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.

PURPOSE: The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which combines the University of California, San Francisco's Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and the cell cycle progression (CCP) molecular score, has been validated to be prognostic of disease progression for men with prostate cancer. This study evaluated the ability of the CCR score to prognosticate the risk of metastasis in men receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study included men with localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk prostate cancer (N = 741). Patients were treated with dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. The primary outcome was time to metastasis. RESULTS: The CCR score prognosticated metastasis with a hazard ratio (HR) per unit score of 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.89; P < .001). The CCR score better prognosticated metastasis than NCCN risk group (CCR, P < .001; NCCN, P = .46), CAPRA score (CCR, P = .002; CAPRA, P = .59), or CCP score (CCR, P < .001; CCP, P = .59) alone. In bivariable analyses, CCR score remained highly prognostic when accounting for ADT versus no ADT (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.61-2.96; P < .001), ADT duration as a continuous variable (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.79; P < .001), or ADT given at or below the recommended duration for each NCCN risk group (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.69-2.86; P < .001). Men with CCR scores below or above the multimodality threshold (CCR score, 2.112) had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7% and 21.24%, respectively. Men with below-threshold scores receiving RT alone had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7%, and for men receiving RT plus ADT, the 10-year risk of metastasis was also 3.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The CCR score accurately and precisely prognosticates metastasis and adds clinically actionable information relative to guideline-recommended therapies based on NCCN risk in men undergoing dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. For men with scores below the multimodality threshold, adding ADT may not significantly reduce their 10-year risk of metastasis.

Personalizing Localized Prostate Cancer: Validation of a Combined Clinical Cell-cycle Risk (CCR) Score Threshold for Prognosticating Benefit From Multimodality Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The combined clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score is a validated model that combines the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score with the University of California San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. This score determines the risk of progressive disease for men with prostate cancer. Here, we further validate the prognostic ability of the CCR score and evaluate its ability to help determine which patients may safely forgo multimodality therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the CCR and a CCR-based multimodality threshold (2.112) in a retrospective, multi-institutional cohort of men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk localized disease (N = 718). These men received single or multimodality therapy (androgen deprivation with radiation [RT], or surgery with adjuvant RT or hormones). RESULTS: CCR score prognosticated metastasis for single-modality therapy, as a continuous variable (hazard ratio, 3.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.61-6.06) and when dichotomized at the threshold (hazard ratio, 15.90; 95% CI, 5.43-46.52). The 10-year Kaplan-Meier risk for those receiving single-modality (RT or surgical) therapy with CCR scores below and above the threshold for single-modality treatment was 4.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-17.1%) and 20.4% (95% CI, 13.2%-30.7%), respectively. Using the threshold, 27% of men with newly diagnosed high-risk and 73% with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease could avoid multimodality therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CCR scores below the multimodality threshold (2.112) may safely forgo multimodality therapy. The CCR score can be used as a decision aid to counsel men whether or not single-modality therapy would be sufficient for their intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

Radical Prostatectomy or Observation for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Extended Follow-up of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT).

BACKGROUND: Very long-term mortality in men with early prostate cancer treated with surgery versus observation is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term effects of surgery versus observation on all-cause mortality for men with early prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study evaluated long-term follow-up of a randomized trial conducted at the US Department of Veterans Affairs and National Cancer Institute sites. The participants were men (n=731) ≤75yr of age with localized prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <50ng/ml, life expectancy ≥10yr, and medically fit for surgery. INTERVENTION: Radical prostatectomy versus observation. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: All-cause mortality was assessed in the entire cohort and patient and tumor subgroups. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazard models; cumulative mortality incidence, between-group differences, and relative risks were also assessed at predefined time periods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During 22.1yr (median follow-up for survivors=18.6yr; interquartile range: 16.6-20.0), 515 men died; 246 of 346 men (68%) were assigned to surgery versus 269 of 367 (73%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio 0.84 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.70-1.00]; p= 0.044 [absolute risk reduction = 5.7 percentage points, 95% CI: -0.89 to 12%]; relative risk: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.84-1.01]). The restricted mean survival in the surgical group was 13.6 yr (95% CI: 12.9-14.3) versus 12.6 yr (95% CI: 11.8-13.3) in the observation group; a mean of 1 life-year was gained with surgery. Results did not significantly vary by patient or tumor characteristics, although differences were larger favoring surgery among men aged <65 yr, of white race, and having better health status, fewer comorbidities, ≥34% positive prostate biopsy cores, and intermediate-risk disease. Results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and we could not assess outcomes other than all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery was associated with small very long-term reductions in all-cause mortality and increases in years of life gained. Absolute effects did not vary markedly by patient characteristics. Absolute effects and mean survival were much smaller in men with low-risk disease, but were greater in men with intermediate-risk disease although not in men with high-risk disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this randomized study, we evaluated death from any cause in men with early prostate cancer treated with either surgery or observation. Overall, surgery may provide small very long-term reductions in death from any cause and increases in years of life gained. Absolute effects were much smaller in men with low-risk disease, but were greater in men with intermediate-risk disease although not in men with high-risk disease. Strategies are needed to identify men needing and benefitting from surgery while reducing ineffective treatment and overtreatment.

Extracapsular extension on MRI indicates a more aggressive cell cycle progression genotype of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To explore associations between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of prostate cancer and expression levels of cell cycle genes, as assessed by the Prolaris® test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 118 PCa patients with genetic testing of biopsy specimen and prostate MRI from 08/2013 to 11/2015. Associations between the cell cycle risk (CCR) score and MRI features [i.e., PI-RADSv2 score, extracapsular extension (ECE), quantitative metrics] were analyzed with Fisher's exact test, nonparametric tests, and Spearman's correlation coefficient. In 41 patients (34.7%), test results were compared to unfavorable features on prostatectomy specimen (i.e., Gleason group ≥ 3, ECE, lymph node metastases). RESULTS: Fifty-four (45.8%), 60 (50.8%), and 4 (3.4%) patients had low-, intermediate-, and high-risk cancers according to American Urological Association scoring system. Patients with ECE on MRI had significantly higher mean CCR scores (reader 1: 3.9 vs. 3.2, p = 0.015; reader 2: 3.6 vs. 3.2, p = 0.045). PI-RADSv2 scores and quantitative MRI features were not associated with CCR scores. In the prostatectomy subset, ECE on MRI (p = < 0.001-0.001) and CCR scores (p = 0.049) were significantly associated with unfavorable histopathologic features. CONCLUSION: The phenotypic trait of ECE on MRI indicates a more aggressive genotype of prostate cancer.

Multicenter Optimization and Validation of a 2-Gene mRNA Urine Test for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer before Initial Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: A 2-gene, urine based molecular test that combines mRNA biomarkers with clinical factors can risk stratify patients for clinically significant prostate cancer. To ensure the generalizability of assay results we optimized and validated the clinical model for men with serum prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml who were undergoing initial prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urine samples were collected from 1,955 men from The Netherlands, France and Germany prior to an initial prostate biopsy and study subjects were divided into training and validation cohorts. Urinary HOXC6 and DLX1 mRNA levels were quantified and RNA results were then combined with other risk factors in a clinical model optimized to detect ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) Grade Group 2 or greater prostate cancer in men with prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml. Results in the validation cohort were compared with the PCPTRC (Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator), version 2.0. RESULTS: The optimal clinical model included urinary HOXC6 and DLX1 mRNA levels, patient age, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen density (serum prostate specific antigen/prostate volume). In the 715 validation cohort subjects with prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml the AUC was 0.82 with 89% sensitivity, 53% specificity and 95% negative predictive value. The PCPTRC AUC was 0.70. The full validation cohort of 916 men including all prostate specific antigen levels yielded an AUC of 0.85 with 93% sensitivity, 47% specificity and 95% negative predictive value. The PCPTRC AUC was 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-gene based urine assay, which is optimized for biopsy naïve patients with serum prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml, demonstrated high sensitivity and negative predictive value to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. These data support using the test to help guide initial prostate biopsy decisions.

Urinary Molecular Biomarker Test Impacts Prostate Biopsy Decision Making in Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: There is an unmet need for noninvasive methods to better identify patients at increased risk for clinically significant prostate cancer. SelectMDx® is a molecular urine test validated for the detection of Gleason score 7 and higher cancers (ISUP [International Society of Urological Pathology] Grade Group 2-5). In this multicenter trial we evaluated the test's impact on prostate biopsy decision making in clinical practice. METHODS: The study involved 5 U.S. community urology practices which sequentially enrolled 418 patients who received a SelectMDx test between May 2016 and April 2017 while undergoing evaluation for initial prostate biopsy. All tests were ordered by the urologist for patient management. We determined biopsy and prostate cancer detection rates in patients with SelectMDx positive versus SelectMDx negative results. RESULTS: Of the 418 subjects evaluated with SelectMDx 253 (61%) had negative results and 165 (39%) had positive results. Subsequent biopsy rates for SelectMDx positive and negative cases were 60% (99) and 12% (32), respectively (p <0.001). Time from SelectMDx result to biopsy was shorter for those with positive vs negative results (median 2 vs 5 months, p=0.001). Of patients who underwent biopsy within 3 months of testing 71 (43%) with positive results underwent biopsy and 27 had cancers identified, including 10 greater than Grade Group 2. Of 9 patients with SelectMDx negative results (3.6%) who underwent biopsy 4 were diagnosed with cancer, all Grade Group 2 or less. CONCLUSIONS: SelectMDx had a significant impact on initial prostate biopsy decision making. Biopsy rates in SelectMDx positive cases were fivefold higher than in SelectMDx negative cases. These results describe the clinical utility of SelectMDx in real-world community urology practice.

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.

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.

Identification of men with low-risk biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer as candidates for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: A combined clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score that incorporates prognostic molecular and clinical information has been recently developed and validated to improve prostate cancer mortality (PCM) risk stratification over clinical features alone. As clinical features are currently used to select men for active surveillance (AS), we developed and validated a CCR score threshold to improve the identification of men with low-risk disease who are appropriate for AS. METHODS: The score threshold was selected based on the 90th percentile of CCR scores among men who might typically be considered for AS based on NCCN low/favorable-intermediate risk criteria (CCR = 0.8). The threshold was validated using 10-year PCM in an unselected, conservatively managed cohort and in the subset of the same cohort after excluding men with high-risk features. The clinical effect was evaluated in a contemporary clinical cohort. RESULTS: In the unselected validation cohort, men with CCR scores below the threshold had a predicted mean 10-year PCM of 2.7%, and the threshold significantly dichotomized low- and high-risk disease (P = 1.2 × 10-5). After excluding high-risk men from the validation cohort, men with CCR scores below the threshold had a predicted mean 10-year PCM of 2.3%, and the threshold significantly dichotomized low- and high-risk disease (P = 0.020). There were no prostate cancer-specific deaths in men with CCR scores below the threshold in either analysis. The proportion of men in the clinical testing cohort identified as candidates for AS was substantially higher using the threshold (68.8%) compared to clinicopathologic features alone (42.6%), while mean 10-year predicted PCM risks remained essentially identical (1.9% vs. 2.0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The CCR score threshold appropriately dichotomized patients into low- and high-risk groups for 10-year PCM, and may enable more appropriate selection of patients for AS.

A Multigene Signature Based on Cell Cycle Proliferation Improves Prediction of Mortality Within 5 Yr of Radical Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There is a critical need for improved prognostic discrimination in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) given the increasing awareness that some patients may be managed with active surveillance, while others with higher-risk disease might benefit from adjuvant therapy following surgery. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multigene proliferation signature predicts long-term oncologic outcomes in surgically resected RCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The cell cycle proliferation (CCP) score was determined after radical nephrectomy for localized clear cell, papillary, or chromophobe RCC in 565 patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point was disease-specific mortality (DSM), and disease recurrence was a secondary end point. Association with outcomes was evaluated by Cox proportional hazards survival analysis. The CCP score was compared with the Karakiewicz nomogram, and a composite (R-CCP) score was developed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 68 patients (12%) recurred and 32 (6%) died of disease within 5 yr of nephrectomy. The CCP score was an independent predictor of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-2.09) and DSM (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.53-4.04) after adjusting for clinical variables using the baseline nomogram. The composite R-CCP score gave a Harrell's concordance index of 0.87 and stratified patients into low- (n=338) and high-risk (n=202) categories with 99% and 84% cancer-specific survival probabilities, respectively (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The CCP score is a significant, independent predictor of long-term oncologic outcomes in patients who have undergone nephrectomy for RCC. Combining the molecular classifier with baseline clinical variables allows for accurate, patient-specific risk assessment for use in guiding clinical management. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we sought to understand how well gene expression information from individual kidney tumors can predict cancer recurrence and death following surgical removal. We found that the combination of the gene expression test and clinical characteristics provides an accurate prognostic assessment to help inform clinical decisions.

Follow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously found no significant differences in mortality between men who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer and those who were treated with observation only. Uncertainty persists regarding nonfatal health outcomes and long-term mortality. METHODS: From November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or observation. We extended follow-up through August 2014 for our primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and the main secondary outcome, prostate-cancer mortality. We describe disease progression, treatments received, and patient-reported outcomes through January 2010 (original follow-up). RESULTS: During 19.5 years of follow-up (median, 12.7 years), death occurred in 223 of 364 men (61.3%) assigned to surgery and in 245 of 367 (66.8%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 5.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 12.4; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.01; P=0.06). Death attributed to prostate cancer or treatment occurred in 27 men (7.4%) assigned to surgery and in 42 men (11.4%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 8.3; hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.02; P=0.06). Surgery may have been associated with lower all-cause mortality than observation among men with intermediate-risk disease (absolute difference, 14.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.8 to 25.6) but not among those with low-risk disease (absolute difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.5 to 11.8) or high-risk disease (absolute difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.5 to 16.1) (P=0.08 for interaction). Treatment for disease progression was less frequent with surgery than with observation (absolute difference, 26.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 19.0 to 32.9); treatment was primarily for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) progression. Urinary incontinence and erectile and sexual dysfunction were each greater with surgery than with observation through 10 years. Disease-related or treatment-related limitations in activities of daily living were greater with surgery than with observation through 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: After nearly 20 years of follow-up among men with localized prostate cancer, surgery was not associated with significantly lower all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality than observation. Surgery was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events than observation but a lower frequency of treatment for disease progression, mostly for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical progression. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644 .).

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.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-defined low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men who underwent RP for Gleason score ≤6 PCa at three institutions (Martini Clinic [MC], Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center [DVA] and Intermountain Healthcare [IH]) were identified. The CCP score was obtained from diagnostic (DVA, IH) or simulated biopsies (MC). The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence (BCR; prostate-specific antigen ≥0.2 ng/mL) after RP. The prognostic utility of the CCP score was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models in the subset of men meeting NCCN low-risk criteria and in the overall cohort. RESULTS: Among the 236 men identified, 80% (188/236) met the NCCN low-risk criteria. Five-year BCR-free survival for the low (<0), intermediate (0-1) and high (>1) CCP score groups was 89.2%, 80.4%, 64.7%, respectively, in the low-risk cohort (P = 0.03), and 85.9%, 79.1%, 63.1%, respectively, in the overall cohort (P = 0.041). In multivariable models adjusting for clinical and pathological variables with the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, the CCP score was an independent predictor of BCR in the low-risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.77 per unit score, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 2.58; P = 0.003) and overall cohorts (HR 1.41 per unit score, 95% CI 1.02, 1.96; P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: In a cohort of men with NCCN-defined low-risk PCa, the CCP score improved clinical risk stratification of men who were at increased risk of BCR, which suggests the CCP score could improve the assessment of candidacy for active surveillance and guide optimum treatment selection in these patients with otherwise similar clinical characteristics.

Use of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score for predicting systemic disease and response to radiation of biochemical recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Determining the optimal treatment for biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is challenging. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the ability of CCP score (a prognostic RNA expression signature) to discriminate between systemic disease and local recurrence in patients with BCR after RP. METHODS: Sixty patients with BCR after RP were selected for analysis based on: 1) metastatic disease, 2) non-response to salvage external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and 3) durable response to salvage EBRT. CCP scores were generated from the RNA expression of 46 genes. Logistic regression assessed the association between CCP score and patient group. RESULTS: Passing CCP scores were generated for 47 patients with complete clinical and pathologic data. CCP score predicted clinical status when comparing patients with metastatic disease or non-responders to salvage therapy to patients with durable response (p = 0.006). CCP score remained significantly predictive of clinical status after accounting for time to BCR, PSA level at BCR, and Gleason score (p = 0.0031). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated CCP score was associated with increased risk of systemic disease, indicating that CCP score may be useful in identifying patients with BCR who are most likely to benefit from salvage radiation therapy.

Impact of the Cell Cycle Progression Test on Physician and Patient Treatment Selection for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The cell cycle progression test is a validated molecular assay that assesses prostate cancer specific disease progression and mortality risk when combined with clinicopathological parameters. We present the results from PROCEDE-1000, a large, prospective registry designed to evaluate the impact of the cell cycle progression test on shared treatment decision making for patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with newly diagnosed prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the study and the cell cycle progression test was performed on the initial prostate biopsy tissue. A set of 4 sequential surveys tracked changes relative to initial therapy recommendations (before cell cycle progression) based on clinicopathological parameters following physician review of the cell cycle progression test result, physician/patient review of the cell cycle progression test results and a minimum of 3 months of clinical followup (actual treatment). RESULTS: Of the 1,596 patients enrolled in this registry 1,206 were eligible for analysis. There was a significant reduction in the treatment burden recorded at each successive evaluation (p <0.0001), with the mean number of treatments per patient decreasing from 1.72 before the cell cycle progression test to 1.16 in actual followup. The cell cycle progression test caused a change in actual treatment in 47.8% of patients. Of these changes 72.1% were reductions and 26.9% were increases in treatment. For each clinical risk category there was a significant change in treatment modality (intervention vs nonintervention) before vs after cell cycle progression testing (p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The cell cycle progression test has a significant impact in assisting physicians and patients reach personalized treatment decisions.

Caring for Patients With Prostate Cancer Who Are BRCA Positive.

Genomic testing may be a vital component in the medical management of patients with complex clinical phenotypes and cancer.

Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry.

OBJECTIVE: The cell cycle progression (CCP) test (Prolaris) is a novel prognostic assay that provides accurate risk of prostate cancer-specific disease progression and disease specific mortality when combined with standard clinicopathologic parameters. This prospective study evaluated the impact of the CCP report on physician treatment recommendations for prostate cancer. METHODS: Physicians ordering the CCP test in clinical practice completed surveys regarding treatment recommendations before and after they received and discussed the test results with patients. Clinicians also rated the influence of the test result on treatment decisions. Treatment selections were confirmed via third-party audit of patient charts following final survey responses. RESULTS: Overall, 65% of cases showed a change between intended treatment pre- and post-CCP test reporting. Pre-CCP testing, 164 of 305 cases received a recommendation for interventional treatment. Post-CCP test, interventional therapy was recommended for 103 of these cases, a reduction of 37.2%. Conversely, 141 of 305 cases were recommended pre-CCP testing for non-interventional treatment; 108 of these remained with non-interventional treatment while 33 shifted to interventional options, a 23.4% increase. There was a 49.5% reduction in surgical interventions and a 29.6% reduction in radiation treatment. A third-party audit identified 80.2% concordance between the post-CCP testing treatment recommendation and actual treatment. Re-assignment to intervention or non-intervention generally correlated with the result of the CCP report. Study limitations included physician selection of patients for testing, no evaluation of patient input in therapeutic choice, and other potential treatment decision factors not queried by the survey. CONCLUSION: Based on responses of ordering physicians, the CCP report adds meaningful new information to risk assessment for localized prostate cancer patients. Test results led to changes in treatment with reductions and increases in interventional treatment that were directionally aligned with prostate cancer risk specified by the test.