Prognostic capabilities and clinical utility of cell cycle progression testing, prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2, and clinicopathologic data in management of localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prognostic capabilities and clinical utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) gene expression classifier test, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring, and clinicopathologic data in select prostate cancer (PCa) medical management scenarios. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective, observational analysis of patients (N = 222) ascertained sequentially from a single urology practice from January 2015 to June 2018. Men were included if they had localized PCa, a CCP score, and an mpMRI PI-RADS v2 score. Cohort 1 (n = 156): men with newly diagnosed PCa, with or without a previous negative biopsy. Cohort 2 (n = 66): men who initiated active surveillance (AS) without CCP testing, but who received the test during AS. CCP was combined with the UCSF Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score to produce a clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which was reported in the context of a validated AS threshold. Spearman's rank correlation test was used to evaluate correlations between variables. Generalized linear models were used to predict binary Gleason score category and medical management selection (AS or curative therapy). Likelihood-ratio tests were used to determine predictor significance in both univariable and multivariable models. RESULTS: In the combined cohorts, modest but significant correlations were observed between PI-RADS score and CCP (rs = 0.22, P = 8.1 × 10-4), CAPRA (rs= 0.36, P = 4.8 × 10-8), or CCR (rs = 0.37, P = 2.0 × 10-8), suggesting that much of the prognostic information captured by these measures is independent. When accounting for CAPRA and PI-RADS score, CCP was a significant predictor of higher-grade tumor after radical prostatectomy, with the resected tumor approximately 4 times more likely to harbor Gleason ≥4+3 per 1-unit increase in CCP in Cohort 1 (Odds Ratio [OR], 4.10 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46, 14.12], P = 0.006) and in the combined cohorts (OR, 3.72 [95% CI, 1.39, 11.88], P = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PI-RADS score was not a significant predictor of post-radical prostatectomy Gleason score. Both CCP and CCR were significant and independent predictors of AS versus curative therapy in Cohort 1 on multivariable analysis, with each 1-unit increase in score corresponding to an approximately 2-fold greater likelihood of selecting curative therapy (CCP OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.16, 3.94], P = 0.014) (CCR OR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.48, 3.87], P = 1.5 × 10-4). CCR at or below the AS threshold significantly reduced the probability of selecting curative therapy over AS (OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.13, 0.57], P = 4.4 × 10-4), further validating the clinical utility of the AS threshold. CONCLUSION: CCP was a better predictor of both tumor grade and subsequent patient management than was PI-RADS. Even in the context of targeted biopsy, molecular information remains essential to ensure precise risk assessment for men with newly diagnosed PCa.

Cell cycle progression score improves risk stratification in prostate cancer patients with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score versus actual risk stratification practice in making treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients with locally adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with adverse pathologic features, pT3 or positive surgical margins who underwent RP in 2010-2014 at Renji hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP. RNA was quantified from paraffin-embedded RP specimens. The CCP score was calculated as average expression of 31 CCP genes, normalized to 15 housekeeper genes. The prognostic utility of the CCP score was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Among the 100 men identified, 5-year BCR-free survival for the low- (< 0), intermediate- (0-1) and high- (> 1) CCP score groups was 89.3%, 38.8%, and 12.9%, respectively. In multivariable models adjusting for clinical and pathological variables with the cancer of the prostate risk assessment post-surgical (CAPRA-S) score, both continuous CCP score [hazard ratio (HR) 1.373 per unit score, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.006-1.874; p = 0.046) and the categorized CCP score (p < 0.001)were independent predictors of BCR. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides insights into the role the CCP score plays in risk stratification of this cohort and in determining candidacy for deferred secondary treatment. From our perspective, the CCP score allows better stratification and can help identifying patients at lower risk of disease recurrence who could benefit from a wait-and-see policy.

Improving risk stratification in a community-based African American population using cell cycle progression score.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical nomograms such as American Urological Association/National Comprehensive Cancer Network (AUA/NCCN) risk categories or CAPRA may not always reflect prostate cancer (PCa) risk among African American men. We evaluated the usefulness of adding a commercially available cell cycle progression (CCP) score to improve risk stratification in a community-based African American population. METHODS: Biopsy tissues from 150 African American and 60 Caucasian men were obtained from a single community urologic oncology practice in Memphis, TN. The biopsy samples were evaluated with a commercially available CCP panel (Prolaris). Clinical variables such as Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), age, clinical stage, and extent of disease were combined to determine a single category of low-, intermediate-, or high-risk. AUA risk stratification for cancer aggressiveness was then compared between the CCP score vs. the clinical parameters to determine potential risk improvement by the CCP score. RESULTS: Based on the clinical parameters, of the 150 African American men evaluated, 20% were classified as low-risk, 40% were classified as intermediate-risk, and 40% were classified as high-risk. Of the 60 Caucasian men evaluated, 42% were low-risk, 42% were intermediate-risk, and 17% were high-risk. However, when re-evaluating the African American patients using the CCP score, 30% of the patients were determined to be more aggressive than the clinical low-risk category. Similarly, 21.67% of the patients were found to be more aggressive than the clinical intermediate-risk category, and 23.33% of the patients were more aggressive than the high-risk category. When compared to our Caucasian cohort, 12% of the low-risk patients, 8% of the intermediate-risk patients, and 10% of the high-risk patients were found to be more aggressive by the CCP score. Overall, 24% of African American men vs. 10% of Caucasian men were reclassified to a higher risk by CCP score. When we compared the mean CCP score in the African American population vs. the Caucasian population, the mean CCP score in the AUA low-risk was 3.2 vs. 2.9; 3.4 vs. 3.2 in the AUA intermediate-risk; and 3.8 vs. 3.5 in the AUA high-risk category, respectively. Despite the higher mean CCP score in the African American population, the difference between the African American men and the Caucasian men was not significant (P=0.064 for low-risk, P=0.204 for intermediate-risk, and P=0.209 for high-risk). CONCLUSIONS: Our data extends the evidence that CCP score derived from a biopsy specimen can be clinically useful. Our findings showed that the CCP score could stratify 10-year mortality risk in African American men beyond the current clinicopathologic features, which may better prepare patients for follow-up visits and discussions with their health care provider(s) and enhance their ability to select the most appropriate treatment option.

Cell cycle progression score is a marker for five-year lung cancer-specific mortality risk in patients with resected stage I lung adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: The goals of our study were (a) to validate a molecular expression signature (cell cycle progression [CCP] score and molecular prognostic score [mPS; combination of CCP and pathological stage {IA or IB}]) that identifies stage I lung adenocarcinoma (ADC) patients with a higher risk of cancer-specific death following curative-intent surgical resection, and (b) to determine whether mPS stratifies prognosis within stage I lung ADC histological subtypes. METHODS: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded stage I lung ADC tumor samples from 1200 patients were analyzed for 31 proliferation genes by quantitative RT-PCR. Prognostic discrimination of CCP score and mPS was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression, using 5-year lung cancer-specific mortality as the primary outcome. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, CCP score was a prognostic marker for 5-year lung cancer-specific mortality (HR=1.6 per interquartile range; 95% CI, 1.14-2.24; P=0.006). In a multivariable model that included mPS instead of CCP, mPS was a significant prognostic marker for 5-year lung cancer-specific mortality (HR=1.77; 95% CI, 1.18-2.66; P=0.006). Five-year lung cancer-specific survival differed between low-risk and high-risk mPS groups (96% vs 81%; P<0.001). In patients with intermediate-grade lung ADC of acinar and papillary subtypes, high mPS was associated with worse 5-year lung cancer-specific survival (P<0.001 and 0.015, respectively), compared with low mPS. CONCLUSION: This study validates CCP score and mPS as independent prognostic markers for lung cancer-specific mortality and provides quantitative risk assessment, independent of known high-risk features, for stage I lung ADC patients treated with surgery alone.

Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry.

OBJECTIVE: The cell cycle progression (CCP) test (Prolaris) is a novel prognostic assay that provides accurate risk of prostate cancer-specific disease progression and disease specific mortality when combined with standard clinicopathologic parameters. This prospective study evaluated the impact of the CCP report on physician treatment recommendations for prostate cancer. METHODS: Physicians ordering the CCP test in clinical practice completed surveys regarding treatment recommendations before and after they received and discussed the test results with patients. Clinicians also rated the influence of the test result on treatment decisions. Treatment selections were confirmed via third-party audit of patient charts following final survey responses. RESULTS: Overall, 65% of cases showed a change between intended treatment pre- and post-CCP test reporting. Pre-CCP testing, 164 of 305 cases received a recommendation for interventional treatment. Post-CCP test, interventional therapy was recommended for 103 of these cases, a reduction of 37.2%. Conversely, 141 of 305 cases were recommended pre-CCP testing for non-interventional treatment; 108 of these remained with non-interventional treatment while 33 shifted to interventional options, a 23.4% increase. There was a 49.5% reduction in surgical interventions and a 29.6% reduction in radiation treatment. A third-party audit identified 80.2% concordance between the post-CCP testing treatment recommendation and actual treatment. Re-assignment to intervention or non-intervention generally correlated with the result of the CCP report. Study limitations included physician selection of patients for testing, no evaluation of patient input in therapeutic choice, and other potential treatment decision factors not queried by the survey. CONCLUSION: Based on responses of ordering physicians, the CCP report adds meaningful new information to risk assessment for localized prostate cancer patients. Test results led to changes in treatment with reductions and increases in interventional treatment that were directionally aligned with prostate cancer risk specified by the test.

Prognostic value of a cell-cycle progression score in men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance after MRI-guided prostate biopsy--a pilot study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Initial inaccurate staging is a common problem associated with active surveillance (AS) for patients detected by transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-GB). Subsequently, repeated biopsies are necessary to monitor such patients. Thus, in addition to the already established clinicopathological criteria, there is a considerable demand for new, objective decision criteria to more accurately select AS candidates. Recently, a novel RNA expression signature derived from 31 cell-cycle progression (CCP) genes has been shown to be a strong predictor of outcome in patients after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. This is a qualitative pilot study to evaluate the prognostic value of the CCP-score (CCP-S) for the first time in men managed with AS after MRI-guided prostate biopsy (MRI-GB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine patients previously diagnosed with prostate cancer during an ongoing, prospective trial assessing MRI-GB with additional TRUS-GB and were subsequently managed with AS. CCP-S were retrospectively derived from biopsy specimens. The CCP-S is defined as the expression level of 31 CCP genes, normalized to 15 housekeeping genes, and is clinically validated in a range between -1.3 and 4.7. To assess the estimated 10-year mortality risk (without curative treatment), the CCP-S from each patient was combined with the individual CAPRA (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment) score (CAPRA-S). RESULTS: Median patient age was 72 (range=58-77) years. Mean pre-biopsy PSA level was 6.33±1.94 (range 4.23-9.97) ng/ml. Eight cases had Gleason score 6 (3+3) and one cancer had Gleason score 7 (3+4). Median CCP-S was -0.9 (range=-1.5 to 0.0). Combining CCP-S with CAPRA-S [CAPRA-S: 1 (n=4), 2 (n=4), 3 (n=1)] the estimated 10-year mortality risk was not calculable for three patients because their CCP-S [CCP-S -1.4 (n=2) and -1.5 (n=1)] was outside the validated range. For the other 6 patients the estimated 10-year mortality ranged from 1.0-3.0%. CONCLUSION: The CCP-S confirms accurate staging of AS patients detected by MRI-based biopsy strategies and may significantly reduce inaccurate staging of AS patients and subsequent unnecessary re-biopsies. The CCP score may help to more accurately select for active surveillance candidates.