Active Surveillance Selection and 3-year Durability in Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer Following Genomic Testing

Overview

Journal Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

Specialties Oncology
Urology

Date 2024 Sep 5

PMID 39237680

Authors

Lauren Lenz

Wyatt Clegg

Diana Iliev

Chelsea R Kasten

Howard Korman

Todd M Morgan

Jason Hafron

Alexander DeHaan

Carl Olsson

Ronald F Tutrone Jr

Timothy Richardson

Kevin Cline

Paul M Yonover

Jeff Jasper

Todd Cohen

Robert Finch

Thomas P Slavin Jr

Alexander Gutin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Genomic testing can add risk stratification information to clinicopathological features in prostate cancer, aiding in shared medical decision-making between the clinician and patient regarding whether active surveillance (AS) or definitive treatment (DT) is most appropriate. Here we examined initial AS selection and 3-year AS durability in patients diagnosed with localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer who underwent Prolaris testing before treatment decision-making.

Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study included 3208 patients from 10 study sites who underwent Prolaris testing at diagnosis from September 2015 to December 2018. Prolaris utilizes a combined clinical cell cycle risk score calculated at diagnostic biopsy to stratify patients by the Prolaris AS threshold (below threshold, patient recommended to AS or above threshold, patient recommended to DT). AS selection rates and 3-year AS durability were compared in patients recommended to AS or DT by Prolaris testing. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models and Cox proportional hazard models were used with molecular and clinical variables as predictors of initial treatment decision and AS durability, respectively.

Results: AS selection was ~2 times higher in patients recommended to AS by Prolaris testing than in those recommended to DT (p < 0.0001). Three-year AS durability was ~1.5 times higher in patients recommended to AS by Prolaris testing than in those recommended to DT (p < 0.0001). Prolaris treatment recommendation remained a statistically significant predictor of initial AS selection and AS durability after accounting for CAPRA or Gleason scores.

Conclusions: Prolaris added significant information to clinical risk stratification to aid in treatment decision making. Intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients who were recommended to AS by Prolaris were more likely to initially pursue AS and were more likely to remain on AS at 3 years post-diagnosis than patients recommended to DT.

References

Wei J, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R . Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2023; 210(1):54-63. PMC: 11321723. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003492. View

Eastham J, Auffenberg G, Barocas D, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis J . Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management. J Urol. 2022; 208(1):10-18. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002757. View

Walker C, Marchetti K, Singhal U, Morgan T . Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes. World J Urol. 2021; 40(1):35-42. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03622-8. View

Botejue M, Abbott D, Danella J, Fonshell C, Ginzburg S, Guzzo T . Active Surveillance as Initial Management of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer: Data from the PURC. J Urol. 2019; 201(5):929-936. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.10.018. View

Kim H, Li P, Huang H, Deheshi S, Marti T, Knudsen B . Validation of the Decipher Test for predicting adverse pathology in candidates for prostate cancer active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018; 22(3):399-405. PMC: 6760567. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-018-0101-6. View

Herlemann A, Huang H, Alam R, Tosoian J, Kim H, Klein E . Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019; 23(1):136-143. PMC: 8076042. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0167-9. View

Falagario U, Beksac A, Martini A, Cumarasamy S, Gupta A, Prasad S . Defining Prostate Cancer at Favorable Intermediate Risk: The Potential Utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Genomic Tests. J Urol. 2019; 202(1):102-107. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000134. View

Helfand B, Paterakos M, Wang C, Talaty P, Abran J, Bennett J . The 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score assay as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2022; 17(9):e0273782. PMC: 9436076. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273782. View

Tosoian J, Chappidi M, Bishoff J, Freedland S, Reid J, Brawer M . Prognostic utility of biopsy-derived cell cycle progression score in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy: implications for treatment guidance. BJU Int. 2017; 120(6):808-814. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13911. View

10.

Seiden B, Weng S, Sun N, Gordon D, Harris W, Barnett J . NCCN Risk Reclassification in Black Men with Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer After Genomic Testing. Urology. 2021; 163:81-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.08.055. View

11.

Nyame Y, Grimberg D, Greene D, Gupta K, Kartha G, Berglund R . Genomic Scores are Independent of Disease Volume in Men with Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Choosing Men for Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2017; 199(2):438-444. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.077. View

12.

Gaffney C, Golan R, Cantu M, Scognamiglio T, McCarthy H, Mosquera J . The Clinical Utility of the Genomic Prostate Score in Men with Very Low to Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2019; 202(1):96-101. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000170. View

13.

Lynch J, Rothney M, Salup R, Ercole C, Mathur S, Duchene D . Improving risk stratification among veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer: impact of the 17-gene prostate score assay. Am J Manag Care. 2018; 24(1 Suppl):S4-S10. View

14.

Auffenberg G, Lane B, Linsell S, Brachulis A, Ye Z, Rakic N . A Roadmap for Improving the Management of Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2017; 198(6):1220-1222. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.085. View

15.

Makarov D, Chrouser K, Gore J, Maranchie J, Nielsen M, Saigal C . AUA White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making into Urological Practice. Urol Pract. 2023; 3(5):355-363. DOI: 10.1016/j.urpr.2015.10.006. View

16.

Hanna B, Ranasinghe W, Lawrentschuk N . Risk stratification and avoiding overtreatment in localized prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2019; 29(6):612-619. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000672. View

17.

Abdelhafez A, Hosny K, El-Nahas A, Liew M . The health-related quality of life in patients with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite survey: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol. 2022; 20(2):61-70. PMC: 9067949. DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2021.2024368. View

18.

Lardas M, Liew M, VAN DEN Bergh R, De Santis M, Bellmunt J, Van den Broeck T . Quality of Life Outcomes after Primary Treatment for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(6):869-885. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035. View

19.

Gustavsen G, Gullet L, Cole D, Lewine N, Bishoff J . Economic burden of illness associated with localized prostate cancer in the United States. Future Oncol. 2019; 16(1):4265-4277. DOI: 10.2217/fon-2019-0639. View

20.

Aizer A, Gu X, Chen M, Choueiri T, Martin N, Efstathiou J . Cost implications and complications of overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015; 13(1):61-8. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0009. View