Literature DB >> 32130059

17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Test Results in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) Cohort.

Daniel W Lin1,2, Yingye Zheng3, Jesse K McKenney4, Marshall D Brown3, Ruixiao Lu5, Michael Crager5, Hilary Boyer1,2, Maria Tretiakova6, James D Brooks7, Atreya Dash8, Michael D Fabrizio9, Martin E Gleave10, Suzanne Kolb1, Michael Liss11, Todd M Morgan12, Ian M Thompson13, Andrew A Wagner14, Athanasios Tsiatis15, Andrea Pingitore5, Peter S Nelson16, Lisa F Newcomb1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The 17-gene Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) test predicts adverse pathology (AP) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer treated with immediate surgery. We evaluated the GPS test as a predictor of outcomes in a multicenter active surveillance cohort.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diagnostic biopsy tissue was obtained from men enrolled at 8 sites in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. The primary endpoint was AP (Gleason Grade Group [GG] ≥ 3, ≥ pT3a) in men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) after initial surveillance. Multivariable regression models for interval-censored data were used to evaluate the association between AP and GPS. Inverse probability of censoring weighting was applied to adjust for informative censoring. Predictiveness curves were used to evaluate how models stratified risk of AP. Association between GPS and time to upgrade on surveillance biopsy was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: GPS results were obtained for 432 men (median follow-up, 4.6 years); 101 underwent RP after a median 2.1 years of surveillance, and 52 had AP. A total of 167 men (39%) upgraded at a subsequent biopsy. GPS was significantly associated with AP when adjusted for diagnostic GG (hazards ratio [HR]/5 GPS units, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.44; P = .030), but not when also adjusted for prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.19; P = .066). Models containing PSAD and GG, or PSAD, GG, and GPS may stratify risk better than a model with GPS and GG. No association was observed between GPS and subsequent biopsy upgrade (P = .48).
CONCLUSION: In our study, the independent association of GPS with AP after initial active surveillance was not statistically significant, and there was no association with upgrading in surveillance biopsy. Adding GPS to a model containing PSAD and diagnostic GG did not significantly improve stratification of risk for AP over the clinical variables alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32130059      PMCID: PMC7213589          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.02267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  28 in total

1.  Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS Clinical Trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank tests.

Authors:  J M Robins; D M Finkelstein
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort.

Authors:  Suneil Jain; Andrew Loblaw; Danny Vesprini; Liying Zhang; Michael W Kattan; Alexandre Mamedov; Vibhuti Jethava; Perakaa Sethukavalan; Changhong Yu; Laurence Klotz
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Ziding Feng; Ying Huang; Gary Longton; Ross Prentice; Ian M Thompson; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-11-02       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Trends in Management for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer, 1990-2013.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  A 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score as a Predictor of Adverse Pathology in Men on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Zachary Kornberg; Matthew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; June M Chan; Katsuto Shinohara; Jeffry P Simko; Imelda Tenggara; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program.

Authors:  Meelan Bul; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Antti Rannikko; Riccardo Valdagni; Tom Pickles; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Geraldine N Tran; Michael S Leapman; Hao G Nguyen; Janet E Cowan; Katsuto Shinohara; Antonio C Westphalen; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Genomic Prostate Score, PI-RADS™ version 2 and Progression in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Zachary Kornberg; Janet E Cowan; Antonio C Westphalen; Matthew R Cooperberg; June M Chan; Shoujun Zhao; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Patricia A Ganz; John M Barry; Wylie Burke; Nananda F Col; Phaedra S Corso; Everett Dodson; M Elizabeth Hammond; Barry A Kogan; Charles F Lynch; Lee Newcomer; Eric J Seifter; Janet A Tooze; Kasisomayajula Viswanath; Hunter Wessells
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-02-20       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement.

Authors:  Ronald C Chen; R Bryan Rumble; D Andrew Loblaw; Antonio Finelli; Behfar Ehdaie; Matthew R Cooperberg; Scott C Morgan; Scott Tyldesley; John J Haluschak; Winston Tan; Stewart Justman; Suneil Jain
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Evaluating the Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer: Prospective Results from the Canary PASS Cohort.

Authors:  Adrian J Waisman Malaret; Peter Chang; Kehao Zhu; Yingye Zheng; Lisa F Newcomb; Menghan Liu; Jesse K McKenney; James D Brooks; Peter Carroll; Atreya Dash; Christopher P Filson; Martin E Gleave; Michael Liss; Frances M Martin; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Daniel W Lin; Andrew A Wagner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Serial Molecular Profiling of Low-grade Prostate Cancer to Assess Tumor Upgrading: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Authors:  Simpa S Salami; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Srinivas Nallandhighal; Tonye A Jones; Scott Brockman; Fuad F Elkhoury; Selena Bazzi; Komal R Plouffe; Javed Siddiqui; Chia-Jen Liu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Todd M Morgan; Shyam Natarajan; Philip S Boonstra; Lauren Sumida; Scott A Tomlins; Aaron M Udager; Anthony E Sisk; Leonard S Marks; Ganesh S Palapattu
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 4.  Advances in the selection of patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance.

Authors:  James L Liu; Hiten D Patel; Nora M Haney; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 5.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes.

Authors:  Colton H Walker; Kathryn A Marchetti; Udit Singhal; Todd M Morgan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  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

7.  GPS Assay Association With Long-Term Cancer Outcomes: Twenty-Year Risk of Distant Metastasis and Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality.

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

8.  Impact of Decipher Biopsy testing on clinical outcomes in localized prostate cancer in a prospective statewide collaborative.

Authors:  Randy A Vince; Ralph Jiang; Daniel E Spratt; Todd M Morgan; Ji Qi; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Rebecca Takele; Felix Y Feng; Susan Linsell; Anna Johnson; Sughand Shetty; Patrick Hurley; David C Miller; Arvin George; Khurshid Ghani; Fionna Sun; Mariana Seymore; Robert T Dess; William C Jackson; Matthew Schipper
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 9.  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

10.  Addition of Prostate Volume and Prostate-specific Antigen Density to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Prostate Cancer Nomograms.

Authors:  Michael Tzeng; Emily Vertosick; Spyridon P Basourakos; James A Eastham; Behfar Ehdaie; Peter T Scardino; Andrew J Vickers; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2021-06-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.