Zachary Kornberg1, Matthew R Cooperberg1,2, Janet E Cowan1, June M Chan1,2, Katsuto Shinohara1, Jeffry P Simko3, Imelda Tenggara1, Peter R Carroll1. 1. Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Pathology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The GPS (Oncotype Dx® Genomic Prostate Score) test is a RNA expression assay which can be performed on prostate biopsies. We sought to determine whether the GPS was associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology findings in men enrolled on active surveillance who later underwent radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all patients on active surveillance at University of California-San Francisco who had Gleason score 3 + 3 or low volume (33% or fewer positive cores) Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer, GPS testing at diagnostic or confirmatory biopsy, clinical stage T1/T2, prostate specific antigen less than 20 and a clinical CAPRA (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment) score less than 6. The primary outcome was adverse pathology, defined as Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater, stage pT3a or greater, or pN1. The secondary outcome was biochemical recurrence, defined as 2 consecutive prostate specific antigen measurements greater than 0.05 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Of the 215 men 179 (83%) were at low risk and 36 (17%) were at intermediate risk by CAPRA scoring. The median GPS was 26.4 (IQR 18.8-34.6). On multivariate analysis a higher GPS was associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology at delayed radical prostatectomy (HR/5 units 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.26, p <0.01). A higher GPS was also associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (HR/5 units 1.10, 95% CI 1.00-1.21, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who undergo radical prostatectomy after a period on active surveillance, as in those who undergo immediate prostatectomy, a higher GPS is associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology. The GPS is also associated with biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in such patients.
PURPOSE: The GPS (Oncotype Dx® Genomic Prostate Score) test is a RNA expression assay which can be performed on prostate biopsies. We sought to determine whether the GPS was associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology findings in men enrolled on active surveillance who later underwent radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all patients on active surveillance at University of California-San Francisco who had Gleason score 3 + 3 or low volume (33% or fewer positive cores) Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer, GPS testing at diagnostic or confirmatory biopsy, clinical stage T1/T2, prostate specific antigen less than 20 and a clinical CAPRA (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment) score less than 6. The primary outcome was adverse pathology, defined as Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater, stage pT3a or greater, or pN1. The secondary outcome was biochemical recurrence, defined as 2 consecutive prostate specific antigen measurements greater than 0.05 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Of the 215 men 179 (83%) were at low risk and 36 (17%) were at intermediate risk by CAPRA scoring. The median GPS was 26.4 (IQR 18.8-34.6). On multivariate analysis a higher GPS was associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology at delayed radical prostatectomy (HR/5 units 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.26, p <0.01). A higher GPS was also associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (HR/5 units 1.10, 95% CI 1.00-1.21, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who undergo radical prostatectomy after a period on active surveillance, as in those who undergo immediate prostatectomy, a higher GPS is associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology. The GPS is also associated with biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in such patients.
Authors: Michael A Brooks; Lewis Thomas; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jianbo Li; Michael R Crager; Ruixiao Lu; John Abran; Tamer Aboushwareb; Eric A Klein Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-02-24
Authors: Alcibiade Athanasiou; Pierre Tennstedt; Anja Wittig; Ramy Huber; Oliver Straub; Ralph Schiess; Thomas Steuber Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel W Lin; Yingye Zheng; Jesse K McKenney; Marshall D Brown; Ruixiao Lu; Michael Crager; Hilary Boyer; Maria Tretiakova; James D Brooks; Atreya Dash; Michael D Fabrizio; Martin E Gleave; Suzanne Kolb; Michael Liss; Todd M Morgan; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Athanasios Tsiatis; Andrea Pingitore; Peter S Nelson; Lisa F Newcomb Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Spyridon P Basourakos; Michael Tzeng; Patrick J Lewicki; Krishnan Patel; Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Siv Venkat; Jonathan E Shoag; Michael A Gorin; Christopher E Barbieri; Jim C Hu Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 6.244
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