Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Heterogeneity in Genomic Risk Assessment from Tissue Based Prognostic Signatures Used in the Biopsy Setting and the Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy.
Punnen, Sanoj; Stoyanova, Radka; Kwon, Deukwoo; Reis, Isildinha M; Soodana-Prakash, Nachiketh; Ritch, Chad R; Nahar, Bruno; Gonzalgo, Mark L; Kava, Bruce; Liu, Yang; Arora, Himanshu; Gaston, Sandra M; Castillo Acosta, Rosa P; Pra, Alan Dal; Abramowitz, Matthew; Kryvenko, Oleksandr N; Davicioni, Elai; Pollack, Alan; Parekh, Dipen J.
Afiliación
  • Punnen S; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Stoyanova R; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Kwon D; Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource and Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
  • Reis IM; Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource and Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
  • Soodana-Prakash N; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Ritch CR; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Nahar B; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Gonzalgo ML; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Kava B; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Liu Y; Research and Development, Decipher Biosciences, San Diego, California.
  • Arora H; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Gaston SM; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Castillo Acosta RP; Department of Radiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
  • Pra AD; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Abramowitz M; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Kryvenko ON; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Davicioni E; Research and Development, Decipher Biosciences, San Diego, California.
  • Pollack A; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
  • Parekh DJ; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
J Urol ; 205(5): 1344-1351, 2021 05.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33356482
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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Próstata / Neoplasias de la Próstata / Imagen por Resonancia Magnética Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Urol Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Próstata / Neoplasias de la Próstata / Imagen por Resonancia Magnética Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Urol Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article