with CAPRA identified the highest proportion-31%-of patients with LFP >80%.
CONCLUSION: Patient-specific MA provides more precise risk estimates that reflect the complete body of evidence. GPS adds predictive value to 3 widely used clinical classifiers, and identifies a larger proportion of low-risk patients than identified by clinical risk group alone.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26723180     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.12.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  18 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.  Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies.

Authors:  Jonathan H Wang; Tracy M Downs; E Jason Abel; Kyle A Richards; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Genomic testing for localized prostate cancer: where do we go from here?

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Ashley E Ross
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 4.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Correlation between cribriform/intraductal prostatic adenocarcinoma and percent Gleason pattern 4 to a 22-gene genomic classifier.

Authors:  Alexander S Taylor; Todd M Morgan; David G Wallington; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Daniel E Spratt; Rohit Mehra
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 4.104

Review 6.  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 7.  Active Surveillance Use Among a Low-risk Prostate Cancer Population in a Large US Payer System: 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Versus Other Risk Stratification Methods.

Authors:  Steven Canfield; Michael J Kemeter; John Hornberger; Phillip G Febbo
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017

8.  Selecting Patients with Favorable Risk, Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer for Active Surveillance-Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Have a Role?

Authors:  T Stonier; A L Tin; D D Sjoberg; G Jibara; A J Vickers; S Fine; J Eastham
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Mesothelial Inclusions in Pelvic Lymph Nodes Initially Diagnosed as Metastatic Prostate Cancer; the Utility of Second Opinions and Genomic Testing in the Setting of Unexpected Results.

Authors:  Fadi Joudi; Bela S Denes; Carolyn Mies; Alan W Shindel
Journal:  Urol Case Rep       Date:  2016-12-06

10.  Association between a 17-gene genomic prostate score and multi-parametric prostate MRI in men with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa).

Authors:  Michael S Leapman; Antonio C Westphalen; Niloufar Ameli; H Jeffrey Lawrence; Phillip G Febbo; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.