Literature DB >> 27833462

Health Economic Impact and Prospective Clinical Utility of Oncotype DX® Genomic Prostate Score.

David Albala1, Michael J Kemeter2, Phillip G Febbo2, Ruixiao Lu2, Vincy John3, Dylan Stoy1, Bela Denes2, Marybeth McCall3, Alan W Shindel2, Frank Dubeck3.   

Abstract

Prostate cancer (CaP) will be diagnosed in approximately 181,000 American men in 2016. Despite the high number of deaths from CaP in the United States, the disease has a protracted natural history and many men diagnosed with CaP will not die of the disease regardless of treatment. Unfortunately, identification of men with truly indolent/ nonaggressive CaP is challenging; limitations of conventional diagnostic modalities diminish the ability of physicians to accurately stage every case of CaP based on biopsy results alone. The resulting uncertainty in prognosis may prompt men with low-risk CaP to proceed to morbid and expensive treatments for an unclear survival benefit. Incorporation of the Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) as part of the decision algorithm for patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network very low-risk and low-risk cancer led to a substantial increase in uptake of active surveillance and substantial cost savings. GPS provides physicians and patients with an additional tool in assessing personalized risk and helps guide individual decision making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical utility; Genomic testing; Health economics; Oncotype DX® GPS; Prostate cancer

Year:  2016        PMID: 27833462      PMCID: PMC5102928          DOI: 10.3909/riu0725

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


  21 in total

1.  Impact of the Cell Cycle Progression Test on Physician and Patient Treatment Selection for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Neal D Shore; Naveen Kella; Brian Moran; Judd Boczko; Fernando J Bianco; E David Crawford; Thaylon Davis; Kirstin M Roundy; Kristen Rushton; Charles Grier; Rajesh Kaldate; Michael K Brawer; Mark L Gonzalgo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Cost-effectiveness of 21-gene assay in node-positive, early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Burton F Vanderlaan; Michael S Broder; Eunice Y Chang; Ruth Oratz; Tanya G K Bentley
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.229

3.  Lost Labor Productivity Costs of Prostate Cancer to Patients and Their Spouses: Evidence From US National Survey Data.

Authors:  John A Rizzo; Teresa M Zyczynski; Jie Chen; Peter J Mallow; Géralyn C Trudel; John R Penrod
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.162

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.  Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial.

Authors:  Eva Johansson; Gunnar Steineck; Lars Holmberg; Jan-Erik Johansson; Tommy Nyberg; Mirja Ruutu; Anna Bill-Axelson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 6.  Prognostic determinants in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Neil E Martin; Lorelei A Mucci; Massimo Loda; Ronald A Depinho
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.360

7.  Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis.

Authors:  Julia H Hayes; Daniel A Ollendorf; Steven D Pearson; Michael J Barry; Philip W Kantoff; Susan T Stewart; Vibha Bhatnagar; Christopher J Sweeney; James E Stahl; Pamela M McMahon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Genomic Predictors of Outcome in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Peter J Boström; Anders S Bjartell; James W F Catto; Scott E Eggener; Hans Lilja; Stacy Loeb; Jack Schalken; Thorsten Schlomm; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Men Initially Treated with Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Toshihiro Yamamoto; H Bindu Musunuru; Danny Vesprini; Liying Zhang; Gabriella Ghanem; Andrew Loblaw; Laurence Klotz
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  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

View more
  13 in total

1.  Balancing Confounding and Generalizability Using Observational, Real-world Data: 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score Assay Effect on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Steven Canfield; Michael J Kemeter; Phillip G Febbo; John Hornberger
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

2.  Clinical Utility of Gene Expression Classifiers in Men With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

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

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.  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

5.  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 6.  A review on the role of tissue-based molecular biomarkers for active surveillance.

Authors:  Sanoj Punnen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  Clinical and pathologic factors predicting reclassification in active surveillance cohorts.

Authors:  Pablo S Sierra; Shivashankar Damodaran; David Jarrard
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2018 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

8.  Construction of a set of novel and robust gene expression signatures predicting prostate cancer recurrence.

Authors:  Yanzhi Jiang; Wenjuan Mei; Yan Gu; Xiaozeng Lin; Lizhi He; Hui Zeng; Fengxiang Wei; Xinhong Wan; Huixiang Yang; Pierre Major; Damu Tang
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2018-08-11       Impact factor: 6.603

9.  Assessment of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer (Review).

Authors:  Xiaozeng Lin; Anil Kapoor; Yan Gu; Mathilda Jing Chow; Hui Xu; Pierre Major; Damu Tang
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 5.650

Review 10.  Entering an era of radiogenomics in prostate cancer risk stratification.

Authors:  Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash; Radka Stoyanova; Abhishek Bhat; Maria C Velasquez; Omer E Kineish; Alan Pollack; Dipen J Parekh; Sanoj Punnen
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.