Authors

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH
James A. Proudfoot, Veracyte, Inc, South San Francisco, CA
Angela Y. Jia, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH
Raed Zuhour, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH
Randy Vince Jr., University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH
Yang Liu, Veracyte, Inc, South San Francisco, CA
Xin Zhao, Veracyte, Inc, South San Francisco, CA
Jim Hu, Weil Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
Nicola Schussler, Information Management Systems, Inc, Calverton, MD
Jennifer L. Stevens, Information Management Systems, Inc, Calverton, MD
Suzanne Bentler, Iowa Cancer Registry, The University of Iowa, IA
Rosemary D. Cress, Cancer Registry of Greater California, Sacramento, CA
Jennifer A. Doherty, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
Eric B. Durbin, Kentucky Cancer Registry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Susan Gershman, Massachusetts Cancer Registry, Boston, MA
Iona Cheng, University of California, San Francisco, CA
Lou Gonsalves, Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, CT
Brenda Y. Hernandez, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, HI
Lihua Liu, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Bozena M. Morawski, Cancer Data Registry of Idaho, Boise, ID
Maria Schymura, University at Albany, State University of New York, NY
Stephen M. Schwartz, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA
Kevin C. Ward, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Charles Wiggins, University of NM, Albuquerque, NM
Xiao-Cheng Wu, LSU Health Sciences Center - New OrleansFollow
Jonathan Shoag, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH
Lee Ponsky, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH
Alan Dal Pra, Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Edward M. Schaeffer, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
et al

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-1-2023

Publication Title

JNCI Cancer Spectrum

Abstract

Background: Management of localized or recurrent prostate cancer since the 1990s has been based on risk stratification using clinicopathological variables, including Gleason score, T stage (based on digital rectal exam), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In this study a novel prognostic test, the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC), was used to stratify risk of prostate cancer progression in a US national database of men with prostate cancer. Methods: Records of prostate cancer cases from participating SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program registries, diagnosed during the period from 2010 through 2018, were linked to records of testing with the GC prognostic test. Multivariable analysis was used to quantify the association between GC scores or risk groups and use of definitive local therapy after diagnosis in the GC biopsy-tested cohort and postoperative radiotherapy in the GC-tested cohort as well as adverse pathological findings after prostatectomy. Results: A total of 572545 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 8927 patients underwent GC testing. GC biopsy-tested patients were more likely to undergo active active surveillance or watchful waiting than untested patients (odds ratio [OR] =2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.04 to 2.38, P < .001). The highest use of active surveillance or watchful waiting was for patients with a low-risk GC classification (41%) compared with those with an intermediate- (27%) or high-risk (11%) GC classification (P < .001). Among National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with low and favorable-intermediate risk, higher GC risk class was associated with greater use of local therapy (OR = 4.79, 95% CI = 3.51 to 6.55, P < .001). Within this subset of patients who were subsequently treated with prostatectomy, high GC risk was associated with harboring adverse pathological findings (OR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.38 to 6.27, P = .005). Use of radiation after prostatectomy was statistically significantly associated with higher GC risk groups (OR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.89 to 3.84). Conclusions: There is a strong association between use of the biopsy GC test and likelihood of conservative management. Higher genomic classifier scores are associated with higher rates of adverse pathology at time of surgery and greater use of postoperative radiotherapy. In this study the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC) was used to analyze a US national database of men with prostate cancer. Use of the GC was associated with conservative management (ie, active surveillance). Among men who had high-risk GC scores and then had surgery, there was a 3-fold higher chance of having worrisome findings in surgical specimens.

PubMed ID

37525535

Volume

7

Issue

5

Comments

See article for full author list.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Share

COinS