Using the Cell-Cycle Risk Score to Predict the Benefit of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Added to Radiation Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend adding androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) in certain patients with localized prostate cancer. Individualized genomic testing may improve the prognostic accuracy of risk assessments. Herein, we describe a mathematical model of the benefit of adding ADT to RT as a function of the personalized clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score to inform 10-year metastasis risk. METHODS: A model of absolute risk reduction (ARR) was built using a retrospective cohort of men tested with Prolaris who received RT alone (N = 467). The relative benefit of ADT added to RT to reduce distant metastasis was estimated at 41% on the basis of a meta-analysis of randomized trials. The ARR and number needed to treat (NNT) were computationally derived in patients clinically tested with Prolaris between January 1, 2020, and October 31, 2022 (N = 56,485). Risks were predicted using a cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model with CCR score predicting time to metastasis. A CCR score of 2.112 represents the validated multimodal treatment (MMT) threshold. RESULTS: The ARR from ADT increased from almost zero at low CCR scores to 17.1% at CCR = 3.690 with the corresponding NNT = 6, indicating that adding ADT to RT would prevent metastasis within 10 years for one of every six treated individuals. In the clinical cohort, the average ARR was 0.86% in individuals under the MMT threshold (NNT = 116). The average ARR was 8.19% in individuals above the MMT threshold (NNT = 12). Broad ranges of ADT benefit were observed within National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk categories. CONCLUSION: The precise and personalized risk estimate of metastasis provided by the CCR score can help inform patients and physicians when considering treatment intensification.

Development and validation of a cell cycle progression signature for decentralized testing of men with prostate cancer.

Aim: The 46-gene Prolaris® cell cycle progression test provides information on the risk of prostate cancer progression. Here we developed and validated a 16-gene kit-based version. Methods: RNA was extracted from prostate cancer biopsy tissue. Amplification efficiency, minimum tumor content, repeatability, reproducibility and equivalence with the 46-gene test were evaluated. Results: Amplification efficiencies for all genes were within the acceptable range (90-110%), and samples with ≥50% tumor content were appropriate for the 16-gene test. Results were repeatable (standard deviation: 0.085) and reproducible (standard deviation: 0.115). Instrument, operator and kit lot had minimal impact on results. Cell cycle progression scores from the 46- and 16-gene tests were highly correlated (r = 0.969; bias = 0.217). Conclusion: The 16-gene test performs consistently and similarly to the 46-gene test.

Prostate cancer does not always require aggressive treatment, and some men with low risk of disease progression may chose active surveillance. One way to measure the risk of disease progression is the Prolaris^® cell cycle progression test, which is performed at a commercial testing facility and measures the expression of 46 genes. However, certain European countries would prefer to run this test at a centralized testing facility. To this end we developed a streamlined kit measuring 16 genes to be used in these testing facilities, and showed that the cell cycle progression scores derived from the kit test are robust and equivalent to those obtained with the larger 46-gene test.