Literature DB >> 30552940

Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier Relates More Strongly to Gleason Grade Group Than Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score in Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging-ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies.

Darryl T Martin1, Kamyar Ghabili1, Angelique Levi2, Peter A Humphrey2, Preston C Sprenkle3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) score, the Decipher score, and histologic grade of carcinoma in biopsy tissue among low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.
METHODS: MRI-ultrasound targeted biopsy of regions of interest and concurrent 12-core systematic biopsy was performed on men with Gleason grade group (GG) 1 and 2. We compared Decipher score with PI-RADS scores and biopsy Gleason GG. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), and men with Decipher testing from a targeted biopsy core.
RESULTS: One hundred two patients with GG1 and GG2 had biopsy Decipher testing. There was no significant difference in the median Decipher scores among the 3 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging categories. Patients with GG2 vs GG1 in the setting of PI-RADS 4-5 had higher genomic scores (P = .01), but no significant difference was noted in patients with PI-RADS ≤3. The rate of genomic higher-risk disease on a targeted biopsy from PI-RADS5 was higher in GG2 (75%) vs GG1 (11.1%; P = .01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the Decipher score ≥0.45, (odds ratio (OR) 2.71; P = .02), and age (OR 1.11; P = .004) remained significant factors associated with Gleason GG2 on biopsy.
CONCLUSION: High-risk genomic classification can be seen across all combinations of PI-RADS categories and Gleason GG1 and GG2, confirming a potential utility for Decipher testing in men with low- to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The Decipher biopsy genomic test related to Gleason GG independent of PI-RADSv2 score. Confirmatory genomic testing for patients undergoing active surveillance appears more valuable than PI-RADSv2 score.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30552940     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.001

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  How should radiologists incorporate non-imaging prostate cancer biomarkers into daily practice?

Authors:  Pawel Rajwa; Jamil Syed; Michael S Leapman
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

Review 2.  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 3.  Genetic Landscape of Prostate Cancer Conspicuity on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Bioinformatic Analysis.

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

4.  Doubling of Decipher Biopsy Genomic Score Is Related to Disease Reclassification on Subsequent Surveillance Biopsy but Not Adverse Features on Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Kamyar Ghabili; Nathan Paulson; Jamil S Syed; Cayce B Nawaf; Ghazal Khajir; Darryl T Martin; John Onofrey; Michael S Leapman; Angelique Levi; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Peter A Humphrey; Preston C Sprenkle
Journal:  Case Rep Urol       Date:  2021-03-17
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.