PURPOSE: Tissue-based gene expression classifiers (GECs) may assist with management decisions in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. We sought to assess the current use of GEC tests and determine how the test results are associated with primary disease management. METHODS: In this observational study, patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were tracked through the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry. The utilization and results of three GECs (Decipher Prostate Biopsy, Oncotype DX Prostate, and Prolaris) were prospectively collected. Practice patterns, predictors of GEC use, and effect of GEC results on disease management were investigated. RESULTS: Of 3,966 newly diagnosed patients, 747 (18.8%) underwent GEC testing. The rate of GEC use in individual practices ranged from 0% to 93%, and patients undergoing GEC testing were more likely to have a lower prostate-specific antigen level, lower Gleason score, lower clinical T stage, and fewer positive cores (all P < .05). Among patients with clinical favorable risk of cancer, the rate of active surveillance (AS) differed significantly among patients with a GEC result above the threshold (46.2%), those with a GEC result below the threshold (75.9%), and those who did not undergo GEC (57.9%; P < .001 for comparison of the three groups). This results in an estimate that, for every nine men with favorable risk of cancer who undergo GEC testing, one additional patient may have their disease initially managed with AS. On multivariable analysis, patients with favorable-risk prostate cancer who were classified as GEC low risk were more likely to be managed on AS than those without testing (odds ratio, 1.84; P = .006). CONCLUSION: There is large variability in practice-level use and GEC tests ordered in patients with newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer. In patients with clinical favorable risk of cancer, GEC testing significantly increased the use of AS. Additional follow-up will help determine whether incorporation of GEC testing into initial patient care favorably affects clinical outcomes.
PURPOSE: Tissue-based gene expression classifiers (GECs) may assist with management decisions in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. We sought to assess the current use of GEC tests and determine how the test results are associated with primary disease management. METHODS: In this observational study, patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were tracked through the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry. The utilization and results of three GECs (Decipher Prostate Biopsy, Oncotype DX Prostate, and Prolaris) were prospectively collected. Practice patterns, predictors of GEC use, and effect of GEC results on disease management were investigated. RESULTS: Of 3,966 newly diagnosed patients, 747 (18.8%) underwent GEC testing. The rate of GEC use in individual practices ranged from 0% to 93%, and patients undergoing GEC testing were more likely to have a lower prostate-specific antigen level, lower Gleason score, lower clinical T stage, and fewer positive cores (all P < .05). Among patients with clinical favorable risk of cancer, the rate of active surveillance (AS) differed significantly among patients with a GEC result above the threshold (46.2%), those with a GEC result below the threshold (75.9%), and those who did not undergo GEC (57.9%; P < .001 for comparison of the three groups). This results in an estimate that, for every nine men with favorable risk of cancer who undergo GEC testing, one additional patient may have their disease initially managed with AS. On multivariable analysis, patients with favorable-risk prostate cancer who were classified as GEC low risk were more likely to be managed on AS than those without testing (odds ratio, 1.84; P = .006). CONCLUSION: There is large variability in practice-level use and GEC tests ordered in patients with newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer. In patients with clinical favorable risk of cancer, GEC testing significantly increased the use of AS. Additional follow-up will help determine whether incorporation of GEC testing into initial patient care favorably affects clinical outcomes.
Authors: Paul R Womble; James E Montie; Zaojun Ye; Susan M Linsell; Brian R Lane; David C Miller Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-08-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Wui-Jin Koh; Benjamin E Greer; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Susana M Campos; Kathleen R Cho; Hye Sook Chon; Christina Chu; David Cohn; Marta Ann Crispens; Don S Dizon; Oliver Dorigo; Patricia J Eifel; Christine M Fisher; Peter Frederick; David K Gaffney; Ernest Han; Susan Higgins; Warner K Huh; John R Lurain; Andrea Mariani; David Mutch; Christa Nagel; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Amanda Nickles Fader; Steven W Remmenga; R Kevin Reynolds; Todd Tillmanns; Stefanie Ueda; Fidel A Valea; Emily Wyse; Catheryn M Yashar; Nicole McMillian; Jillian Scavone Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Peter R Carroll; J Kellogg Parsons; Gerald Andriole; Robert R Bahnson; Erik P Castle; William J Catalona; Douglas M Dahl; John W Davis; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Thomas Farrington; George P Hemstreet; Mark H Kawachi; Simon Kim; Paul H Lange; Kevin R Loughlin; William Lowrance; Paul Maroni; James Mohler; Todd M Morgan; Kelvin A Moses; Robert B Nadler; Michael Poch; Chuck Scales; Terrence M Shaneyfelt; Marc C Smaldone; Geoffrey Sonn; Preston Sprenkle; Andrew J Vickers; Robert Wake; Dorothy A Shead; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Gregory P Swanson; Gabrielle Fisher; Arthur R Brothman; Daniel M Berney; Julia E Reid; David Mesher; V O Speights; Elzbieta Stankiewicz; Christopher S Foster; Henrik Møller; Peter Scardino; Jorja D Warren; Jimmy Park; Adib Younus; Darl D Flake; Susanne Wagner; Alexander Gutin; Jerry S Lanchbury; Steven Stone Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David Albala; Michael J Kemeter; Phillip G Febbo; Ruixiao Lu; Vincy John; Dylan Stoy; Bela Denes; Marybeth McCall; Alan W Shindel; Frank Dubeck Journal: Rev Urol Date: 2016
Authors: Gregg Eure; Raymond Germany; Robert Given; Ruixiao Lu; Alan W Shindel; Megan Rothney; Richard Glowacki; Jonathan Henderson; Tim Richardson; Evan Goldfischer; Phillip G Febbo; Bela S Denes Journal: Urology Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: J Cuzick; S Stone; G Fisher; Z H Yang; B V North; D M Berney; L Beltran; D Greenberg; H Møller; J E Reid; A Gutin; J S Lanchbury; M Brawer; P Scardino Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jack M Cuzick; Steven Stone; Lauren Lenz; Darl D Flake; Saradha Rajamani; Henrik Moller; Daniel Maurice Berney; Todd Cohen; Peter T Scardino Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2021-08-22
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