Sanoj Punnen1, Radka Stoyanova2, Deukwoo Kwon3, Isildinha M Reis3, Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash1, Chad R Ritch1, Bruno Nahar1, Mark L Gonzalgo1, Bruce Kava1, Yang Liu4, Himanshu Arora1, Sandra M Gaston2, Rosa P Castillo Acosta5, Alan Dal Pra2, Matthew Abramowitz2, Oleksandr N Kryvenko6, Elai Davicioni4, Alan Pollack2, Dipen J Parekh1. 1. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida. 3. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource and Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 4. Research and Development, Decipher Biosciences, San Diego, California. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Genomic prognostic signatures are used on prostate biopsy tissue for cancer risk assessment, but tumor heterogeneity and multifocality may be an issue. We evaluated the variability in genomic risk assessment from different biopsy cores within the prostate using 3 prognostic signatures (Decipher, CCP, GPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men in this study came from 2 prospective prostate cancer trials of patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with genomic profiling of positive biopsy cores. We explored the relationship among tumor grade, magnetic resonance imaging risk and genomic risk for each signature. We evaluated the variability in genomic risk assessment between different biopsy cores and assessed how often magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy or the current standard of care (profiling the core with the highest grade) resulted in the highest genomic risk level. RESULTS: In all, 224 positive biopsy cores from 78 men with prostate cancer were profiled. For each signature, higher biopsy grade (p <0.001) and magnetic resonance imaging risk level (p <0.001) were associated with higher genomic scores. Genomic scores from different biopsy cores varied with risk categories changing by 21% to 62% depending on which core or signature was used. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and profiling the core with the highest grade resulted in the highest genomic risk level in 72% to 84% and 75% to 87% of cases, respectively, depending on the signature used. CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in genomic risk assessment from different biopsy cores regardless of the signature used. Magnetic resonance imaging directed biopsy or profiling the highest grade core resulted in the highest genomic risk level in most cases.
PURPOSE: Genomic prognostic signatures are used on prostate biopsy tissue for cancer risk assessment, but tumor heterogeneity and multifocality may be an issue. We evaluated the variability in genomic risk assessment from different biopsy cores within the prostate using 3 prognostic signatures (Decipher, CCP, GPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men in this study came from 2 prospective prostate cancer trials of patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with genomic profiling of positive biopsy cores. We explored the relationship among tumor grade, magnetic resonance imaging risk and genomic risk for each signature. We evaluated the variability in genomic risk assessment between different biopsy cores and assessed how often magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy or the current standard of care (profiling the core with the highest grade) resulted in the highest genomic risk level. RESULTS: In all, 224 positive biopsy cores from 78 men with prostate cancer were profiled. For each signature, higher biopsy grade (p <0.001) and magnetic resonance imaging risk level (p <0.001) were associated with higher genomic scores. Genomic scores from different biopsy cores varied with risk categories changing by 21% to 62% depending on which core or signature was used. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and profiling the core with the highest grade resulted in the highest genomic risk level in 72% to 84% and 75% to 87% of cases, respectively, depending on the signature used. CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in genomic risk assessment from different biopsy cores regardless of the signature used. Magnetic resonance imaging directed biopsy or profiling the highest grade core resulted in the highest genomic risk level in most cases.
Entities:
Keywords:
biomarkers; genomics; magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Nicola L Robertson; Nasr Arsanious; Thomas Middleton; Arnauld Villers; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Paul C Moldovan; Thomas Van den Broeck; Richard Sylvester; Lorenzo Marconi; Joaquim Bellmunt; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Theo H van der Kwast; Vsevolod B Matveev; Henk G van der Poel; Maria De Santis; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Philip Cornford; Nicolas Mottet; Thomas B Lam; Olivier Rouvière Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ashley E Ross; Michael H Johnson; Kasra Yousefi; Elai Davicioni; George J Netto; Luigi Marchionni; Helen L Fedor; Stephanie Glavaris; Voleak Choeurng; Christine Buerki; Nicholas Erho; Lucia L Lam; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Sheila Faraj; Stephania M Bezerra; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Bruce J Trock; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Lei Wei; Jianmin Wang; Erika Lampert; Simon Schlanger; Adam D DePriest; Qiang Hu; Eduardo Cortes Gomez; Mitsuko Murakam; Sean T Glenn; Jeffrey Conroy; Carl Morrison; Gissou Azabdaftari; James L Mohler; Song Liu; Hannelore V Heemers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Jeffry P Simko; Janet E Cowan; Julia E Reid; Azita Djalilvand; Satish Bhatnagar; Alexander Gutin; Jerry S Lanchbury; Gregory P Swanson; Steven Stone; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Daniel H Hovelson; Jeremy B Kaplan; Romain Mathieu; Aaron M Udager; Nicole E Curci; Matthew Lee; Komal R Plouffe; Lorena Lazo de la Vega; Martin Susani; Nathalie Rioux-Leclercq; Daniel E Spratt; Todd M Morgan; Matthew S Davenport; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Joanna Cyrta; Mark A Rubin; Shahrokh F Shariat; Scott A Tomlins; Ganesh S Palapattu Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2018-11-02
Authors: J Cuzick; D M Berney; G Fisher; D Mesher; H Møller; J E Reid; M Perry; J Park; A Younus; A Gutin; C S Foster; P Scardino; J S Lanchbury; S Stone Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Michael Ahdoot; Andrew R Wilbur; Sarah E Reese; Amir H Lebastchi; Sherif Mehralivand; Patrick T Gomella; Jonathan Bloom; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 91.245
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