Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification of Suspicious Lesions on Prostate Multiparametric-MRI.

The utilization of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) in clinical decisions regarding prostate cancer patients' management has recently increased. After biopsy, clinicians can assess risk using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk stratification schema and commercially available genomic classifiers, such as Decipher. We built radiomics-based models to predict lesions/patients at low risk prior to biopsy based on an established three-tier clinical-genomic classification system. Radiomic features were extracted from regions of positive biopsies and Normally Appearing Tissues (NAT) on T2-weighted and Diffusion-weighted Imaging. Using only clinical information available prior to biopsy, five models for predicting low-risk lesions/patients were evaluated, based on: 1: Clinical variables; 2: Lesion-based radiomic features; 3: Lesion and NAT radiomics; 4: Clinical and lesion-based radiomics; and 5: Clinical, lesion and NAT radiomic features. Eighty-three mpMRI exams from 78 men were analyzed. Models 1 and 2 performed similarly (Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.835 and 0.838, respectively), but radiomics significantly improved the lesion-based performance of the model in a subset analysis of patients with a negative Digital Rectal Exam (DRE). Adding normal tissue radiomics significantly improved the performance in all cases. Similar patterns were observed on patient-level models. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that machine learning radiomics-based models can predict patients' risk using combined clinical-genomic classification.

Use of the Decipher genomic classifier among men with prostate cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Management of localized or recurrent prostate cancer since the 1990s has been based on risk stratification using clinicopathological variables, including Gleason score, T stage (based on digital rectal exam), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In this study a novel prognostic test, the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC), was used to stratify risk of prostate cancer progression in a US national database of men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Records of prostate cancer cases from participating SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program registries, diagnosed during the period from 2010 through 2018, were linked to records of testing with the GC prognostic test. Multivariable analysis was used to quantify the association between GC scores or risk groups and use of definitive local therapy after diagnosis in the GC biopsy-tested cohort and postoperative radiotherapy in the GC-tested cohort as well as adverse pathological findings after prostatectomy. RESULTS: A total of 572 545 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 8927 patients underwent GC testing. GC biopsy-tested patients were more likely to undergo active active surveillance or watchful waiting than untested patients (odds ratio [OR] =2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.04 to 2.38, P < .001). The highest use of active surveillance or watchful waiting was for patients with a low-risk GC classification (41%) compared with those with an intermediate- (27%) or high-risk (11%) GC classification (P < .001). Among National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with low and favorable-intermediate risk, higher GC risk class was associated with greater use of local therapy (OR = 4.79, 95% CI = 3.51 to 6.55, P < .001). Within this subset of patients who were subsequently treated with prostatectomy, high GC risk was associated with harboring adverse pathological findings (OR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.38 to 6.27, P = .005). Use of radiation after prostatectomy was statistically significantly associated with higher GC risk groups (OR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.89 to 3.84). CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between use of the biopsy GC test and likelihood of conservative management. Higher genomic classifier scores are associated with higher rates of adverse pathology at time of surgery and greater use of postoperative radiotherapy.In this study the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC) was used to analyze a US national database of men with prostate cancer. Use of the GC was associated with conservative management (ie, active surveillance). Among men who had high-risk GC scores and then had surgery, there was a 3-fold higher chance of having worrisome findings in surgical specimens.

Genomic Testing in Localized Prostate Cancer Can Identify Subsets of African Americans With Aggressive Disease.

BACKGROUND: Personalized genomic classifiers have transformed the management of prostate cancer (PCa) by identifying the most aggressive subsets of PCa. Nevertheless, the performance of genomic classifiers to risk classify African American men is thus far lacking in a prospective setting. METHODS: This is a prospective study of the Decipher genomic classifier for National Comprehensive Cancer Network low- and intermediate-risk PCa. Study-eligible non-African American men were matched to African American men. Diagnostic biopsy specimens were processed to estimate Decipher scores. Samples accrued in NCT02723734, a prospective study, were interrogated to determine the genomic risk of reclassification (GrR) between conventional clinical risk classifiers and the Decipher score. RESULTS: The final analysis included a clinically balanced cohort of 226 patients with complete genomic information (113 African American men and 113 non-African American men). A higher proportion of African American men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network-classified low-risk (18.2%) and favorable intermediate-risk (37.8%) PCa had a higher Decipher score than non-African American men. Self-identified African American men were twice more likely than non-African American men to experience GrR (relative risk [RR] = 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02 to 4.90; P = .04). In an ancestry-determined race model, we consistently validated a higher risk of reclassification in African American men (RR = 5.26, 95% CI = 1.66 to 16.63; P = .004). Race-stratified analysis of GrR vs non-GrR tumors also revealed molecular differences in these tumor subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of genomic classifiers with clinically based risk classification can help identify the subset of African American men with localized PCa who harbor high genomic risk of early metastatic disease. It is vital to identify and appropriately risk stratify the subset of African American men with aggressive disease who may benefit from more targeted interventions.

Clinical-genomic Characterization Unveils More Aggressive Disease Features in Elderly Prostate Cancer Patients with Low-grade Disease.

BACKGROUND: Over 20% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC) are ≥75 yr old. More objective disease-specific indices for predicting outcomes beyond chronological age are necessary. OBJECTIVE: To analyze age-related differences in clinical-genomic prognostic features of aggressiveness in localized PC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective multicenter cross-sectional study reported the use of the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) guidelines. Clinical-genomic data of patients who underwent a prostate biopsy or radical prostatectomy (RP) were obtained from the Decipher Genomic Resource Information Database (NCT02609269). INTERVENTION: Our analyses focused on the 22-gene Decipher genomic classifier (GC) and 50-gene (PAM50) models in the biopsy and RP cohorts stratified by age. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the impact of age on GC scores and PAM50 molecular subtypes. Prognostic indices including Decipher GC scores, PAM50 molecular subtypes, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk categories, and ISUP grade groups (IGGs) were stratified by age using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Within histological low-risk IGGs, there were a higher proportion of patients with high-risk Decipher biopsy scores with age (age <60 yr: 10.1% IGG 1 and 29.9% IGG 2 vs age ≥80 yr: 22% IGG 1 and 37.7% IGG 2). The prevalence of the adverse phenotype luminal B (PAM50-defined) increased with age (age <60 yr: 22.7% and 40.2% vs age ≥80 yr: 29.7% and 49.1%, in patients with IGG 1 and IGG 2, respectively). In IGGs 3-5, no age differences were observed. Multivariable models demonstrated that each age decile entailed a 19% (odds ratio [OR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.29, p < 0.001) and a 10% (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.05-1.16) increased probability for a high-risk Decipher biopsy and RP score, respectively. Aside from an obvious selection bias, data on race, family history, prostate volume, and long-term follow-up outcomes were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrated that elderly men with favorable pathology (IGG 1-2), might harbor more aggressive disease than younger patients based on validated GC scores. PATIENT SUMMARY: The presented clinical-genomic data demonstrate that elderly patients with low-risk prostate cancer might harbor more aggressive disease than their younger counterparts. This suggests that standard well-accepted paradigm of elderly prostate cancer patients not being aggressively treated, based solely on their chronological age, might need to be reconsidered.

Performance of clinicopathologic models in men with high risk localized prostate cancer: impact of a 22-gene genomic classifier.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer exhibits biological and clinical heterogeneity even within established clinico-pathologic risk groups. The Decipher genomic classifier (GC) is a validated method to further risk-stratify disease in patients with prostate cancer, but its performance solely within National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk disease has not been undertaken to date. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective study of 405 men with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent primary treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT) with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) at 11 centers from 1995 to 2005 was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the hazard ratios (HR) for the development of metastatic disease based on clinico-pathologic variables, risk groups, and GC score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was determined for regression models without and with the GC score. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 82 months, 104 patients (26%) developed metastatic disease. On univariable analysis, increasing GC score was significantly associated with metastatic disease ([HR]: 1.34 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.50, p < 0.001), while age, serum PSA, biopsy GG, and clinical T-stage were not (all p > 0.05). On multivariable analysis, GC score (HR: 1.33 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% CI: 1.19-1.48, p < 0.001) and GC high-risk (vs low-risk, HR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.79-4.87, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with metastasis. The addition of GC score to regression models based on NCCN risk group improved model AUC from 0.46 to 0.67, and CAPRA from 0.59 to 0.71. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with high-risk prostate cancer, conventional clinico-pathologic data had poor discrimination to risk stratify development of metastatic disease. GC score was a significant and independent predictor of metastasis and may help identify men best suited for treatment intensification/de-escalation.

Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to validate Decipher to predict adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable-intermediate risk (F-IR) prostate cancer (PCa), and to better select F-IR candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: In all, 647 patients diagnosed with NCCN very low/low risk (VL/LR) or F-IR prostate cancer were identified from a multi-institutional PCa biopsy database; all underwent RP with complete postoperative clinicopathological information and Decipher genomic risk scores. The performance of all risk assessment tools was evaluated using logistic regression model for the endpoint of AP, defined as grade group 3-5, pT3b or higher, or lymph node invasion. RESULTS: The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 56-66) for 220 patients with NCCN F-IR disease, 53% classified as low-risk by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA 0-2) and 47% as intermediate-risk (CAPRA 3-5). Decipher classified 79%, 13% and 8% of men as low-, intermediate- and high-risk with 13%, 10%, and 41% rate of AP, respectively. Decipher was an independent predictor of AP with an odds ratio of 1.34 per 0.1 unit increased (p value = 0.002) and remained significant when adjusting by CAPRA. Notably, F-IR with Decipher low or intermediate score did not associate with significantly higher odds of AP compared to VL/LR. CONCLUSIONS: NCCN risk groups, including F-IR, are highly heterogeneous and should be replaced with multivariable risk-stratification. In particular, incorporating Decipher may be useful for safely expanding the use of AS in this patient population.

Genomic Risk Predicts Molecular Imaging-detected Metastatic Nodal Disease in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Decipher genomic classifier (GC) is increasingly being used to determine metastasis risk in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa). Whether GCs predict for the presence of occult metastatic disease at presentation or subsequent metastatic progression is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if GC scores predict extraprostatic 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA-11) positron emission tomography (PET) positivity at presentation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between December 2015 and September 2018, 91 PCa patients with both GC scores and pretreatment 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scans were identified. Risk stratification was performed using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA), and GC scores. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression was used to identify factors correlated with PSMA-positive disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The NCCN criteria identified 23 (25.3%) and 68 patients (74.7%) as intermediate and high risk, while CAPRA scores revealed 28 (30.8%) and 63 (69.2%) as low/intermediate and high risk, respectively. By contrast, only 45 patients (49.4%) had high-risk GC scores. PSMA-avid pelvic nodal involvement was identified in 27 patients (29.7%). Higher GC score was significantly associated with pelvic nodal involvement (odds ratio [OR] 1.38 per 0.1 units; p=0.009) and any PSMA-avid nodal involvement (pelvic or distant; OR 1.40 per 0.1 units; p=0.007). However, higher GC score was not significantly associated with PSMA-avid osseous metastases (OR 1.11 per 0.1 units; p=0.50). Limitations include selection bias for patients able to receive both tests and the sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Each 0.1-unit increase in GC score was associated with an approximate 40% increase in the odds of PSMA-avid lymph node involvement. These data suggest that patients with GC high risk might benefit from more nodal imaging and treatment intensification, potentially via pelvic nodal dissection, pelvic nodal irradiation, and/or the addition of chemohormonal agents. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with higher genomic classifier scores were found to have more metastatic lymph node involvement on prostate-specific membrane antigen imaging.

Genomic Validation of 3-Tiered Clinical Subclassification of High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent data and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines suggest that high-risk prostate cancer (cT3-4, Gleason score ≥8, or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/mL) is a heterogenous group in terms of long-term patient outcomes. We sought to determine whether subclassification of high-risk prostate cancer based on clinical factors correlates with genomic markers of risk. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 3220 patients with NCCN unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 2000) or high-risk (n = 1220) prostate cancer from a prospective multi-institutional registry cohort. We defined the following subclassification of high-risk prostate cancer based on previously published data: favorable high risk (cT1c, Gleason 6, and PSA >20 ng/mL or cT1c, Gleason 4 + 4 = 8, PSA <10 ng/mL); very high risk (cT3b-T4 or primary Gleason pattern 5); and standard high risk (all others with cT3a, Gleason score ≥8, or PSA >20 ng/mL). We used a set of 33 previously developed genomic classifiers, including Decipher, to determine whether high-risk genomic features correlate with clinical subclasses of high-risk prostate cancer. RESULTS: Among those with favorable high-risk, standard high-risk, and very high-risk prostate cancer, 50.4%, 64.2%, and 81.6% had a high-risk Decipher score, respectively (P < .001). Among 32 other genomic signatures, 29 had a similar trend of increasing risk scores across the 3 subclasses of high-risk disease (P < .05 after correction for multiple hypothesis testing). Patients in the 3 subclasses of high-risk disease had a median of 4, 6, and 13 high-risk signatures, respectively. In comparison, among those with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 38.2% had a high-risk Decipher score, and the median number of high-risk signatures was 3. CONCLUSIONS: Although NCCN guidelines currently use a 2-tiered system for high-risk prostate cancer, genomic markers of risk correlate with the clinically validated subclassification of high-risk prostate cancer into favorable high-risk, standard high-risk, and very high-risk disease, further confirming the prognostic utility of this 3-tiered stratification.

Validation of the Decipher Test for predicting adverse pathology in candidates for prostate cancer active surveillance.

ABSTACT: BACKGROUND: Many men diagnosed with prostate cancer are active surveillance (AS) candidates. However, AS may be associated with increased risk of disease progression and metastasis due to delayed therapy. Genomic classifiers, e.g., Decipher, may allow better risk-stratify newly diagnosed prostate cancers for AS. METHODS: Decipher was initially assessed in a prospective cohort of prostatectomies to explore the correlation with clinically meaningful biologic characteristics and then assessed in diagnostic biopsies from a retrospective multicenter cohort of 266 men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) very low/low and favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Decipher and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) were compared as predictors of adverse pathology (AP) for which there is universal agreement that patients with long life-expectancy are not suitable candidates for AS (primary pattern 4 or 5, advanced local stage [pT3b or greater] or lymph node involvement). RESULTS: Decipher from prostatectomies was significantly associated with adverse pathologic features (p-values < 0.001). Decipher from the 266 diagnostic biopsies (64.7% NCCN-very-low/low and 35.3% favorable-intermediate) was an independent predictor of AP (odds ratio 1.29 per 10% increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.61, p-value 0.025) when adjusting for CAPRA. CAPRA area under curve (AUC) was 0.57, (95% CI 0.47-0.68). Adding Decipher to CAPRA increased the AUC to 0.65 (95% CI 0.58-0.70). NPV, which determines the degree of confidence in the absence of AP for patients, was 91% (95% CI 87-94%) and 96% (95% CI 90-99%) for Decipher thresholds of 0.45 and 0.2, respectively. Using a threshold of 0.2, Decipher was a significant predictor of AP when adjusting for CAPRA (p-value 0.016). CONCLUSION: Decipher can be applied to prostate biopsies from NCCN-very-low/low and favorable-intermediate risk patients to predict absence of adverse pathologic features. These patients are predicted to be good candidates for active surveillance.

Low Tristetraprolin Expression Is Associated with Lethal Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is linked to prostate cancer progression and is mediated by NF-κB. Tristetraprolin is a key node of NF-κB activation and we investigated its biological and prognostic role in lethal prostate cancer. METHODS: In vitro assays assessed the function of tristetraprolin and the association between low mRNA tristetraprolin levels and lethal prostate cancer (metastatic disease or death) was assessed across independent prostatectomy cohorts: (i) nested case-control studies from Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Physicians' Health Study, and (ii) prostatectomy samples from Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Tristetraprolin expression levels in prostatectomy samples from patients with localized disease and biopsies of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were assessed in a Cornell University cohort. RESULTS: In vitro tristetraprolin expression was inversely associated with NF-κB-controlled genes, proliferation, and enzalutamide sensitivity. Men with localized prostate cancer and lower quartile of tumor tristetraprolin expression had a significant, nearly two-fold higher risk of lethal prostate cancer after adjusting for known clinical and histologic prognostic features (age, RP Gleason score, T-stage). Tristetraprolin expression was also significantly lower in mCRPC compared with localized prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Lower levels of tristetraprolin in human prostate cancer prostatectomy tissue are associated with more aggressive prostate cancer and may serve as an actionable prognostic and predictive biomarker. IMPACT: There is a clear need for improved biomarkers to identify patients with localized prostate cancer in need of treatment intensification, such as adjuvant testosterone suppression, or treatment de-intensification, such as active surveillance. Tristetraprolin levels may serve as informative biomarkers in localized prostate cancer.

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

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recently endorsed the stratification of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IR-PCa) into favorable and unfavorable subgroups and recommend the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) for unfavorable IR-PCa. Recently, more accurate prognostication was demonstrated by integrating a 22-feature genomic classifier (GC) to the NCCN stratification system. Here, we test the utility of the GC to better identify patients with IR-PCa who are sufficiently treated by RT alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified a novel cohort comprising 121 patients with IR-PCa treated with dose-escalated image guided RT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) without ADT. GC scores were derived from tumors sampled in diagnostic biopsies. Multivariable analyses, including both NCCN subclassification and GC scores, were performed for biochemical failure (prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2 ng/mL) and metastasis occurrence. RESULTS: By NCCN subclassification, 33 (27.3%) and 87 (71.9%) of men were classified as having favorable and unfavorable IR-PCa, respectively (1 case unclassifiable). GC scores were high in 3 favorable IR-PCa and low in 60 unfavorable IR-PCa. Higher GC scores, but not NCCN risk subgroups, were associated with biochemical relapse (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.71] per 10% increase; P = .007) and metastasis (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.24-4.24; P = .004). GC predicted biochemical failure at 5 years (area under the curve, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91), and the combinatorial NCCN + GC model significantly outperformed the NCCN alone model for predicting early-onset metastasis (area under the curve for 5-year metastasis of 0.89 vs 0.86 [GC alone] vs 0.54 [NCCN alone]). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the accuracy of the GC for predicting disease recurrence in IR-PCa treated with dose-escalated image guided RT alone. Our findings highlight the need to evaluate this GC in a prospective clinical trial investigating the role of ADT-RT in clinicogenomic-defined IR-PCa subgroups.

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

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

Ability of a Genomic Classifier to Predict Metastasis and Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality after Radiation or Surgery based on Needle Biopsy Specimens.

BACKGROUND: Decipher is a validated genomic classifier developed to determine the biological potential for metastasis after radical prostatectomy (RP). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of biopsy Decipher to predict metastasis and Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in primarily intermediate- to high-risk patients treated with RP or radiation therapy (RT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and thirty-five patients treated with either RP (n=105) or RT±androgen deprivation therapy (n=130) with available genomic expression profiles generated from diagnostic biopsy specimens from seven tertiary referral centers. The highest-grade core was sampled and Decipher was calculated based on a locked random forest model. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Metastasis and PCSM were the primary and secondary outcomes of the study, respectively. Cox analysis and c-index were used to evaluate the performance of Decipher. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median follow-up of 6 yr among censored patients, 34 patients developed metastases and 11 died of prostate cancer. On multivariable analysis, biopsy Decipher remained a significant predictor of metastasis (hazard ratio: 1.37 per 10% increase in score, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.78, p=0.018) after adjusting for clinical variables. For predicting metastasis 5-yr post-biopsy, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score had a c-index of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.69), while Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment plus biopsy Decipher had a c-index of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60-0.82). National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group had a c-index of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.53-0.77), while National Comprehensive Cancer Network plus biopsy Decipher had a c-index of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66-0.82). Biopsy Decipher was a significant predictor of PCSM (hazard ratio: 1.57 per 10% increase in score, 95% CI: 1.03-2.48, p=0.037), with a 5-yr PCSM rate of 0%, 0%, and 9.4% for Decipher low, intermediate, and high, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy Decipher predicted metastasis and PCSM from diagnostic biopsy specimens of primarily intermediate- and high-risk men treated with first-line RT or RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: Biopsy Decipher predicted metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality risk from diagnostic biopsy specimens.

Decipher Genomic Classifier Measured on Prostate Biopsy Predicts Metastasis Risk.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of the Decipher genomic classifier in predicting metastasis from analysis of prostate needle biopsy diagnostic tumor tissue specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with available biopsy specimens were identified from a cohort of 169 men treated with radical prostatectomy in a previously reported Decipher validation study at Cleveland Clinic. A Cox multivariable proportional hazards model and survival C-index were used to evaluate the performance of Decipher. RESULTS: With a median follow up of 8 years, 8 patients metastasized and 3 died of prostate cancer. The Decipher plus National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) model had an improved C-index of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.96) compared to NCCN alone (C-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.87). On multivariable analysis, Decipher was the only significant predictor of metastasis when adjusting for age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen and biopsy Gleason score (Decipher hazard ratio per 10% increase 1.72, 95% CI 1.07-2.81, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Biopsy Decipher predicted the risk of metastasis at 10 years post radical prostatectomy. While further validation is required on larger cohorts, preoperative knowledge of Decipher risk derived from biopsy could indicate the need for multimodality therapy and help set patient expectations of therapeutic burden.

Utility of Risk Models in Decision Making After Radical Prostatectomy: Lessons from a Natural History Cohort of Intermediate- and High-Risk Men.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines suggest adjuvant radiation therapy for men with adverse pathologic features (APFs) at radical prostatectomy (RP). We examine at-risk men treated only with RP until the time of metastasis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether clinicopathologic risk models can help guide postoperative therapeutic decision making. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing RP in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era were identified (n=3089). Only men with initial undetectable PSA after surgery and who received no therapy prior to metastasis were included. APFs were defined as pT3 disease or positive surgical margins. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for time to event data was used to measure the discrimination performance of the risk factors. Cumulative incidence curves were constructed using Fine and Gray competing risks analysis to estimate the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) or metastasis, taking censoring and death due to other causes into consideration. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 43% of the cohort (n=1327) had APFs at RP. Median follow-up for censored patients was 5 yr. Cumulative incidence of metastasis was 6% at 10 yr after RP for all patients. Cumulative incidence of metastasis among men with APFs was 7.5% at 10 yr after RP. Among men with BCR, the incidence of metastasis was 38% 5 yr after BCR. At 10 yr after RP, time-dependent AUC for predicting metastasis by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical or Eggener risk models was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.97) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.97) in the APF population, respectively. At 5 yr after BCR, these values were lower (0.58 [95% CI, 0.50-0.66] and 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63-0.76]) among those who developed BCR. Use of risk model cut points could substantially reduce overtreatment while minimally increasing undertreatment (ie, use of an Eggener cut point of 2.5% for treatment of men with APFs would spare 46% from treatment while only allowing for metastatic events in 1% at 10 yr after RP). CONCLUSIONS: Use of risk models reduces overtreatment and should be a routine part of patient counseling when considering adjuvant therapy. Risk model performance is significantly reduced among men with BCR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Use of current risk models can help guide decision making regarding therapy after surgery and reduce overtreatment.