Literature DB >> 28454985

Use of a 17-Gene Prognostic Assay in Contemporary Urologic Practice: Results of an Interim Analysis in an Observational Cohort.

Gregg Eure1, Raymond Germany1, Robert Given1, Ruixiao Lu2, Alan W Shindel2, Megan Rothney2, Richard Glowacki3, Jonathan Henderson4, Tim Richardson5, Evan Goldfischer6, Phillip G Febbo2, Bela S Denes7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of genomic testing in shared decision making for men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer (PCa).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with clinically low-risk PCa were enrolled in a prospective, multi-institutional study of a validated 17-gene tissue-based reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay (Genomic Prostate Score [GPS]). In this paper we report on outcomes in the first 297 patients enrolled in the study with valid 17-gene assay results and decision-change data. The primary end points were shared decision on initial management and persistence on active surveillance (AS) at 1 year post diagnosis. AS utilization and persistence were compared with similar end points in a group of patients who did not have genomic testing (baseline cohort). Secondary end points included perceived utility of the assay and patient decisional conflict before and after testing.
RESULTS: One-year results were available on 258 patients. Shift between initial recommendation and shared decision occurred in 23% of patients. Utilization of AS was higher in the GPS-tested cohort than in the untested baseline cohort (62% vs 40%). The proportion of men who selected and persisted on AS at 1 year was 55% and 34% in the GPS and baseline cohorts, respectively. Physicians reported that GPS was useful in 90% of cases. Mean decisional conflict scores declined in patients after GPS testing.
CONCLUSION: Patients who received GPS testing were more likely to select and persist on AS for initial management compared with a matched baseline group. These data indicate that GPS help guide shared decisions in clinically low-risk PCa.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28454985     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.02.052

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


  14 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

Review 2.  Molecular correlates of intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Huihui Ye; Adam G Sowalsky
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 3.498

3.  Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

Authors:  Joel E Pacyna; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Sarah M Jenkins; Erica J Sutton; Caroline Horrow; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 6.318

4.  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 5.  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

6.  Transcriptome-wide prediction of prostate cancer gene expression from histopathology images using co-expression based convolutional neural networks.

Authors:  Philippe Weitz; Yinxi Wang; Kimmo Kartasalo; Lars Egevad; Johan Lindberg; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Mattias Rantalainen
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 6.931

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.  A 17-Gene Panel Genomic Prostate Score Has Similar Predictive Accuracy for Adverse Pathology at Radical Prostatectomy in African American and European American Men.

Authors:  Adam B Murphy; Samuel Carbunaru; Oluwarotimi S Nettey; Chase Gornbein; Michael A Dixon; Virgilia Macias; Roohollah Sharifi; Rick A Kittles; Ximing Yang; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; Peter Gann
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 9.  Prostate Cancer Imaging and Biomarkers Guiding Safe Selection of Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Zachary A Glaser; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Kristin K Porter; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: Role of Available Biomarkers in Daily Practice.

Authors:  Belén Pastor-Navarro; José Rubio-Briones; Ángel Borque-Fernando; Luis M Esteban; Jose Luis Dominguez-Escrig; José Antonio López-Guerrero
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.