Active surveillance selection and 3-year durability in intermediate-risk prostate cancer following genomic testing.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Sep 2024
05 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
20
12
2023
accepted:
23
08
2024
revised:
16
08
2024
medline:
6
9
2024
pubmed:
6
9
2024
entrez:
5
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39237680
doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00888-y
pii: 10.1038/s41391-024-00888-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Prostate Cancer. Version 1.2023. Published: 16 September 2022. In.
Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline part II: considerations for a prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2023;210:54–63.
pubmed: 37096575
pmcid: 11321723
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003492
Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis JW, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, part I: introduction, risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management. J Urol. 2022;208:10–18.
pubmed: 35536144
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002757
Walker CH, Marchetti KA, Singhal U, Morgan TM. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes. World J Urol. 2022;40:35–42.
pubmed: 33655428
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03622-8
Cooperberg M, Meeks W, Fang R, Gaylis F, Catalona W, Makarov D. MP43-03 Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: time trends and variation in the AUA Quality (AQUA) registry. J Urol. 2022;207(Supplement 5):e740.
Botejue M, Abbott D, Danella J, Fonshell C, Ginzburg S, Guzzo TJ, et al. Active surveillance as initial management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: data from the PURC. J Urol. 2019;201:929–36.
pubmed: 30720692
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.10.018
Kim HL, Li P, Huang HC, Deheshi S, Marti T, Knudsen B, et al. Validation of the Decipher Test for predicting adverse pathology in candidates for prostate cancer active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22:399–405.
pubmed: 30542054
doi: 10.1038/s41391-018-0101-6
Herlemann A, Huang HC, Alam R, Tosoian JJ, Kim HL, Klein EA, et al. Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:136–43.
pubmed: 31455846
doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0167-9
Falagario UG, Beksac AT, Martini A, Cumarasamy S, Gupta A, Prasad S, et al. Defining prostate cancer at favorable intermediate risk: the potential utility of magnetic resonance imaging and genomic tests. J Urol. 2019;202:102–7.
pubmed: 30730408
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000134
Helfand BT, Paterakos M, Wang CH, Talaty P, Abran J, Bennett J, et al. 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:e0273782.
pubmed: 36048818
pmcid: 9436076
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273782
Tosoian JJ, Chappidi MR, Bishoff JT, Freedland SJ, Reid J, Brawer M, et al. 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;120:808–14.
pubmed: 28481440
doi: 10.1111/bju.13911
Kidd LC, Loecher M, Ahmed N, Terzian J, Song J, Reese AC. Prostate cancer active surveillance outcomes in a cohort composed primarily of African American and Hispanic American Men. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:730.e731–730.e738.
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.07.021
Seiden B, Weng S, Sun N, Gordon D, Harris WN, Barnett J, et al. NCCN risk reclassification in black men with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer after genomic testing. Urology. 2022;163:81–9.
pubmed: 34688772
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.08.055
Nyame YA, Grimberg DC, Greene DJ, Gupta K, Kartha GK, Berglund R, et al. Genomic scores are independent of disease volume in men with favorable risk prostate cancer: implications for choosing men for active surveillance. J Urol. 2018;199:438–44.
pubmed: 28941920
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.077
Gaffney C, Golan R, Cantu MD, Scognamiglio T, McCarthy H, Mosquera JM, et al. The clinical utility of the genomic prostate score in men with very low to intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2019;202:96–101.
pubmed: 30933552
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000170
Lynch JA, Rothney MP, Salup RR, Ercole CE, Mathur SC, Duchene DA, et al. Improving risk stratification among veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer: impact of the 17-gene prostate score assay. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24:S4–s10.
pubmed: 29337486
Auffenberg GB, Lane BR, Linsell S, Brachulis A, Ye Z, Rakic N, et al. A roadmap for improving the management of favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017;198:1220–2.
pubmed: 28782516
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.085
Sood A, Kishan AU, Evans CP, Feng FY, Morgan TM, Murphy DG, et al. The impact of positron emission tomography imaging and tumor molecular profiling on risk stratification, treatment choice, and oncological outcomes of patients with primary or relapsed prostate cancer: an international collaborative review of the existing literature. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023;7:27–43.
Hu JC, Tosoian JJ, Qi J, Kaye D, Johnson A, Linsell S, et al. Clinical utility of gene expression classifiers in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2:PO.18.00163.
Makarov DV, Chrouser K, Gore JL, Maranchie J, Nielsen ME, Saigal C, et al. AUA white paper on implementation of shared decision making into urological practice. Urol Pract. 2016;3:355–63.
pubmed: 37592546
doi: 10.1016/j.urpr.2015.10.006
Mitchell JM, Gresenz CR. Association between receipt of definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer and adverse health outcomes: a claims-based approach. Value Health. 2022.
Hanna B, Ranasinghe W, Lawrentschuk N. Risk stratification and avoiding overtreatment in localized prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2019;29:612–9.
pubmed: 31469662
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000672
Abdelhafez A, Hosny K, El-Nahas AR, 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;20:61–70.
pubmed: 35530570
pmcid: 9067949
doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2021.2024368
Lardas M, Liew M, van den Bergh RC, De Santis M, Bellmunt J, Van den Broeck T, et al. Quality of life outcomes after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72:869–85.
pubmed: 28757301
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035
Gustavsen G, Gullet L, Cole D, Lewine N, Bishoff JT. Economic burden of illness associated with localized prostate cancer in the United States. Future Oncol. 2020;16:4265–77.
pubmed: 31802704
doi: 10.2217/fon-2019-0639
Aizer AA, Gu X, Chen MH, Choueiri TK, Martin NE, Efstathiou JA, et al. Cost implications and complications of overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13:61–68.
pubmed: 25583770
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0009
McIntosh M, Opozda MJ, O’Callaghan M, Vincent AD, Galvão DA, Short CE. Why do men with prostate cancer discontinue active surveillance for definitive treatment? A mixed methods investigation. Psychooncology. 2022;31:1420–30.
pubmed: 35538736
pmcid: 9540004
doi: 10.1002/pon.5947
van Stam MA, van der Poel HG, van der Voort van Zyp JRN, Tillier CN, Horenblas S, Aaronson NK, et al. The accuracy of patients’ perceptions of the risks associated with localised prostate cancer treatments. BJU Int. 2018;121:405–14.
pubmed: 28960827
doi: 10.1111/bju.14034
Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES. NCCN guidelines updates: management of prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17:583–6.
pubmed: 31117038
Cuzick J, Stone S, Fisher G, Yang ZH, North BV, Berney DM, et al. Validation of an RNA cell cycle progression score for predicting death from prostate cancer in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer. 2015;113:382–9.
pubmed: 26103570
pmcid: 4522632
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.223
Cuzick J, Swanson GP, Fisher G, Brothman AR, Berney DM, Reid JE, et al. Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:245–55.
pubmed: 21310658
pmcid: 3091030
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70295-3
Tward J, Lenz L, Flake DD II, Rajamani S, Yonover P, Olsson C, et al. The Clinical Cell-Cycle Risk (CCR) score is associated with metastasis after radiation therapy and provides guidance on when to forgo combined androgen deprivation therapy with dose-escalated radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;113:66–76.
pubmed: 34610388
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.09.034
Tward JD, Schlomm T, Bardot S, Canter DJ, Scroggins T, Freedland SJ, et al. Personalizing localized prostate cancer: validation of a combined clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score threshold for prognosticating benefit from multimodality therapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021;19:296–304.e293.
pubmed: 33608228
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.01.003
Canter DJ, Reid J, Latsis M, Variano M, Halat S, Rajamani S, et al. Comparison of the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score for predicting clinical outcomes in African American and Non-African American men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;75:515–22.
pubmed: 30391079
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.028
Sommariva S, Tarricone R, Lazzeri M, Ricciardi W, Montorsi F. Prognostic value of the cell cycle progression score in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;69:107–15.
pubmed: 25481455
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.038
Lin DW, Crawford ED, Keane T, Evans B, Reid J, Rajamani S, et al. Identification of men with low-risk biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer as candidates for active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2018;36:310.e317–310.e313.
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.03.011
Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173:1938–42.
pubmed: 15879786
pmcid: 2948569
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama. 1998;280:969–74.
pubmed: 9749478
doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969
Newcomb LF, Thompson IM Jr., Boyer HD, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional canary PASS cohort. J Urol. 2016;195:313–20.
pubmed: 26327354
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3379–85.
pubmed: 26324359
pmcid: 4863946
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764
Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene KL, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193:807–11.
pubmed: 25261803
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094
Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X, Rannikko A, Vasarainen H, Bangma CH, et al. Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110:1672–7.
pubmed: 22928973
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11434.x
Courtney PT, Deka R, Kotha NV, Cherry DR, Salans MA, Nelson TJ, et al. Metastasis and mortality in men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20:151–9.
pubmed: 35130495
pmcid: 10399925
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.7065
Shelton JB, Paivanas TA, Buffington P, Ruyle SR, Cohen ES, Natale R 2nd, et al. Three-year active surveillance outcomes in a contemporary community urology cohort in the United States. Urology. 2019;130:72–78.
pubmed: 31029668
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.04.017
Chappidi MR, Bell A, Cowan JE, Greenberg SA, Lonergan PE, Washington SL 3rd, et al. The natural history of untreated biopsy grade group progression and delayed definitive treatment for men on active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer. J Urol. 2022;207:1001–9.
pubmed: 34981949
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002420
Crawford ED, Scholz MC, Kar AJ, Fegan JE, Haregewoin A, Kaldate RR, et al. Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30:1025–31.
pubmed: 24576172
doi: 10.1185/03007995.2014.899208
Shore N, Concepcion R, Saltzstein D, Lucia MS, van Breda A, Welbourn W, et al. Clinical utility of a biopsy-based cell cycle gene expression assay in localized prostate cancer. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30:547–53.
pubmed: 24320750
doi: 10.1185/03007995.2013.873398
Russell JR, Siddiqui MM. Active surveillance in favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer: outstanding questions and controversies. Curr Opin Oncol. 2022;34:219–27.
pubmed: 35266907
doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000827
Deka R, Courtney PT, Parsons JK, Nelson TJ, Nalawade V, Luterstein E, et al. Association between African American race and clinical outcomes in men treated for low-risk prostate cancer with active surveillance. Jama. 2020;324:1747–54.
pubmed: 33141207
pmcid: 7610194
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17020