| Literature DB >> 29185869 |
Daniel E Spratt1, Jingbin Zhang1, María Santiago-Jiménez1, Robert T Dess1, John W Davis1, Robert B Den1, Adam P Dicker1, Christopher J Kane1, Alan Pollack1, Radka Stoyanova1, Firas Abdollah1, Ashley E Ross1, Adam Cole1, Edward Uchio1, Josh M Randall1, Hao Nguyen1, Shuang G Zhao1, Rohit Mehra1, Andrew G Glass1, Lucia L C Lam1, Jijumon Chelliserry1, Marguerite du Plessis1, Voleak Choeurng1, Maria Aranes1, Tyler Kolisnik1, Jennifer Margrave1, Jason Alter1, Jennifer Jordan1, Christine Buerki1, Kasra Yousefi1, Zaid Haddad1, Elai Davicioni1, Edouard J Trabulsi1, Stacy Loeb1, Ashutosh Tewari1, Peter R Carroll1, Sheila Weinmann1, Edward M Schaeffer1, Eric A Klein1, R Jeffrey Karnes1, Felix Y Feng1, Paul L Nguyen1.
Abstract
Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29185869 PMCID: PMC6530900 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.2940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Oncol ISSN: 0732-183X Impact factor: 44.544