Why the UK Should Consider Gene Expression Testing in Prostate Cancer.

There is an increase in the use of prognostic gene expression biomarkers in the USA for the personalisation of treatment for men with localised and recurrent prostate cancer. However, these are not available in the UK. This overview will cover the need to shift from subjective histological phenotypes (e.g. Gleason grade) to more objective biological genotypes, review the suboptimal performance of clinical and pathological variables to accurately risk stratify patients and discuss the growing body of consistent work that has shown that genomic classifiers more accurately discriminate which men harbour indolent or biologically aggressive disease, independently of grade or stage. Overall, we will discuss the need for improved prognostic biomarkers and why the UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines should move beyond the now 20-year-old three-tier D'Amico risk classification schema to guide the management of prostate cancer in the modern era.

Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent proposal to change the grading system of prostate cancer into a five-tier grade grouping system. The prognostic impact of this has been demonstrated in regards only to biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) with short follow-up (3 years). METHODS: Between 1990 and 2013, 847 consecutive men were treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy at a single academic center. To validate the new grade grouping system, bRFS, distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were calculated. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the independent impact of the new grade grouping system. Discriminatory analyses were performed to compare the commonly used three-tier Gleason score system (6, 7 and 8-10) to the new system. RESULTS: The median follow-up of our cohort was 88 months. The 5-grade groups independently validated differing risks of bRFS (group 1 as reference; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.35, 2.16, 1.79 and 3.84 for groups 2-5, respectively). Furthermore, a clear stratification was demonstrated for DMFS (aHR 2.03, 3.18, 3.62 and 13.77 for groups 2-5, respectively) and PCSS (aHR 3.00, 5.32, 6.02 and 39.02 for groups 2-5, respectively). The 5-grade group system had improved prognostic discrimination for all end points compared with the commonly used three-tiered system (that is, Gleason score 6, 7 and 8-10). CONCLUSIONS: In a large independent radiotherapy cohort with long-term follow-up, we have validated the bRFS benefit of the proposed five-tier grade grouping system. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the system is highly prognostic for DMFS and PCSS. Grade group 5 had markedly worse outcomes for all end points, and future work is necessary to improve outcomes in these patients.