Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Test Results in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) Cohort.
Lin, Daniel W; Zheng, Yingye; McKenney, Jesse K; Brown, Marshall D; Lu, Ruixiao; Crager, Michael; Boyer, Hilary; Tretiakova, Maria; Brooks, James D; Dash, Atreya; Fabrizio, Michael D; Gleave, Martin E; Kolb, Suzanne; Liss, Michael; Morgan, Todd M; Thompson, Ian M; Wagner, Andrew A; Tsiatis, Athanasios; Pingitore, Andrea; Nelson, Peter S; Newcomb, Lisa F.
Affiliation
  • Lin DW; Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
  • Zheng Y; Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
  • McKenney JK; Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
  • Brown MD; Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
  • Lu R; Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
  • Crager M; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA.
  • Boyer H; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA.
  • Tretiakova M; Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
  • Brooks JD; Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
  • Dash A; Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
  • Fabrizio MD; Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
  • Gleave ME; Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care Systems, Seattle, WA.
  • Kolb S; Department of Urology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Virginia Beach, VA.
  • Liss M; Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  • Morgan TM; Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
  • Thompson IM; Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX.
  • Wagner AA; Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
  • Tsiatis A; Christus Medical Center Hospital, San Antonio, TX.
  • Pingitore A; Division of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Nelson PS; Plexxikon, Berkely, CA.
  • Newcomb LF; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA.
J Clin Oncol ; 38(14): 1549-1557, 2020 05 10.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32130059
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

The 17-gene Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) test predicts adverse pathology (AP) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer treated with immediate surgery. We evaluated the GPS test as a predictor of outcomes in a multicenter active surveillance cohort. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Diagnostic biopsy tissue was obtained from men enrolled at 8 sites in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. The primary endpoint was AP (Gleason Grade Group [GG] ≥ 3, ≥ pT3a) in men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) after initial surveillance. Multivariable regression models for interval-censored data were used to evaluate the association between AP and GPS. Inverse probability of censoring weighting was applied to adjust for informative censoring. Predictiveness curves were used to evaluate how models stratified risk of AP. Association between GPS and time to upgrade on surveillance biopsy was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS:

GPS results were obtained for 432 men (median follow-up, 4.6 years); 101 underwent RP after a median 2.1 years of surveillance, and 52 had AP. A total of 167 men (39%) upgraded at a subsequent biopsy. GPS was significantly associated with AP when adjusted for diagnostic GG (hazards ratio [HR]/5 GPS units, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.44; P = .030), but not when also adjusted for prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.19; P = .066). Models containing PSAD and GG, or PSAD, GG, and GPS may stratify risk better than a model with GPS and GG. No association was observed between GPS and subsequent biopsy upgrade (P = .48).

CONCLUSION:

In our study, the independent association of GPS with AP after initial active surveillance was not statistically significant, and there was no association with upgrading in surveillance biopsy. Adding GPS to a model containing PSAD and diagnostic GG did not significantly improve stratification of risk for AP over the clinical variables alone.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostatic Neoplasms / Genomics Type of study: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Limits: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: J Clin Oncol Year: 2020 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostatic Neoplasms / Genomics Type of study: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Limits: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: J Clin Oncol Year: 2020 Document type: Article
...