Balancing Confounding and Generalizability Using Observational, Real-world Data: 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score Assay Effect on Active Surveillance.

Randomized, controlled trials can provide high-quality, unbiased evidence for therapeutic interventions but are not always a practical or viable study design for certain healthcare decisions, such as those involving prognostic or predictive testing. Studies using large, real-world databases may be more appropriate and more generalizable to the intended target population of physicians and patients to answer these questions but carry potential for hidden bias. We illustrate several emerging methods of analyzing observational studies using propensity score matching (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM). These advanced statistical methods are intended to reveal a "hidden experiment" within an observational database, and so refute or confirm a potential causal effect of assignment to an intervention and study outcome. We applied these methods to the Optum™ Research Database (ORD; Eden Prairie, MN) of electronic health records and administrative claims data to assess the effect of the 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score® (GPS™; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) assay on use of active surveillance (AS). In a traditional multivariable logistic regression, the GPS assay increased the use of AS by 29% (95% CI, 24%-33%). Upon applying the matching methods, the effect of the GPS assay on AS use varied between 27% and 80% and the matched data were significant among all algorithms. All matching algorithms performed well in identifying matched data that improved the imbalance in baseline covariates. By using different matching methods to assess causal inference in an observational database, we provide further confidence that the effect of the GPS assay on AS use is statistically significant and unlikely to be a result of confounding due to differences in baseline characteristics of the patients or the settings in which they were seen.

Improving risk stratification among veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer: impact of the 17-gene prostate score assay.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) has been widely implemented within Veterans Affairs' medical centers (VAMCs) as a standard of care for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Patient characteristics such as age, race, and Agent Orange (AO) exposure may influence advisability of AS in veterans. The 17-gene assay may improve risk stratification and management selection. OBJECTIVES: To compare management strategies for PCa at 6 VAMCs before and after introduction of the Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) assay. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed records of patients diagnosed with PCa between 2013 and 2014 to identify management patterns in an untested cohort. From 2015 to 2016, these patients received GPS testing in a prospective study. Charts from 6 months post biopsy were reviewed for both cohorts to compare management received in the untested and tested cohorts. SUBJECTS: Men who just received their diagnosis and have National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) very low-, low-, and select cases of intermediate-risk PCa. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were generally similar in the untested and tested cohorts. AS utilization was 12% higher in the tested cohort compared with the untested cohort. In men younger than 60 years, utilization of AS in tested men was 33% higher than in untested men. AS in tested men was higher across all NCCN risk groups and races, particular in low-risk men (72% vs 90% for untested vs tested, respectively). Tested veterans exposed to AO received less AS than untested veterans. Tested nonexposed veterans received 19% more AS than untested veterans. Median GPS results did not significantly differ as a factor of race or AO exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Men who receive GPS testing are more likely to utilize AS within the year post diagnosis, regardless of age, race, and NCCN risk group. Median GPS was similar across racial groups and AO exposure groups, suggesting similar biology across these groups. The GPS assay may be a useful tool to refine risk assessment of PCa and increase rates of AS among clinically and biologically low-risk patients, which is in line with guideline-based care.

Active Surveillance Use Among a Low-risk Prostate Cancer Population in a Large US Payer System: 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Versus Other Risk Stratification Methods.

Many men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) receive definitive treatment despite recommendations that have been informed by two large, randomized trials encouraging active surveillance (AS). We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Optum™ Research Database (Eden Prairie, MN) of electronic health records and administrative claims data to assess AS use for patients tested with a 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score™ (GPS; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) assay and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). De-identified records were extracted on health plan members enrolled from June 2013 to June 2016 who had ≥1 record of PCa (n 5 291,876). Inclusion criteria included age ≥18 years, new diagnosis, American Urological Association low-risk PCa (stage T1-T2a, prostate-specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL, Gleason score 5 6), and clinical activity for at least 12 months before and after diagnosis. Data included baseline characteristics, use of GPS testing and/or MRI, and definitive procedures. GPS or MRI testing was performed in 17% of men (GPS, n 5 375, 4%; MRI, n 5 1174, 13%). AS use varied from a low of 43% for men who only underwent MRI to 89% for GPStested men who did not undergo MRI (P <.001). At 6-month follow-up, AS use was 31.0% higher (95% CI, 27.6%-34.5%; P <.001) for men receiving the GPS test only versus men who did not undergo GPS testing or MRI; the difference was 30.5% at 12-month follow-up. In a large US payer system, the GPS assay was associated with significantly higher AS use at 6 and 12 months compared with men who had MRI only, or no GPS or MRI testing.

Health Economic Impact and Prospective Clinical Utility of Oncotype DX® Genomic Prostate Score.

Prostate cancer (CaP) will be diagnosed in approximately 181,000 American men in 2016. Despite the high number of deaths from CaP in the United States, the disease has a protracted natural history and many men diagnosed with CaP will not die of the disease regardless of treatment. Unfortunately, identification of men with truly indolent/ nonaggressive CaP is challenging; limitations of conventional diagnostic modalities diminish the ability of physicians to accurately stage every case of CaP based on biopsy results alone. The resulting uncertainty in prognosis may prompt men with low-risk CaP to proceed to morbid and expensive treatments for an unclear survival benefit. Incorporation of the Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) as part of the decision algorithm for patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network very low-risk and low-risk cancer led to a substantial increase in uptake of active surveillance and substantial cost savings. GPS provides physicians and patients with an additional tool in assessing personalized risk and helps guide individual decision making.

The Impact of a Biopsy Based 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score on Treatment Recommendations in Men with Newly Diagnosed Clinically Prostate Cancer Who are Candidates for Active Surveillance.

INTRODUCTION: The biopsy based 17-gene GPS was clinically validated to predict the likelihood of adverse surgical pathology in men with NCCN® very low, low or low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. We performed a prospective study to assess the impact of incorporating GPS into treatment recommendations in 3 high volume urology practices. METHODS: Men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer meeting specific NCCN criteria were prospectively enrolled in the trial. Biopsy tissue was analyzed. Urologists indicated treatment recommendations on questionnaires administered before and after GPS. The primary study objectives were to assess all changes in treatment modality and/or treatment intensity after GPS. RESULTS: A total of 158 men were included in analysis, including 35, 71 and 52 at NCCN very low, low and low-intermediate risk. Biological risk predicted by GPS differed from NCCN clinical risk alone in 61 men (39%). Overall 18% of recommendations between active surveillance and immediate treatment changed after GPS. The relative increase in recommendations for active surveillance was 24% (absolute change 41% to 51%). In 41 of 158 men (26%) modality and/or intensity recommendations changed after GPS, including 25, 14 and 2 in whom recommendation intensity decreased, increased and were equivocal, respectively. All changes were directionally consistent with GPS. The NCCN low risk group showed the greatest absolute recommendation change after GPS (37%). In 17 of 57 men (30%) the initial recommendation of radical prostatectomy was changed to active surveillance after GPS. Urologists indicated greater confidence and found that incorporating GPS was useful in 85% and 79% of cases, respectively, including when biological risk confirmed the clinical risk category. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the 17-gene GPS influenced treatment recommendations among urologists and provided increased confidence in these recommendations in patients at NCCN very low to low-intermediate risk.

A guide for clinicians in the evaluation of emerging molecular diagnostics for newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is associated with a decline in prostate cancer-related mortality. However, screening has also led to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors. Recently, certain national guidelines (eg, US Preventive Services Task Force) have recommended against PSA screening, which may lead to a reverse-stage migration. Although many prostate tumors are indolent at presentation, others are aggressive and are appropriate targets for treatment interventions. Utilization of molecular markers may improve our ability to measure tumor biology and allow better discrimination of indolent and aggressive tumors at diagnosis. Many emerging commercial molecular diagnostic assays have been designed to provide more accurate risk stratification for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Unfamiliarity with molecular diagnostics may make it challenging for some clinicians to navigate and interpret the medical literature to ascertain whether particular assays are appropriately developed and validated for clinical use. Herein, the authors provide a framework for practitioners to use when assessing new tissue-based molecular assays. This review outlines aspects of assay development, clinical and analytic validation and clinical utility studies, and regulatory issues, which collectively determine whether tests (1) are actionable for specific clinical indications, (2) measurably influence treatment decisions, and (3) are sufficiently validated to warrant incorporation into clinical practice.