Soum D Lokeshwar1, Jamil S Syed1, Daniel Segal1, Syed N Rahman1, Preston C Sprenkle2. 1. Department of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, 800 Howard Ave, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, 800 Howard Ave, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. Preston.Sprenkle@yale.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSEOF REVIEW: The use of genomic testing for prostate cancer continues to grow; however, utilization remains institutionally dependent. Herein, we review current tissue-based markers and comment on current use with active surveillance and prostate MRI. RECENT FINDINGS: While data continues to emerge, several studies have shown a role for genomic testing for treatment selection. Novel testing options include ConfirmMDx, ProMark, Prolaris, and Decipher, which have shown utility in select patients. The current body of literature on this specific topic remains very limited; prospective trials with long-term follow-up are needed to improve our understanding on how these genomic tests fit when combined with our current clinical tools. As the literature matures, it is likely that newer risk calculators that combine our classic clinical variables with genomic and imaging data will be developed to bring about standard protocols for prostate cancer decision-making.
PURPOSEOF REVIEW: The use of genomic testing for prostate cancer continues to grow; however, utilization remains institutionally dependent. Herein, we review current tissue-based markers and comment on current use with active surveillance and prostate MRI. RECENT FINDINGS: While data continues to emerge, several studies have shown a role for genomic testing for treatment selection. Novel testing options include ConfirmMDx, ProMark, Prolaris, and Decipher, which have shown utility in select patients. The current body of literature on this specific topic remains very limited; prospective trials with long-term follow-up are needed to improve our understanding on how these genomic tests fit when combined with our current clinical tools. As the literature matures, it is likely that newer risk calculators that combine our classic clinical variables with genomic and imaging data will be developed to bring about standard protocols for prostate cancer decision-making.
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Kimberly A Roehl; Jo Ann V Antenor; William J Catalona; Brian K Suarez; Robert B Nadler Journal: Urology Date: 2006-01-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: W J Catalona; D S Smith; T L Ratliff; K M Dodds; D E Coplen; J J Yuan; J A Petros; G L Andriole Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-04-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James A Eastham; Elyn Riedel; Peter T Scardino; Moshe Shike; Martin Fleisher; Arthur Schatzkin; Elaine Lanza; Lianne Latkany; Colin B Begg Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-28 Impact factor: 56.272