Development and Validation of an 18-Gene Urine Test for High-Grade Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Benefits of prostate cancer (PCa) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone are largely offset by excess negative biopsies and overdetection of indolent cancers resulting from the poor specificity of PSA for high-grade PCa (ie, grade group [GG] 2 or greater). Objective: To develop a multiplex urinary panel for high-grade PCa and validate its external performance relative to current guideline-endorsed biomarkers. Design, Setting, and Participants: RNA sequencing analysis of 58 724 genes identified 54 markers of PCa, including 17 markers uniquely overexpressed by high-grade cancers. Gene expression and clinical factors were modeled in a new urinary test for high-grade PCa (MyProstateScore 2.0 [MPS2]). Optimal models were developed in parallel without prostate volume (MPS2) and with prostate volume (MPS2+). The locked models underwent blinded external validation in a prospective National Cancer Institute trial cohort. Data were collected from January 2008 to December 2020, and data were analyzed from November 2022 to November 2023. Exposure: Protocolized blood and urine collection and transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multiple biomarker tests were assessed in the validation cohort, including serum PSA alone, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator, and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) as well as derived multiplex 2-gene and 3-gene models, the original 2-gene MPS test, and the 18-gene MPS2 models. Under a testing approach with 95% sensitivity for PCa of GG 2 or greater, measures of diagnostic accuracy and clinical consequences of testing were calculated. Cancers of GG 3 or greater were assessed secondarily. Results: Of 761 men included in the development cohort, the median (IQR) age was 63 (58-68) years, and the median (IQR) PSA level was 5.6 (4.6-7.2) ng/mL; of 743 men included in the validation cohort, the median (IQR) age was 62 (57-68) years, and the median (IQR) PSA level was 5.6 (4.1-8.0) ng/mL. In the validation cohort, 151 (20.3%) had high-grade PCa on biopsy. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values were 0.60 using PSA alone, 0.66 using the risk calculator, 0.77 using PHI, 0.76 using the derived multiplex 2-gene model, 0.72 using the derived multiplex 3-gene model, and 0.74 using the original MPS model compared with 0.81 using the MPS2 model and 0.82 using the MPS2+ model. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model would have reduced unnecessary biopsies performed in the initial biopsy population (range for other tests, 15% to 30%; range for MPS2, 35% to 42%) and repeat biopsy population (range for other tests, 9% to 21%; range for MPS2, 46% to 51%). Across pertinent subgroups, the MPS2 models had negative predictive values of 95% to 99% for cancers of GG 2 or greater and of 99% for cancers of GG 3 or greater. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a new 18-gene PCa test had higher diagnostic accuracy for high-grade PCa relative to existing biomarker tests. Clinically, use of this test would have meaningfully reduced unnecessary biopsies performed while maintaining highly sensitive detection of high-grade cancers. These data support use of this new PCa biomarker test in patients with elevated PSA levels to reduce the potential harms of PCa screening while preserving its long-term benefits.

Predicting Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Adenoma Removal in a Large Community-Based Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines categorize individuals as high or low risk for future colorectal cancer (CRC) based primarily on their prior polyp characteristics, but this approach is imprecise, and consideration of other risk factors may improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. METHODS: Among patients who underwent a baseline colonoscopy with removal of a conventional adenoma in 2004-2016, we compared the performance for postpolypectomy CRC risk prediction (through 2020) of a comprehensive model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and prior polyp findings (i.e., adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥10 mm, and sessile serrated adenoma or traditional serrated adenoma) with a polyp model featuring only polyp findings. Models were developed using Cox regression. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Among 95,001 patients randomly divided 70:30 into model development (n = 66,500) and internal validation cohorts (n = 28,501), 495 CRC were subsequently diagnosed; 354 in the development cohort and 141 in the validation cohort. Models demonstrated adequate calibration, and the comprehensive model demonstrated superior predictive performance to the polyp model in the development cohort (AUC 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.74 vs AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64, respectively) and validation cohort (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75 vs AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67, respectively). DISCUSSION: A comprehensive CRC risk prediction model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and polyp findings was more accurate at predicting postpolypectomy CRC diagnosis than a model based on polyp findings alone.

Revisiting the standard blueprint for biomarker development to address emerging cancer early detection technologies.

Novel liquid biopsy technologies are creating a watershed moment in cancer early detection. Evidence supporting population screening is nascent, but a rush to market the new tests is prompting cancer early detection researchers to revisit the standard blueprint that the Early Detection Research Network established to evaluate novel screening biomarkers. In this commentary, we review the Early Detection Research Network's Phases of Biomarker Development (PBD) for rigorous evaluation of novel early detection biomarkers and discuss both hazards and opportunities involved in expedited evaluation. According to the PBD, for a biomarker-based test to be considered for population screening, 1) test sensitivity in a prospective screening setting must be adequate, 2) the shift to early curable stages must be meaningful, and 3) any stage shift must translate into clinically significant mortality benefit. In the past, determining mortality benefit has required lengthy randomized screening trials, but interest is growing in expedited trial designs with shorter-term endpoints. Whether and how best to use such endpoints in a manner that retains the rigor of the PBD remains to be determined. We discuss how computational disease modeling can be harnessed to learn about screening impact and meet the needs of the moment.

Development of an Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithm for Predicting Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines in the United States recommend LCS for those age 50-80 years with at least 20 pack-years smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years. We tested the performance of simple smoking-related criteria derived from electronic health record (EHR) data and developed and tested the performance of a multivariable model in predicting LCS eligibility. METHODS: Analyses were completed within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium (PROSPR-Lung). In our primary validity analyses, the reference standard LCS eligibility was based on self-reported smoking data collected via survey. Within one PROSPR-Lung health system, we used a training data set and penalized multivariable logistic regression using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator to select EHR-based variables into the prediction model including demographics, smoking history, diagnoses, and prescription medications. A separate test data set assessed model performance. We also conducted external validation analysis in a separate health system and reported AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy metrics associated with the Youden Index. RESULTS: There were 14,214 individuals with survey data to assess LCS eligibility in primary analyses. The overall performance for assigning LCS eligibility status as measured by the AUC values at the two health systems was 0.940 and 0.938. At the Youden Index cutoff value, performance metrics were as follows: accuracy, 0.855 and 0.895; sensitivity, 0.886 and 0.920; specificity, 0.896 and 0.850; PPV, 0.357 and 0.444; and NPV, 0.988 and 0.992. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that health systems can use an EHR-derived multivariable prediction model to aid in the identification of those who may be eligible for LCS.

Constructing time-invariant dynamic surveillance rules for optimal monitoring schedules.

Dynamic surveillance rules (DSRs) are sequential surveillance decision rules informing monitoring schedules in clinical practice, which can adapt over time according to a patient's evolving characteristics. In many clinical applications, it is desirable to identify and implement optimal time-invariant DSRs, where the parameters indexing the decision rules are shared across different decision points. We propose a new criterion for DSRs that accounts for benefit-cost tradeoff during the course of disease surveillance. We develop two methods to estimate the time-invariant DSRs optimizing the proposed criterion, and establish asymptotic properties for the estimated parameters of biomarkers indexing the DSRs. The first approach estimates the optimal decision rules for each individual at every stage via regression modeling, and then estimates the time-invariant DSRs via a classification procedure with the estimated time-varying decision rules as the response. The second approach proceeds by optimizing a relaxation of the empirical objective, where a surrogate function is utilized to facilitate computation. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to demonstrate the superior performances of the proposed methods. The methods are further applied to the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS).

Validation of a Genetic-Enhanced Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer in a Large Community-Based Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) which summarize individuals' genetic risk profile may enhance targeted colorectal cancer screening. A critical step towards clinical implementation is rigorous external validations in large community-based cohorts. This study externally validated a PRS-enhanced colorectal cancer risk model comprising 140 known colorectal cancer loci to provide a comprehensive assessment on prediction performance. METHODS: The model was developed using 20,338 individuals and externally validated in a community-based cohort (n = 85,221). We validated predicted 5-year absolute colorectal cancer risk, including calibration using expected-to-observed case ratios (E/O) and calibration plots, and discriminatory accuracy using time-dependent AUC. The PRS-related improvement in AUC, sensitivity and specificity were assessed in individuals of age 45 to 74 years (screening-eligible age group) and 40 to 49 years with no endoscopy history (younger-age group). RESULTS: In European-ancestral individuals, the predicted 5-year risk calibrated well [E/O = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-1.13] and had high discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.71-0.76). Adding the PRS to a model with age, sex, family and endoscopy history improved the 5-year AUC by 0.06 (P < 0.001) and 0.14 (P = 0.05) in the screening-eligible age and younger-age groups, respectively. Using a risk-threshold of 5-year SEER colorectal cancer incidence rate at age 50 years, adding the PRS had a similar sensitivity but improved the specificity by 11% (P < 0.001) in the screening-eligible age group. In the younger-age group it improved the sensitivity by 27% (P = 0.04) with similar specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed PRS-enhanced model provides a well-calibrated 5-year colorectal cancer risk prediction and improves discriminatory accuracy in the external cohort. IMPACT: The proposed model has potential utility in risk-stratified colorectal cancer prevention.

MyProstateScore in men considering repeat biopsy: validation of a simple testing approach.

BACKGROUND: Men with persistent risk of Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 cancer after a negative biopsy present a unique clinical challenge. The validated MyProstateScore test is clinically-available for pre-biopsy risk stratification. In biopsy-naïve patients, we recently validated a straightforward testing approach to rule-out GG ≥ 2 cancer with 98% negative predictive value (NPV) and 97% sensitivity. In the current study, we established a practical MPS-based testing approach in men with a previous negative biopsy being considered for repeat biopsy. METHODS: Patients provided post-digital rectal examination urine prior to repeat biopsy. MyProstateScore was calculated using the validated, locked model including urinary PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG scores with serum PSA. In a clinically-appropriate primary (i.e., training) cohort, we identified a lower (rule-out) threshold approximating 90% sensitivity and an upper (rule-in) threshold approximating 80% specificity for GG ≥ 2 cancer. These thresholds were applied to an external validation cohort, and performance measures and clinical outcomes associated with their use were calculated. RESULTS: MyProstateScore thresholds of 15 and 40 met pre-defined performance criteria in the primary cohort (422 patients; median PSA 6.4, IQR 4.3-9.1). In the 268-patient validation cohort, 25 men (9.3%) had GG ≥ 2 cancer on repeat biopsy. The rule-out threshold of 15 provided 100% NPV and sensitivity for GG ≥ 2 cancer and would have prevented 23% of unnecessary biopsies. Use of MyProstateScore >40 to rule-in biopsy would have prevented 67% of biopsies while maintaining 95% NPV. In the validation cohort, the prevalence of GG ≥ 2 cancer was 0% for MyProstateScore 0-15, 6.5% for MyProstateScore 15-40, and 19% for MyProstateScore >40. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who previously underwent a negative prostate biopsy, the MyProstateScore values of 15 and 40 yielded clinically-actionable rule-in and rule-out risk groups. Using this straightforward testing approach, MyProstateScore can meaningfully inform patients and physicians weighing the need for repeat biopsy.

Dietary Patterns and Risk of Gleason Grade Progression among Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.

Modifiable lifestyle factors, such as following a healthy dietary pattern may delay or prevent prostate cancer (PCa) progression. However, few studies have evaluated whether following specific dietary patterns after PCa diagnosis impacts risk of disease progression among men with localized PCa managed by active surveillance (AS). 564 men enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study, a protocol-driven AS study utilizing a pre-specified prostate-specific antigen monitoring and surveillance biopsy regimen, completed a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at enrollment and had ≥ 1 surveillance biopsy during follow-up. FFQs were used to evaluate adherence to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Healthy Eating index (HEI))-2015, alternative Mediterranean Diet (aMED), and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) dietary patterns. Multivariable-adjusted hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 237 men experienced an increase in Gleason score on subsequent biopsy (grade reclassification). Higher HEI-2015, aMED or DASH diet scores after diagnosis were not associated with significant reductions in the risk of grade reclassification during AS. However, these dietary patterns have well-established protective effects on chronic diseases and mortality and remain a prudent choice for men with prostate cancer managed by AS.

Two-phase stratified sampling and analysis for predicting binary outcomes.

The two-phase study design is a cost-efficient sampling strategy when certain data elements are expensive and, thus, can only be collected on a sub-sample of subjects. To date guidance on how best to allocate resources within the design has assumed that primary interest lies in estimating association parameters. When primary interest lies in the development and evaluation of a risk prediction tool, however, such guidance may, in fact, be detrimental. To resolve this, we propose a novel strategy for resource allocation based on oversampling cases and subjects who have more extreme risk estimates according to a preliminary model developed using fully observed predictors. Key to the proposed strategy is that it focuses on enhancing efficiency regarding estimation of measures of predictive accuracy, rather than on efficiency regarding association parameters which is the standard paradigm. Towards valid estimation and inference for accuracy measures using the resultant data, we extend an existing semiparametric maximum likelihood ethod for estimating odds ratio association parameters to accommodate the biased sampling scheme and data incompleteness. Motivated by our sampling design, we additionally propose a general post-stratification scheme for analyzing general two-phase data for estimating predictive accuracy measures. Through theoretical calculations and simulation studies, we show that the proposed sampling strategy and post-stratification scheme achieve the promised efficiency improvement. Finally, we apply the proposed methods to develop and evaluate a preliminary model for predicting the risk of hospital readmission after cardiac surgery using data from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Impact of Prostate Health Index Results for Prediction of Biopsy Grade Reclassification During Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: We assessed whether Prostate Health Index results improve prediction of grade reclassification for men on active surveillance. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified men in Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study with Grade Group 1 cancer. Outcome was grade reclassification to Grade Group 2+ cancer. We considered decision rules to maximize specificity with sensitivity set at 95%. We derived rules based on clinical data (R1) vs clinical data+Prostate Health Index (R3). We considered an "or"-logic rule combining clinical score and Prostate Health Index (R4), and a "2-step" rule using clinical data followed by risk stratification based on Prostate Health Index (R2). Rules were applied to a validation set, where values of R2-R4 vs R1 for specificity and sensitivity were evaluated. RESULTS: We included 1,532 biopsies (n = 610 discovery; n = 922 validation) among 1,142 men. Grade reclassification was seen in 27% of biopsies (23% discovery, 29% validation). Among the discovery set, at 95% sensitivity, R2 yielded highest specificity at 27% vs 17% for R1. In the validation set, R3 had best performance vs R1 with Δsensitivity = -4% and Δspecificity = +6%. There was slight improvement for R3 vs R1 for confirmatory biopsy (AUC 0.745 vs R1 0.724, ΔAUC 0.021, 95% CI 0.002-0.041) but not for subsequent biopsies (ΔAUC -0.012, 95% CI -0.031-0.006). R3 did not have better discrimination vs R1 among the biopsy cohort overall (ΔAUC 0.007, 95% CI -0.007-0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Among active surveillance patients, using Prostate Health Index with clinical data modestly improved prediction of grade reclassification on confirmatory biopsy and did not improve prediction on subsequent biopsies.

New weighting methods when cases are only a subset of events in a nested case-control study.

Nested case control (NCC) is a sampling method widely used for developing and evaluating risk models with expensive biomarkers on large prospective cohort studies. In a typical NCC design, biomarker values are obtained on a subcohort, where cases consist of all the events (subjects who experience the event during the follow-up). However, when the number of events is not small, due to the cost and limited availability of biospecimen, one may select only a subset of events as cases. We refer to such a variation as the untypical NCC. Unfortunately, existing inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimators for the untypical NCC are biased, and they only focus on relative risk parameters under the proportional hazards (PH) model. In this manuscript, we propose new weighting methods that produce consistent IPW estimators for not only relative risk parameters but also several metrics that evaluate a risk model's predictive performance. We also provide the inference procedure via perturbation resampling, which captures all the variance and between-subject covariance induced by the sampling processes for both case and control selections. In addition, our methods are not limited to the PH model, and they can be applied to the time-specific generalized linear model. Under the typical NCC design, our new weights are equivalent to the weight proposed by Samuelsen; under the untypical NCC, the IPW estimators using our weights have smaller bias and variance than the existing methods. We will demonstrate this improved performance via both analytical and numerical investigations.

Germline mutations in penetrant cancer predisposition genes are rare in men with prostate cancer selecting active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic germline mutations in several rare penetrant cancer predisposition genes are associated with an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer (PC). Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline mutations in men with low-risk PC on active surveillance, and assess whether pathogenic germline mutations associate with grade reclassification or adverse pathology, recurrence, or metastases, in men treated after initial surveillance. METHODS: Men prospectively enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) were retrospectively sampled for the study. Germline DNA was sequenced utilizing a hereditary cancer gene panel. Mutations were classified according to the American College of Clinical Genetics and Genomics' guidelines. The association of pathogenic germline mutations with grade reclassification and adverse characteristics was evaluated by weighted Cox proportional hazards modeling and conditional logistic regression, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 29 of 437 (6.6%) study participants harbored a pathogenic germline mutation of which 19 occurred in a gene involved in DNA repair (4.3%). Eight participants (1.8%) had pathogenic germline mutations in three genes associated with aggressive PC: ATM, BRCA1, and BRCA2. The presence of pathogenic germline mutations in DNA repair genes did not associate with adverse characteristics (univariate analysis HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.36-2.06, p = 0.7). The carrier rates of pathogenic germline mutations in ATM, BRCA1, and BRCA2did not differ in men with or without grade reclassification (1.9% vs. 1.8%). CONCLUSION: The frequency of pathogenic germline mutations in penetrant cancer predisposition genes is extremely low in men with PC undergoing active surveillance and pathogenic germline mutations had no apparent association with grade reclassification or adverse characteristics.

Association Between a 22-feature Genomic Classifier and Biopsy Gleason Upgrade During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although the Decipher genomic classifier has been validated as a prognostic tool for several prostate cancer endpoints, little is known about its role in assessing the risk of biopsy reclassification for patients on active surveillance, a key event that often triggers treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between Decipher genomic classifier scores and biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cohort study among patients with low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent biopsy-based Decipher testing as part of their clinical care. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We evaluated the association between the Decipher score and any increase in biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for models comprising baseline clinical variables with or without the Decipher score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 133 patients for inclusion with a median age of 67.7 yr and median prostate-specific of 5.6 ng/ml. At enrollment, 75.9% had GG1 and 24.1% had GG2 disease. Forty-three patients experienced biopsy upgrading. On multivariable logistic regression, the Decipher score was significantly associated with biopsy upgrading (odds ratio 1.37 per 0.10 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.79; p = 0.02). The Decipher score was associated with upgrading among patients with biopsy GG 1 disease, but not GG2 disease. The discriminative ability of a clinical model (AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.74) was improved by integration of the Decipher score (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The Decipher genomic classifier score was associated with short-term biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance. PATIENT SUMMARY: The results from this study indicate that among patients with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance, those with higher Decipher scores were more likely to have higher-grade disease found over time. These findings indicate that the Decipher test might be useful for guiding the intensity of monitoring during active surveillance, such as more frequent biopsy for patients with higher scores.

Development of a Whole-urine, Multiplexed, Next-generation RNA-sequencing Assay for Early Detection of Aggressive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite biomarker development advances, early detection of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) remains challenging. We previously developed a clinical-grade urine test (Michigan Prostate Score [MiPS]) for individualized aggressive PCa risk prediction. MiPS combines serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), the TMPRSS2:ERG (T2:ERG) gene fusion, and PCA3 lncRNA in whole urine after digital rectal examination (DRE). OBJECTIVE: To improve on MiPS with a novel next-generation sequencing (NGS) multibiomarker urine assay for early detection of aggressive PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Preclinical development and validation of a post-DRE urine RNA NGS assay (Urine Prostate Seq [UPSeq]) assessing 84 PCa transcriptomic biomarkers, including T2:ERG, PCA3, additional PCa fusions/isoforms, mRNAs, lncRNAs, and expressed mutations. Our UPSeq model was trained on 73 patients and validated on a held-out set of 36 patients representing the spectrum of disease (benign to grade group [GG] 5 PCa). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of UPSeq was compared with PSA, MiPS, and other existing models/biomarkers for predicting GG ≥3 PCa. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: UPSeq demonstrated high analytical accuracy and concordance with MiPS, and was able to detect expressed germline HOXB13 and somatic SPOP mutations. In an extreme design cohort (n = 109; benign/GG 1 vs GG ≥3 PCa, stratified to exclude GG 2 cancer in order to capture signal difference between extreme ends of disease), UPSeq showed differential expression for T2:ERG.T1E4 (1.2 vs 78.8 median normalized reads, p < 0.00001) and PCA3 (1024 vs 2521, p = 0.02), additional T2:ERG splice isoforms, and other candidate biomarkers. Using machine learning, we developed a 15-transcript model on the training set (n = 73) that outperformed serum PSA and sequencing-derived MiPS in predicting GG ≥3 PCa in the held-out validation set (n = 36; AUC 0.82 vs 0.69 and 0.69, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the potential utility of our novel urine-based RNA NGS assay to supplement PSA for improved early detection of aggressive PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: We have developed a new urine-based test for the detection of aggressive prostate cancer, which promises improvement upon current biomarker tests.

Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining men on active surveillance for prostate cancer can be challenging. Although most men who eventually undergo treatment have experienced clinical progression, a smaller subset elects treatment in the absence of disease reclassification. This study sought to understand factors associated with treatment in a large, contemporary, prospective cohort. METHODS: This study identified 1789 men in the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study cohort enrolled as of 2020 with a median follow-up of 5.6 years. Clinical and demographic data as well as information on patient-reported quality of life and urinary symptoms were used in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to identify factors associated with the time to treatment RESULTS: Within 4 years of their diagnosis, 33% of men (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-35%) underwent treatment, and 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) were treated in the absence of reclassification. The most significant factor associated with any treatment was an increasing Gleason grade group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.5; 95% CI, 11.7-17.9). Urinary quality-of-life scores were associated with treatment without reclassification (aHR comparing "mostly dissatisfied/terrible" with "pleased/mixed," 2.65; 95% CI, 1.54-4.59). In a subset analysis (n = 692), married men, compared with single men, were more likely to undergo treatment in the absence of reclassification (aHR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.04-6.66). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of men with prostate cancer undergo treatment in the absence of clinical changes in their cancers, and quality-of-life changes and marital status may be important factors in these decisions. LAY SUMMARY: This analysis of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer shows that approximately 1 in 10 men will decide to be treated within 4 years of their diagnosis even if their cancer is stable. These choices may be related in part to quality-or-life or spousal concerns.

Re-calibrating pure risk integrating individual data from two-phase studies with external summary statistics.

Accurate risk assessment is critical in clinical decision-making. It entails the projected risk based on a risk prediction model agreeing with the observed risk in the target cohort. However, the model often over- or under-estimates the risk. Building a new model for the target cohort would be ideal but costly. It is therefore of great interest to recalibrate an existing model for the target cohort. Existing methods have been proposed to recalibrate the model by leveraging the disease incidence rates from the target cohort. However, they assume the same covariate distribution across cohorts and when the assumption is violated, the recalibrated model can be substantially biased. Further, recalibration is also complicated by the two-phase sampling design that is commonly used for developing risk prediction models. In this paper, we develop a weighted estimating-equation approach accounting for the two-phase design and combine it with a weighted empirical likelihood that leverages the summary information on both disease incidence rates and covariates from the target cohort. We provide a resampling-based inference procedure. Our extensive simulation results show that using the summary information from the target population, the proposed recalibration method yields nearly unbiased risk estimates under a wide range of scenarios. An application to a colorectal cancer study also illustrates that the proposed method yields a well-calibrated model in the target cohort.

Associations between Genetic Variants and Blood Biomarkers of One-Carbon Metabolism in Postmenopausal Women from the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic variation in one-carbon metabolism may affect nutrient concentrations and biological functions. However, data on genetic variants associated with blood biomarkers of one-carbon metabolism in US postmenopausal women are limited, and whether these associations were affected by the nationwide folic acid (FA) fortification program is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We investigated associations between genetic variants and biomarkers of one-carbon metabolism using data from the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. METHODS: In 1573 non-Hispanic White (NHW) and 282 Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino women aged 50-79 y, 288 nonsynonymous and tagging single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) were genotyped. RBC folate, plasma folate, pyridoxal-5'-phosphate (PLP), vitamin B-12, homocysteine, and cysteine concentrations were determined in 12-h fasting blood. Multivariable linear regression tested associations per variant allele and for an aggregated genetic risk score. Effect modifications before, during, and after nationwide FA fortification were examined. RESULTS: After correction for multiple comparisons, among NHW women, 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) rs1801133 (677C→T) variant T was associated with lower plasma folate (-13.0%; 95% CI: -17.3%, -8.6%) and higher plasma homocysteine (3.5%; 95% CI: 1.7%, 5.3%) concentrations. Other associations for nonsynonymous SNVs included DNMT3A rs11695471 (T→A) with plasma PLP; EHMT2 rs535586 (G→A), TCN2 rs1131603 (L349S A→G), and TCN2 rs35838082 (R188W G→A) with plasma vitamin B-12; CBS rs2851391 (G→A) with plasma homocysteine; and MTHFD1 rs2236224 (G→A) and rs2236225 (R653Q G→A) with plasma cysteine. The influence of FA fortification on the associations was limited. Highest compared with lowest quartiles of aggregated genetic risk scores from SNVs in MTHFR and MTRR were associated with 14.8% to 18.9% lower RBC folate concentrations. Gene-biomarker associations were similar in women of other races/ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings on genetic variants associated with several one-carbon metabolism biomarkers may help elucidate mechanisms of maintaining B vitamin status in postmenopausal women.

Evaluating the Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer: Prospective Results from the Canary PASS Cohort.

PURPOSE: Active surveillance (AS) for grade group (GG) 2 patients is not yet well defined. We sought to compare clinical outcomes of men with GG1 and GG2 prostate cancer undergoing AS in a large prospective North American cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were prospectively enrolled in an AS study with protocol-directed followup at 10 centers in the U.S. and Canada. We evaluated time from diagnosis to biopsy grade reclassification and time to treatment. In men treated after initial surveillance, adverse pathology and recurrence were also analyzed. RESULTS: At diagnosis, 154 (9%) had GG2 and 1,574 (91%) had GG1. Five-year reclassification rates were similar between GG2 and GG1 (30% vs 37%, p=0.11). However, more patients with GG2 were treated at 5 years (58% vs 34%, p <0.001) and GG at diagnosis was associated with time to treatment (HR=1.41; p=0.01). Treatment rates were similar in patients who reclassified during AS, but in patients who did not reclassify, those diagnosed with GG2 underwent definitive treatment more often than GG1 (5-year treatment rates 52% and 12%, p <0.0001). In participants who underwent radical prostatectomy after initial surveillance, the adjusted risk of adverse pathology was similar (HR=1.26; p=0.4). Biochemical recurrence within 3 years of treatment for GG2 and GG1 patients was 6% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on AS, the rate of definitive treatment is higher after an initial diagnosis of GG2 than GG1. Adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy and short-term biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment were similar between GG2 and GG1.