17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Test Results in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) Cohort

Overview

Journal J Clin Oncol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2020 Mar 5

PMID 32130059

Citations 31

Authors

Daniel W Lin

Yingye Zheng

Jesse K McKenney

Marshall D Brown

Ruixiao Lu

Michael Crager

Hilary Boyer

Maria Tretiakova

James D Brooks

Atreya Dash

Michael D Fabrizio

Martin E Gleave

Suzanne Kolb

Michael Liss

Todd M Morgan

Ian M Thompson

Andrew A Wagner

Athanasios Tsiatis

Andrea Pingitore

Peter S Nelson

Lisa F Newcomb

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The 17-gene Onco 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; = .030), but not when also adjusted for prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.19; = .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 ( = .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.

Citing Articles

Integration of Genomic Tests in Prostate Cancer Care: Implications for Clinical Practice and Patient Outcomes.

Roidos C, Anastasiadis A, Tsiakaras S, Loutradis C, Baniotis P, Memmos D Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2024; 46(12):14408-14421.

PMID: 39727992 PMC: 11674969. DOI: 10.3390/cimb46120864.

Validation of a prognostic blood-based sphingolipid panel for men with localized prostate cancer followed on active surveillance.

Gregg J, Newcomb L, Wu R, Dennison J, Davis J, Pettaway C Biomark Res. 2024; 12(1):134.

PMID: 39522029 PMC: 11550521. DOI: 10.1186/s40364-024-00678-7.

DNA ploidy and PTEN as biomarkers for predicting aggressive disease in prostate cancer patients under active surveillance.

Cyll K, Haug E, Pradhan M, Vlatkovic L, Carlsen B, Loffeler S Br J Cancer. 2024; 131(5):895-904.

PMID: 38961192 PMC: 11368925. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-024-02780-x.

Clinical and Genomic Features of Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma and Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Database.

Eule C, Hu J, Hedges D, Jani A, Pshak T, Manley B Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(10).

PMID: 38791999 PMC: 11119962. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16101920.

Tissue-Based Genomic Testing in Prostate Cancer: 10-Year Analysis of National Trends on the Use of Prolaris, Decipher, ProMark, and Oncotype DX.

Bologna E, Ditonno F, Licari L, Franco A, Manfredi C, Mossack S Clin Pract. 2024; 14(2):508-520.

PMID: 38525718 PMC: 10961791. DOI: 10.3390/clinpract14020039.

References

Kornberg Z, Cowan J, Westphalen A, Cooperberg M, Chan J, Zhao S . Genomic Prostate Score, PI-RADS™ version 2 and Progression in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2018; 201(2):300-307. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.08.047. View

Chen R, Rumble R, Loblaw D, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg M . Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(18):2182-90. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759. View

Pepe M, Feng Z, Huang Y, Longton G, Prentice R, Thompson I . Integrating the predictiveness of a marker with its performance as a classifier. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 167(3):362-8. PMC: 2939738. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwm305. View

Ganz P, Barry J, Burke W, Col N, Corso P, Dodson E . National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156(8):591-5. PMC: 4774889. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00401. View

Kornberg Z, Cooperberg M, Cowan J, Chan J, Shinohara K, Simko J . A 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score as a Predictor of Adverse Pathology in Men on Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2019; 202(4):702-709. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000290. View

Jain S, Loblaw A, Vesprini D, Zhang L, Kattan M, Mamedov A . Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort. J Urol. 2015; 194(1):79-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.102. View

Bul M, van den Bergh R, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Bangma C . Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. Eur Urol. 2011; 61(2):370-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.027. View

Tran G, Leapman M, Nguyen H, Cowan J, Shinohara K, Westphalen A . Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance. Eur Urol. 2016; 72(2):275-281. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.023. View

Robins J, Finkelstein D . Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS Clinical Trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank tests. Biometrics. 2000; 56(3):779-88. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00779.x. View

10.

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

11.

Cooperberg M, Brooks J, Faino A, Newcomb L, Kearns J, Carroll P . Refined Analysis of Prostate-specific Antigen Kinetics to Predict Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2018; 74(2):211-217. PMC: 6263168. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.017. View

12.

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

13.

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

14.

Simon R, Paik S, Hayes D . Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(21):1446-52. PMC: 2782246. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp335. View

15.

Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman D, van der Kwast T . Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): Results of a Randomized Multicenter Prospective Trial. Eur Urol. 2018; 75(2):300-309. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.025. View

16.

Newcomb L, Brooks J, Carroll P, Feng Z, Gleave M, Nelson P . Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study: design of a multi-institutional active surveillance cohort and biorepository. Urology. 2009; 75(2):407-13. PMC: 3827723. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.050. View

17.

Newcomb L, Thompson Jr I, Boyer H, Brooks J, Carroll P, Cooperberg M . Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort. J Urol. 2015; 195(2):313-20. PMC: 4970462. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087. View

18.

Van Den Eeden S, Lu R, Zhang N, Quesenberry Jr C, Shan J, Han J . A Biopsy-based 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score as a Predictor of Metastases and Prostate Cancer Death in Surgically Treated Men with Clinically Localized Disease. Eur Urol. 2017; 73(1):129-138. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.09.013. View

19.

Hamdy F, Donovan J, Athene Lane J, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P . 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(15):1415-1424. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220. View

20.

Salami S, Hovelson D, Kaplan J, Mathieu R, Udager A, Curci N . Transcriptomic heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. JCI Insight. 2018; 3(21). PMC: 6238741. DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.123468. View