Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis ; 23(1): 102-107, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31243337

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification can help guide appropriate treatment decisions in men with localized prostate cancer. Here, we evaluated the independent ability of the molecular cell cycle progression (CCP) score and the combined cell-cycle clinical risk (CCR) score to predict 10-year risk of progression to metastatic disease in a large, pooled analysis of men with definitively treated prostate cancer. METHODS: The pooled analysis included 1,062 patients from four institutions (Martini Clinic, Durham VA Medical Center, Intermountain Healthcare, Ochsner Clinic) treated definitively for localized prostate cancer by either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy (brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy ± hormone therapy). The CCP score was determined using the RNA expression of 46 genes from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded biopsy tissue. The CCR score was calculated using a predefined linear combination of the CCP score and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. The scores were evaluated for association with 10-year risk of metastatic disease following definitive therapy after adjusting for other clinical variables. RESULTS: The CCP score was strongly associated with 10-year risk of metastatic disease in multivariable analysis [Hazard Ratio per unit score = 2.21; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64, 2.98; p = 1.9 × 10-6] after adjusting for CAPRA, treatment type, and cohort. CCR was also highly prognostic (Hazard Ratio per unit score = 4.00; 95% CI 2.95, 5.42; p = 6.3 × 10-21). There was no evidence of interaction between CCP or CCR and cohort (p = 0.79 and p = 0.86, respectively) or treatment type (p = 0.55 and p = 0.78, respectively). Observed patient CCR-based predicted risks for metastatic disease by 10 years ranged from 0.1 to 99.4%, (IQR 0.7%, 4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Both CCP and CCR scores provided independent prognostic information for predicting progression to metastatic disease after both surgery and radiation. These results further demonstrate their potential use as a risk stratification tool in patients with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor , Cell Cycle , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/etiology , Aged , Biopsy, Needle , Cell Cycle/genetics , Disease Management , Gene Expression Profiling/methods , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Grading , Neoplasm Staging , Prognosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/mortality , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy
2.
Eur Urol ; 75(3): 515-522, 2019 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30391079

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Better prostate cancer risk stratification is necessary to inform medical management, especially for African American (AA) men, for whom outcomes are particularly uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of both a cell cycle progression (CCP) score and a clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score to predict clinical outcomes in a large cohort of men with prostate cancer highly enriched in an AA patient population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients were diagnosed with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate and treated at The Ochsner Clinic (New Orleans, LA, USA) from January 2006 to December 2011. CCP scores were derived from archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded biopsy tissue. CCR scores were calculated as the combination of molecular (CCP score) and clinical (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment [CAPRA] score) components. INTERVENTION: Active treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy alone, or radiation and hormone therapy) or watchful waiting. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was progression to metastatic disease. Association with outcomes was evaluated via Cox proportional hazards survival analysis and likelihood ratio tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The final cohort included 767 men, of whom 281 (36.6%) were AA. After accounting for ancestry, treatment, and CAPRA in multivariable analysis, the CCP score remained a significant predictor of metastatic disease (hazard ratio [HR] 2.04; p<0.001), and there was no interaction with ancestry (p=0.20) or treatment (p=0.09). The CCR score was highly prognostic (HR 3.86; p<0.001), and as with the CCP score, there was no interaction with ancestry (p=0.24) or treatment (p=0.32). Limitations include the retrospective study design and the use of self-reported ancestry information. CONCLUSIONS: A CCR score provided significant prognostic information regardless of ancestry. The findings demonstrate that AA men in this study cohort appear to have similar prostate cancer outcomes to non-AA patients after accounting for all available molecular and clinicopathologic variables. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study we evaluated the ability of a combined molecular and clinical score to predict the progression of localized prostate cancer. We found that the combined molecular and clinical score predicted progression to metastasis regardless of patient ancestry or treatment. This suggests that the combined molecular and clinical score may be a valuable tool for determining the risk of metastasis in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in order to make appropriate treatment decisions.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/ethnology , Adenocarcinoma/genetics , Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics , Black or African American/genetics , Cell Cycle/genetics , Gene Expression Profiling/methods , Prostatic Neoplasms/ethnology , Prostatic Neoplasms/genetics , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Adenocarcinoma/therapy , Aged , Disease Progression , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New Orleans/epidemiology , Predictive Value of Tests , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Transcriptome , Treatment Outcome
4.
J Behav Health Serv Res ; 45(1): 143-155, 2018 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28776268

ABSTRACT

Behavioral health integration (BHI) is a proven, effective practice for addressing the joint behavioral health and medical health needs of vulnerable populations. As part of the New Orleans Charitable Health Fund (NOCHF) program, this study addressed a gap in literature to better understand factors that impact the implementation of BHI by analyzing perceptions and practices among staff at integrating organizations. Using a mixed-method design, quantitative results from the Levels of Integration Measure (LIM), a survey tool for assessing staff perceptions of BHI in primary care settings (n=86), were analyzed alongside qualitative results from in-depth interviews with staff (n=27). Findings highlighted the roles of strong leadership, training, and process changes on staff collaboration, relationships, and commitment to BHI. This study demonstrates the usefulness of the LIM in conjunction with in-depth interviews as an assessment tool for understanding perceptions and organizational readiness for BHI implementation.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...