Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Use of the Decipher genomic classifier among men with prostate cancer in the United States.
Zaorsky, Nicholas G; Proudfoot, James A; Jia, Angela Y; Zuhour, Raed; Vince, Randy; Liu, Yang; Zhao, Xin; Hu, Jim; Schussler, Nicola C; Stevens, Jennifer L; Bentler, Suzanne; Cress, Rosemary D; Doherty, Jennifer A; Durbin, Eric B; Gershman, Susan; Cheng, Iona; Gonsalves, Lou; Hernandez, Brenda Y; Liu, Lihua; Morawski, Bozena M; Schymura, Maria; Schwartz, Stephen M; Ward, Kevin C; Wiggins, Charles; Wu, Xiao-Cheng; Shoag, Jonathan E; Ponsky, Lee; Dal Pra, Alan; Schaeffer, Edward M; Ross, Ashley E; Sun, Yilun; Davicioni, Elai; Petkov, Valentina; Spratt, Daniel E.
Affiliation
  • Zaorsky NG; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Proudfoot JA; Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Jia AY; Veracyte, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
  • Zuhour R; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Vince R; Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Liu Y; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Zhao X; Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Hu J; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Schussler NC; Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Stevens JL; Veracyte, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
  • Bentler S; Veracyte, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
  • Cress RD; Department of Urology, Weil Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
  • Doherty JA; Information Management Systems, Inc, Calverton, MD, USA.
  • Durbin EB; Information Management Systems, Inc, Calverton, MD, USA.
  • Gershman S; Iowa Cancer Registry, The University of Iowa, IA, USA.
  • Cheng I; Public Health Institute, Cancer Registry of Greater California, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  • Gonsalves L; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Hernandez BY; Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Liu L; Cancer Research Informatics Shared Resource Facility, Markey Cancer Center, Kentucky Cancer Registry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
  • Morawski BM; Massachusetts Cancer Registry, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Schymura M; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  • Schwartz SM; Connecticut Tumor Registry, Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, CT, USA.
  • Ward KC; University of Hawaii Cancer Center, HI, USA.
  • Wiggins C; Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Wu XC; Cancer Data Registry of Idaho, Boise, ID, USA.
  • Shoag JE; School of Public Health Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University at Albany, State University of New York, NY, USA.
  • Ponsky L; Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Dal Pra A; Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  • Schaeffer EM; Department of Internal Medicine, University of NM, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
  • Ross AE; Department of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, LA, USA.
  • Sun Y; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Davicioni E; Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Petkov V; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Spratt DE; Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
JNCI Cancer Spectr ; 7(5)2023 08 31.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37525535
ABSTRACT

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.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostatic Neoplasms Type of study: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Year: 2023 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostatic Neoplasms Type of study: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Year: 2023 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States