Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.
Recommended Citation
Spratt DE, Zhang J, Santiago-Jimenez M, Dess RT, Davis JW, Den RB, Dicker AP, Kane CJ, Pollack A, Stoyanova R, Abdollah F, Ross AE, Cole A, Uchio E, Randall JM, Nguyen H, Zhao SG, Mehra R, Glass AG, Lam LLC, Chelliserry J, du Plessis M, Choeurng V, Aranes M, Kolisnik T, Margrave J, Alter J, Jordan J, Buerki C, Yousefi K, Haddad Z, Davicioni E, Trabulsi EJ, Loeb S, Tewari A, Carroll PR, Weinmann S, Schaeffer EM, Klein EA, Karnes RJ, Feng FY, and Nguyen PL. Development and validation of a novel integrated clinical-genomic risk group classification for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(6):581-590.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2-20-2018
Publication Title
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
Abstract
Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.
Medical Subject Headings
Aged; Genomics; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk
PubMed ID
29185869
Volume
36
Issue
6
First Page
581
Last Page
590
