The Impact of a Biopsy Based 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score on Treatment Recommendations in Men with Newly Diagnosed Clinically Prostate Cancer Who are Candidates for Active Surveillance

Urology Practice

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 181-189

  Badani, Ketan K ^a   Kemeter, Michael J ^c   Febbo, Phillip G ^c   Lawrence, H Jeffrey ^c   Denes, Béla S ^c   Rothney, Megan P ^c   Rothberg, Michael B ^b   Brown, Gordon A ^d  

^a MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^c Genomic Health Inc ^*  (United States)

^d LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

Biological markers; Molecular diagnostic techniques; Prostatic neoplasms; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

17 GENE GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; CLINICAL TRIAL; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LOW RISK POPULATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; VERY ELDERLY;

EID: 84937631050     PISSN: 23520779     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urpr.2014.10.010     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cooperberg M.R., Broering J.M., Carroll P.R. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. JClin Oncol 2010, 28:1117.
2. Shariat S.F., Kattan M.W., Vickers A.J., et al. Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools. Future Oncol 2009, 5:1555.
3. Pinthus J.H., Witkos M., Fleshner N.E., et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. JUrol 2006, 176:979.
4. Boorjian S.A., Karnes R.J., Crispen P.L., et al. The impact of discordance between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores on survival after radical prostatectomy. JUrol 2009, 181:95.
5. Amin A., Partin A., Epstein J.I. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy. JUrol 2011, 186:1286.
6. Klein E.A., Cooperberg M.R., Magi-Galluzzi C., et al. A17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol 2014, 66:550.
7. Knezevic D., Goddard A.D., Natraj N., et al. Analytical validation ofthe Oncotype DX prostate cancer assay-a clinical RT-PCR assay optimized for prostate needle biopsies. BMC Genomics 2013, 14:690.
8. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer, version 2.2014. Available at. Accessed August 21, 2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#site.
9. Eiermann W., Rezai M., Kümmel S., et al. The 21-gene recurrence score assay impacts adjuvant therapy recommendations for ER-positive, node-negative and node-positive early breast cancer resulting in a risk-adapted change in chemotherapy use. Ann Oncol 2013, 24:618.
10. Henry L.R., Stojadinovic A., Swain S.M., et al. The influence of a gene expression profile on breast cancer decisions. JSurg Oncol 2009, 99:319.
11. Joh J.E., Esposito N.N., Kiluk J.V., et al. The effect of Oncotype DX recurrence score on treatment recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor-positive early stage breast cancer and correlation with estimation of recurrence risk by breast cancer specialists. Oncologist 2011, 16:1520.
12. Klang S.H., Hammerman A., Liebermann N., et al. Economic implications of 21-gene breast cancer risk assay from the perspective of an Israeli-managed health-care organization. Value Health 2010, 13:381.
13. Tsoi D.T., Inoue M., Kelly C.M., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer. Oncologist 2010, 15:457.
14. Paulden M., Franek J., Pham B., et al. Cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer. Value Health 2013, 16:729.
15. Kondo M., Hoshi S.L., Yamanaka T., et al. Economic evaluation of the 21-gene signature (Oncotype DX) in lymph node-negative/positive, hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer based on Japanese validation study (JBCRG-TR03). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011, 127:739.
16. Lamond N.W., Skedgel C., Rayson D., et al. Cost-utility of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012, 133:1115.
17. Vanderlaan B.F., Broder M.S., Chang E.Y., et al. Cost-effectiveness of 21-gene assay in node-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 2011, 17:455.
18. Hornberger J., Cosler L.E., Lyman G.H. Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 2005, 11:313.
19. Hoffman K.E., Niu J., Shen Y., et al. Physician variation in management of low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014, 174:1450.
20. Davis J.W. Novel commercially available genomic tests for prostate cancer: a roadmap to understanding their clinical impact. BJU Int 2014, 114:320.