Literature DB >> 34285350

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

Randy A Vince1, Ralph Jiang2, Daniel E Spratt3, Todd M Morgan4, Ji Qi4, Jeffrey J Tosoian4, Rebecca Takele5, Felix Y Feng6, Susan Linsell4, Anna Johnson4, Sughand Shetty7, Patrick Hurley7, David C Miller4, Arvin George4, Khurshid Ghani4, Fionna Sun7, Mariana Seymore4, Robert T Dess3, William C Jackson3, Matthew Schipper2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Decipher Biopsy is a commercially available gene expression classifier used in risk stratification of newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). Currently, there are no prospective data evaluating its clinical utility. We seek to assess the clinical utility of Decipher Biopsy in localized PCa patients.
METHODS: A multi-institutional study of 855 men who underwent Decipher Biopsy testing between February 2015 and October 2019. All patients were tracked through the prospective Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and linked to the Decipher Genomics Resource Information Database (GRID®; NCT02609269). Patient matching was performed by an independent third-party (ArborMetrix Inc.) using two or more unique identifiers. Cumulative incidence curves for time to treatment (TTT) and time to failure (TTF) were constructed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the independent association of high-risk Decipher scores with the conversion from AS to radical therapy and treatment failure (biochemical failure or receipt of salvage therapy). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Eight hundred fifty-five patients underwent Decipher Biopsy testing during the study period. Of the 855 men, 264 proceeded to AS (31%), and 454 (53%) received radical therapy. In men electing AS, after adjusting for NCCN risk group, age, PSA, prostate volume, body mass index, and percent positive cores, a high-risk Decipher score was independently associated with shorter TTT (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.52-4.13 p < 0.001). Similarly, in patients that underwent radical therapy, a high-risk Decipher score was independently associated with TTF (HR 2.98, 95% CI 1.22-7.29, p = 0.01) on multivariable analysis. Follow-up time was a limitation.
CONCLUSION: In a prospective statewide registry, high-risk Decipher Biopsy score was strongly and independently associated with conversion from AS to definitive treatment and treatment failure. These real-world data support the clinical utility of Decipher Biopsy. An ongoing phase 3 randomized trial (NCT04396808) will provide level 1 evidence of the clinical impact of Decipher biopsy testing.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34285350      PMCID: PMC8770695          DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00428-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  28 in total

1.  Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference.

Authors:  Mack Roach; Gerald Hanks; Howard Thames; Paul Schellhammer; William U Shipley; Gerald H Sokol; Howard Sandler
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2006-07-15       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Daniel E Spratt; Jingbin Zhang; María Santiago-Jiménez; Robert T Dess; John W Davis; Robert B Den; Adam P Dicker; Christopher J Kane; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova; Firas Abdollah; Ashley E Ross; Adam Cole; Edward Uchio; Josh M Randall; Hao Nguyen; Shuang G Zhao; Rohit Mehra; Andrew G Glass; Lucia L C Lam; Jijumon Chelliserry; Marguerite du Plessis; Voleak Choeurng; Maria Aranes; Tyler Kolisnik; Jennifer Margrave; Jason Alter; Jennifer Jordan; Christine Buerki; Kasra Yousefi; Zaid Haddad; Elai Davicioni; Edouard J Trabulsi; Stacy Loeb; Ashutosh Tewari; Peter R Carroll; Sheila Weinmann; Edward M Schaeffer; Eric A Klein; R Jeffrey Karnes; Felix Y Feng; Paul L Nguyen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study.

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

4.  Defining Quality Metrics for Active Surveillance: The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Experience.

Authors:  Kevin B Ginsburg; Michael L Cher; James E Montie
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Active Surveillance of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: Long-term Outcomes from a Large Prospective Cohort.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Mufaddal Mamawala; Jonathan I Epstein; Patricia Landis; Katarzyna J Macura; Demetrios N Simopoulos; H Ballentine Carter; Michael A Gorin
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Genomic Classifier for Guiding Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancers to Dose-Escalated Image Guided Radiation Therapy Without Hormone Therapy.

Authors:  Alejandro Berlin; Jure Murgic; Ali Hosni; Melania Pintilie; Adriana Salcedo; Michael Fraser; Suzanne Kamel-Reid; Jingbin Zhang; Qiqi Wang; Carolyn Ch'ng; Samineh Deheshi; Elai Davicioni; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paul C Boutros; Robert G Bristow; Melvin L K Chua
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 7.  Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of the Performance of the Decipher Genomic Classifier in High-Risk Men After Prostatectomy to Predict Development of Metastatic Disease.

Authors:  Daniel E Spratt; Kasra Yousefi; Samineh Deheshi; Ashley E Ross; Robert B Den; Edward M Schaeffer; Bruce J Trock; Jingbin Zhang; Andrew G Glass; Adam P Dicker; Firas Abdollah; Shuang G Zhao; Lucia L C Lam; Marguerite du Plessis; Voleak Choeurng; Zaid Haddad; Christine Buerki; Elai Davicioni; Sheila Weinmann; Stephen J Freedland; Eric A Klein; R Jeffrey Karnes; Felix Y Feng
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Combined value of validated clinical and genomic risk stratification tools for predicting prostate cancer mortality in a high-risk prostatectomy cohort.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Elai Davicioni; Anamaria Crisan; Robert B Jenkins; Mercedeh Ghadessi; R Jeffrey Karnes
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Risk Factors for Biopsy Reclassification over Time in Men on Active Surveillance for Early Stage Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Peter E Lonergan; Samuel L Washington; Janet E Cowan; Shoujun Zhao; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto Shinohara; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  Prostate cancer risk stratification with magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ely R Felker; Daniel J Margolis; Nima Nassiri; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.498

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate as a Cause of Prostate Cancer Metastasis: A Molecular Portrait.

Authors:  Helen Pantazopoulos; Mame-Kany Diop; Andrée-Anne Grosset; Frédérique Rouleau-Gagné; Afnan Al-Saleh; Teodora Boblea; Dominique Trudel
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-06       Impact factor: 6.639

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.