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

Overview

Journal Rev Urol

Date 2016 Nov 12

PMID 27833462

Citations 16

Authors

David Albala

Michael J Kemeter

Phillip G Febbo

Ruixiao Lu

Vincy John

Dylan Stoy

Bela Denes

Marybeth McCall

Alan W Shindel

Frank Dubeck

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Genomics in active surveillance and post-prostatectomy patients: A review of when and how to use effectively.

Adetunji A, Venishetty N, Gombakomba N, Jeune K, Smith M, Winer A Curr Urol Rep. 2024; 25(10):253-260.

PMID: 38869692 DOI: 10.1007/s11934-024-01219-3.

Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and risk stratification.

Farha M, Salami S Ther Adv Urol. 2022; 14:17562872221103988.

PMID: 35719272 PMC: 9201356. DOI: 10.1177/17562872221103988.

Tissue- and Liquid-Based Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine.

Meehan J, Gray M, Martinez-Perez C, Kay C, McLaren D, Turnbull A J Pers Med. 2021; 11(7).

PMID: 34357131 PMC: 8306523. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11070664.

Health Economic Evidence for Liquid- and Tissue-based Molecular Tests that Inform Decisions on Prostate Biopsies and Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Degeling K, Pereira-Salgado A, Corcoran N, Boutros P, Kuhn P, IJzerman M Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021; 27:77-87.

PMID: 34337517 PMC: 8317795. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.03.002.

Prostate cancer biomarkers and multiparametric MRI: is there a role for both in prostate cancer management?.

Saltman A, Zegar J, Haj-Hamed M, Verma S, Sidana A Ther Adv Urol. 2021; 13:1756287221997186.

PMID: 33737957 PMC: 7934039. DOI: 10.1177/1756287221997186.

References

Bhindi B, Mamdani M, Kulkarni G, Finelli A, Hamilton R, Trachtenberg J . Impact of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate specific antigen screening on prostate biopsy and cancer detection rates. J Urol. 2014; 193(5):1519-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.096. View

Martin N, Mucci L, Loda M, DePinho R . Prognostic determinants in prostate cancer. Cancer J. 2011; 17(6):429-37. PMC: 3240856. DOI: 10.1097/PPO.0b013e31823b042c. View

DallEra M, Maddala T, Polychronopoulos L, Gallagher J, Febbo P, Denes B . Utility of the Oncotype DX Prostate Cancer Assay in Clinical Practice for Treatment Selection in Men Newly Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Chart Review Analysis. Urol Pract. 2023; 2(6):343-348. DOI: 10.1016/j.urpr.2015.02.007. View

Shore N, Kella N, Moran B, Boczko J, Bianco F, Crawford E . Impact of the Cell Cycle Progression Test on Physician and Patient Treatment Selection for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2015; 195(3):612-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.09.072. View

Bostrom P, Bjartell A, Catto J, Eggener S, Lilja H, Loeb S . Genomic Predictors of Outcome in Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(6):1033-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.008. View

Livingston C, Freeman R, Mohammad A, Costales V, Titus T, Harvey B . Choosing Wisely® in Preventive Medicine: The American College of Preventive Medicine's Top 5 List of Recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2016; 51(1):141-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.03.009. View

Mohler J, Armstrong A, Bahnson R, DAmico A, Davis B, Eastham J . Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016; 14(1):19-30. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0004. View

Cullen J, Rosner I, Brand T, Zhang N, Tsiatis A, Moncur J . A Biopsy-based 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score Predicts Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy and Adverse Surgical Pathology in a Racially Diverse Population of Men with Clinically Low- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2014; 68(1):123-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.030. View

Knezevic D, Goddard A, Natraj N, Cherbavaz D, Clark-Langone K, Snable J . Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX prostate cancer assay - a clinical RT-PCR assay optimized for prostate needle biopsies. BMC Genomics. 2013; 14:690. PMC: 4007703. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-690. View

10.

Johansson E, Steineck G, Holmberg L, Johansson J, Nyberg T, Ruutu M . Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(9):891-9. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70162-0. View

11.

Mariotto A, Yabroff K, Shao Y, Feuer E, Brown M . Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103(2):117-28. PMC: 3107566. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq495. View

12.

Yamamoto T, Musunuru H, Vesprini D, Zhang L, Ghanem G, Loblaw A . Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Men Initially Treated with Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2015; 195(5):1409-1414. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.075. View

13.

Tosoian J, Loeb S, Epstein J, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Schaeffer E . Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016; 35:e235-45. PMC: 4917301. DOI: 10.1200/EDBK_159244. View

14.

Vanderlaan B, Broder M, Chang E, Oratz R, Bentley T . Cost-effectiveness of 21-gene assay in node-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care. 2011; 17(7):455-64. View

15.

Teutsch S, Bradley L, Palomaki G, Haddow J, Piper M, Calonge N . The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med. 2008; 11(1):3-14. PMC: 2743609. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318184137c. View

16.

Xia J, Trock B, Cooperberg M, Gulati R, Zeliadt S, Gore J . Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(19):5471-8. PMC: 3604990. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1502. View

17.

Rizzo J, Zyczynski T, Chen J, Mallow P, Trudel G, Penrod J . Lost Labor Productivity Costs of Prostate Cancer to Patients and Their Spouses: Evidence From US National Survey Data. J Occup Environ Med. 2016; 58(4):351-8. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000621. View

18.

Epstein J, Feng Z, Trock B, Pierorazio P . Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012; 61(5):1019-24. PMC: 4659370. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050. View

19.

Hayes J, Ollendorf D, Pearson S, Barry M, Kantoff P, Stewart S . Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA. 2010; 304(21):2373-80. PMC: 3055173. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1720. View

20.

Cooperberg M, Carroll P . Trends in Management for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA. 2015; 314(1):80-2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.6036. View