GPS Assay Association With Long-Term Cancer Outcomes: Twenty-Year Risk of Distant Metastasis and Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality

Genomics in active surveillance and post-prostatectomy patients: A review of when and how to use effectively

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant health burden globally, ranking as the most diagnosed cancer among men and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Conventional treatment methods such as radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy have significant side effects which often impact quality of life. As our understanding of the natural history and progression of PCa has evolved, so has the evolution of management options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Active surveillance (AS) has become an increasingly favored approach to the management of very low, low, and properly selected favorable intermediate risk PCa. AS permits ongoing observation and postpones intervention until definitive treatment is required. There are, however, challenges with selecting patients for AS, which further emphasizes the need for more precise tools to better risk stratify patients and choose candidates more accurately. Tissue-based biomarkers, such as ProMark, Prolaris, GPS (formerly Oncotype DX), and Decipher, are valuable because they improve the accuracy of patient selection for AS and offer important information on the prognosis and severity of disease. By enabling patients to be categorized according to their risk profiles, these biomarkers help physicians and patients make better informed treatment choices and lower the possibility of overtreatment. Even with their potential, further standardization and validation of these biomarkers is required to guarantee their broad clinical utility. Active surveillance has emerged as a preferred strategy for managing low-risk prostate cancer, and tissue-based biomarkers play a crucial role in refining patient selection and risk stratification. Standardization and validation of these biomarkers are essential to ensure their widespread clinical use and optimize patient outcomes.

Assessing sociodemographic and regional disparities in Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score uptake

BACKGROUND

The Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (ODX-GPS) is a gene expression assay that predicts disease aggressiveness. The objective of this study was to identify sociodemographic and regional factors associated with ODX-GPS uptake.

METHODS

Data from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries on men with localized prostate cancer with a Gleason score of 3 + 3 or 3 + 4, PSA ≤20 ng/mL, and stage T1c to T2c disease from 2013 through 2017 were linked with ODX-GPS data. Census-tract level neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) quintiles were constructed using a composite socioeconomic score. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the associations of ODX-GPS uptake with age at diagnosis, race and ethnicity, nSES, geographic region, insurance type, and marital status, accounting for National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, year of diagnosis, and clustering by census tract.

RESULTS

Among 111,434 eligible men, 5.5% had ODX-GPS test uptake. Of these, 78.3% were non-Hispanic White, 9.6% were Black, 6.7% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were Asian American. Black men had the lowest odds of ODX-GPS uptake (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.76). Those in the highest versus lowest quintile of nSES were 1.64 times more likely (95% CI, 1.38-2.94) to have ODX-GPS uptake. The odds of ODX-GPS uptake were statistically significantly higher among men residing in the Northeast, West, and Midwest compared to the South.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in ODX-GPS uptake by race, ethnicity, nSES, and geographical region were identified. Concerted efforts should be made to ensure that this clinical test is equitably available.

Real-world utilization, patient characteristics, and treatment patterns among men with localized prostate cancer tested with the 17-gene genomic prostate score® (GPSTM) assay

OBJECTIVES

Descriptive study focusing on real-world utilization and characteristics of men with prostate cancer tested with the 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score® (GPS™) assay by linking administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data with GPS results.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational cohort study (January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020) included men aged 40-80 years with localized prostate cancer claims, continuous enrollment in Optum's Integrated Claims data set, ≥1 day of EHR clinical activity, and a GPS result. Men were classified as undergoing definitive therapy (DT) (prostatectomy, radiation, or focal therapy) or active surveillance (AS). AS and DT distribution were analyzed across GPS results, National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) risk, and race. Costs were assessed 6 months after the first GPS result (index); clinical outcomes and AS persistence were assessed during the variable follow-up. All variables were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Of 834 men, 650 (77.9%) underwent AS and 184 (22.1%) DT. Most men had Quan-Charlson comorbidity scores of 1-2 and a tumor stage of T1c (index). The most common Gleason patterns were 3 + 3 (79.6%) (AS cohort) and 3 + 4 (55.9%) (DT cohort). The mean (standard deviation) GPS results at index were 23.2 (11.3) (AS) and 30.9 (12.9) (DT). AS decreased with increasing GPS result and NCCN risk. Differences between races were minimal. Total costs were substantially higher in the DT cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Most men with GPS-tested localized prostate cancer underwent AS, indicating the GPS result can inform clinical management. Decreasing AS with increasing GPS result and NCCN risk suggests the GPS complements NCCN risk stratification.

Prognostic value of 17-Gene genomic prostate score in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) test has been clinically employed to predict adverse prognosis in prostate cancer. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the 17-gene GPS in patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

Potentially relevant studies were obtained by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase databases from their inception to December 1, 2023. Studies were considered eligible if they evaluated the association of the 17-gene GPS with distant metastases, biochemical recurrence, or prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in prostate cancer patients. To estimate the prognostic value, we pooled the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the high versus low GPS group or per 20-unit increase in GPS.

RESULTS

Seven cohort studies that reported on 8 articles comprising 1,962 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. Meta-analysis showed that per 20-unit increase in GPS was significantly associated with distant metastases (HR 2.99; 95% CI 1.97-4.53), biochemical recurrence (HR 2.18; 95% CI 1.64-2.89), and PCSM (HR 3.14; 95% CI 1.86-5.30). Moreover, patients with high GPS (> 40 points) had an increased risk of distant metastases (HR 5.22; 95% CI 3.72-7.31), biochemical recurrence (HR 4.41; 95% CI 2.29-8.49), and PCSM (HR 3.81; 95% CI 1.74-8.33) than those with low GPS (≤ 40 points).

CONCLUSIONS

A higher 17-gene GPS significantly predicts distant metastases, biochemical recurrence, and PCSM in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. However, large-scale multicenter prospective studies are necessary to further validate these findings.

Precision medicine for prostate cancer: An international perspective

Greater personalization of cancer medicine continues to shape therapy development and patient selection accordingly. The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved considerably since the discovery of androgen deprivation therapy. The comprehensive profiling of the prostate cancer genome has mapped the targetable molecular landscape of the disease and identified opportunities for the implementation of novel and combination therapies. In this review, we provide an overview of the molecular biology of prostate cancer and tools developed to aid prognostication and prediction of therapy benefit. Modern treatment of advanced prostate cancer is reviewed as a paradigm of increasing precision-informed approach to patient care, and must be considered on a global scale with respect to the state of science and care delivery.

Genomic classifiers and prognosis of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Refinement of the risk classification for localized prostate cancer is warranted to aid in clinical decision making. A systematic analysis was undertaken to evaluate the prognostic ability of three genomic classifiers, Decipher, GPS, and Prolaris, for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality in patients with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were queried for reports published from January 2010 to April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

prospective or retrospective studies reporting prognosis for patients with localized prostate cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION

relevant data were extracted into a customized database by one researcher with a second overreading. Risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool for prognostic studies, Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS). Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by input from a third reviewer. We assessed the certainty of evidence by GRADE incorporating adaptation for prognostic studies.

RESULTS

Data synthesis: a total of 39 studies (37 retrospective) involving over 10,000 patients were identified. Twenty-two assessed Decipher, 5 GPS, and 14 Prolaris. Thirty-four studies included patients who underwent prostatectomy. Based on very low to low certainty of evidence, each of the three genomic classifiers modestly improved upon the prognostic ability for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases, and prostate cancer-specific mortality compared to standard clinical risk-classification schemes.

LIMITATIONS

downgrading of confidence in the evidence stemmed largely from bias due to the retrospective nature of the studies, heterogeneity in treatment received, and era in which patients were treated (i.e., prior to the 2000s).

CONCLUSIONS

Genomic classifiers provide a small but consistent improvement upon the prognostic ability of clinical classification schemes, which may be helpful when treatment decisions are uncertain. However, evidence from current management-era data and of the predictive ability of these tests is needed.

Can We Predict Prostate Cancer Metastasis Based on Biomarkers? Where Are We Now?

The incidence of prostate cancer (PC) has risen annually. PC mortality is explained by the metastatic disease (mPC). There is an intermediate scenario in which patients have non-mPC but have initiated a metastatic cascade through epithelial-mesenchymal transition. There is indeed a need for more and better tools to predict which patients will progress in the future to non-localized clinical disease or already have micrometastatic disease and, therefore, will clinically progress after primary treatment. Biomarkers for the prediction of mPC are still under development; there are few studies and not much evidence of their usefulness. This review is focused on tissue-based genomic biomarkers (TBGB) for the prediction of metastatic disease. We develop four main research questions that we attempt to answer according to the current evidence. Why is it important to predict metastatic disease? Which tests are available to predict metastatic disease? What impact should there be on clinical guidelines and clinical practice in predicting metastatic disease? What are the current prostate cancer treatments? The importance of predicting metastasis is fundamental given that, once metastasis is diagnosed, quality of life (QoL) and survival drop dramatically. There is still a need and space for more cost-effective TBGB tests that predict mPC disease.

Leveraging transcriptomics for precision diagnosis: Lessons learned from cancer and sepsis

Diagnostics require precision and predictive ability to be clinically useful. Integration of multi-omic with clinical data is crucial to our understanding of disease pathogenesis and diagnosis. However, interpretation of overwhelming amounts of information at the individual level requires sophisticated computational tools for extraction of clinically meaningful outputs. Moreover, evolution of technical and analytical methods often outpaces standardisation strategies. RNA is the most dynamic component of all -omics technologies carrying an abundance of regulatory information that is least harnessed for use in clinical diagnostics. Gene expression-based tests capture genetic and non-genetic heterogeneity and have been implemented in certain diseases. For example patients with early breast cancer are spared toxic unnecessary treatments with scores based on the expression of a set of genes (e.g., Oncotype DX). The ability of transcriptomics to portray the transcriptional status at a moment in time has also been used in diagnosis of dynamic diseases such as sepsis. Gene expression profiles identify endotypes in sepsis patients with prognostic value and a potential to discriminate between viral and bacterial infection. The application of transcriptomics for patient stratification in clinical environments and clinical trials thus holds promise. In this review, we discuss the current clinical application in the fields of cancer and infection. We use these paradigms to highlight the impediments in identifying useful diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers and propose approaches to overcome them and aid efforts towards clinical implementation.

Potential Role of Seven Proteomics Tissue Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer in Urine

As the currently available tests for the clinical management of prostate cancer (PCa) are still far from providing precise diagnosis and risk stratification, the identification of new molecular marker(s) remains a pertinent clinical need. Candidate PCa biomarkers from the published proteomic comparative studies of prostate tissue (2002-2020) were collected and systematically evaluated. AZGP1, MDH2, FABP5, ENO1, GSTP1, GSTM2, and EZR were chosen for further evaluation in the urine of 85 PCa patients and controls using ELISA. Statistically significant differences in protein levels between PCa and BPH showed FABP5 (p = 0.019) and ENO1 (p = 0.015). A biomarker panel based on the combination of FABP5, ENO1, and PSA provided the highest accuracy (AUC = 0.795) for PCa detection. The combination of FABP5, EZR, AZGP1, and MDH2 showed AUC = 0.889 in PCa prognosis, with 85.29% of the samples correctly classified into low and high Gleason score (GS) groups. The addition of PSA to the panel slightly increased the AUC to 0.914. AZGP1, FABP5, and EZR showed significant correlation with GS, stage, and percentage of positive biopsy cores. Although validation using larger patient cohorts will be necessary to establish the credibility of the proposed biomarker panels in a clinical context, this study opens a way for the further testing of more high-quality proteomics biomarkers, which could ultimately add value to the clinical management of PCa.

Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for "large" cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma

Cribriform growth pattern is well-established as an adverse pathologic feature in prostate cancer. The literature suggests "large" cribriform glands associate with aggressive behavior; however, published studies use varying definitions for "large". We aimed to identify an outcome-based quantitative cut-off for "large" vs "small" cribriform glands. We conducted an initial training phase using the tissue microarray based Canary retrospective radical prostatectomy cohort. Of 1287 patients analyzed, cribriform growth was observed in 307 (24%). Using Kaplan-Meier estimates of recurrence-free survival curves (RFS) that were stratified by cribriform gland size, we identified 0.25 mm as the optimal cutoff to identify more aggressive disease. In univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, size >0.25 mm was a significant predictor of worse RFS compared to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm, independent of pre-operative PSA, grade, stage and margin status (p < 0.001). In addition, two different subset analyses of low-intermediate risk cases (cases with Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4 = 7; and cases with Gleason score = 3 + 4 = 7/4 + 3 = 7) likewise demonstrated patients with largest cribriform diameter >0.25 mm had a significantly lower RFS relative to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm (each subset p = 0.004). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in outcomes between patients with cribriform glands ≤ 0.25 mm and patients without cribriform glands. The >0.25 mm cut-off was validated as statistically significant in a separate 419 patient, completely embedded whole-section radical prostatectomy cohort by biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, and disease specific death, even when cases with admixed Gleason pattern 5 carcinoma were excluded. In summary, our findings support reporting cribriform gland size and identify 0.25 mm as an optimal outcome-based quantitative measure for defining "large" cribriform glands. Moreover, cribriform glands >0.25 mm are associated with potential for metastatic disease independent of Gleason pattern 5 adenocarcinoma.

Prognostic Genomic Tissue-Based Biomarkers in the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

In localized prostate cancer clinicopathologic variables have been used to develop prognostic nomograms quantifying the probability of locally advanced disease, of pelvic lymph node and distant metastasis at diagnosis or the probability of recurrence after radical treatment of the primary tumor. These tools although essential in daily clinical practice for the management of such a heterogeneous disease, which can be cured with a wide spectrum of treatment strategies (i.e., active surveillance, RP and radiation therapy), do not allow the precise distinction of an indolent instead of an aggressive disease. In recent years, several prognostic biomarkers have been tested, combined with the currently available clinicopathologic prognostic tools, in order to improve the decision-making process. In the following article, we reviewed the literature of the last 10 years and gave an overview report on commercially available tissue-based biomarkers and more specifically on mRNA-based gene expression classifiers. To date, these genomic tests have been widely investigated, demonstrating rigorous quality criteria including reproducibility, linearity, analytical accuracy, precision, and a positive impact in the clinical decision-making process. Albeit data published in literature, the systematic use of these tests in prostate cancer is currently not recommended due to insufficient evidence.