Amirali Salmasi1, Jonathan Said2, Alan W Shindel3, Pooria Khoshnoodi4, Ely R Felker4, Anthony E Sisk2, Tristan Grogan5, Debbie McCullough3, John Bennett3, Helen Bailey3, H Jeffrey Lawrence3, David A Elashoff5, Leonard S Marks1, Steven S Raman6, Phillip G Febbo3, Robert E Reiter7. 1. Institute of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Pathology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, California. 4. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 6. Institute of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 7. Institute of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Electronic address: RReiter@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy based molecular tests such as the 17-gene Oncotype DX® Genomic Prostate Score™ assay are increasingly performed to improve risk stratification in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. The prostate score assay was previously shown to be a significant independent predictor of adverse pathology findings at radical prostatectomy in men diagnosed by systematic biopsies only. Therefore, we investigated the ability of the prostate score assay to predict adverse pathology findings in the setting of magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men diagnosed with NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) very low, low or intermediate risk prostate cancer who underwent simultaneous multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion targeted and systematic prostate biopsy with subsequent radical prostatectomy within 6 months. Prostate score assay testing was performed on biopsy tissue with the highest Gleason score. The primary outcome of the study was adverse pathology findings, defined as Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater disease and/or pT3+ at radical prostatectomy. Independent predictors of adverse pathology findings were determined in a multivariable model to adjust for clinical parameters. RESULTS: A total of 134 men were eligible for primary analysis. On univariable analysis the UCLA score, magnetic resonance imaging, prostate score assay results and biopsy Gleason score were significant predictors of adverse pathology findings. After multivariable adjustment prostate score assay values remained a significant predictor of adverse pathology results (prostate score assay per 20 U OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74-6.62, p <0.001). A wide and overlapping distribution of prostate score assay results was seen across PI-RADS® (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2 scores. CONCLUSIONS: The prostate score assay result is an independent predictor of adverse pathology findings in patients who were diagnosed with very low, low or intermediate risk prostate cancer in the setting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion prostate biopsy. This assay can be useful as an independent technology or an adjunct technology to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to individualize risk stratification of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy based molecular tests such as the 17-gene Oncotype DX® Genomic Prostate Score™ assay are increasingly performed to improve risk stratification in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. The prostate score assay was previously shown to be a significant independent predictor of adverse pathology findings at radical prostatectomy in men diagnosed by systematic biopsies only. Therefore, we investigated the ability of the prostate score assay to predict adverse pathology findings in the setting of magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men diagnosed with NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) very low, low or intermediate risk prostate cancer who underwent simultaneous multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion targeted and systematic prostate biopsy with subsequent radical prostatectomy within 6 months. Prostate score assay testing was performed on biopsy tissue with the highest Gleason score. The primary outcome of the study was adverse pathology findings, defined as Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater disease and/or pT3+ at radical prostatectomy. Independent predictors of adverse pathology findings were determined in a multivariable model to adjust for clinical parameters. RESULTS: A total of 134 men were eligible for primary analysis. On univariable analysis the UCLA score, magnetic resonance imaging, prostate score assay results and biopsy Gleason score were significant predictors of adverse pathology findings. After multivariable adjustment prostate score assay values remained a significant predictor of adverse pathology results (prostate score assay per 20 U OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74-6.62, p <0.001). A wide and overlapping distribution of prostate score assay results was seen across PI-RADS® (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2 scores. CONCLUSIONS: The prostate score assay result is an independent predictor of adverse pathology findings in patients who were diagnosed with very low, low or intermediate risk prostate cancer in the setting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion prostate biopsy. This assay can be useful as an independent technology or an adjunct technology to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to individualize risk stratification of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Jeremy B Kaplan; Srinivas Nallandhighal; Mandeep Takhar; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Matthew Lee; Junhee Yoon; Daniel H Hovelson; Komal R Plouffe; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Edward M Schaeffer; R Jeffrey Karnes; Tamara L Lotan; Todd M Morgan; Arvin K George; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Matthew S Davenport; Sungyong You; Scott A Tomlins; Nicole E Curci; Hyung L Kim; Daniel E Spratt; Aaron M Udager; Ganesh S Palapattu Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2019-06-12
Authors: Adam B Murphy; Michael R Abern; Li Liu; Heidy Wang; Courtney M P Hollowell; Roohollah Sharifi; Patricia Vidal; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; Marin Sekosan; Karen Ferrer; Shoujin Wu; Marlene Gallegos; Patrice King-Lee; Lisa K Sharp; Carol E Ferrans; Peter H Gann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marcin Miszczyk; Justyna Rembak-Szynkiewicz; Łukasz Magrowski; Konrad Stawiski; Agnieszka Namysł-Kaletka; Aleksandra Napieralska; Małgorzata Kraszkiewicz; Grzegorz Woźniak; Małgorzata Stąpór-Fudzińska; Grzegorz Głowacki; Benjamin Pradere; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Paweł Rajwa; Wojciech Majewski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Joseph M Norris; Benjamin S Simpson; Marina A Parry; Clare Allen; Rhys Ball; Alex Freeman; Daniel Kelly; Hyung L Kim; Alex Kirkham; Sungyong You; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Hayley C Whitaker; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2020-07
Authors: Henrik Olsson; Tobias Nordström; Fredrik Jäderling; Lars Egevad; Hari T Vigneswaran; Magnus Annerstedt; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Anna Lantz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 13.506