Document Type

Article

Publication Date

6-20-2017

Comments

This article has been peer reviewed. It is the author’s final published version in Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volume 35, Issue 18, June 2017, Pages 1991-1998

The published version is available at DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.2811. Copyright © American Society of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose To perform the first meta-analysis of the performance of the genomic classifier test, Decipher, in men with prostate cancer postprostatectomy. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Decipher genomic resource information database were searched for published reports between 2011 and 2016 of men treated by prostatectomy that assessed the benefit of the Decipher test. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models fit to individual patient data were performed; meta-analyses were conducted by pooling the study-specific hazard ratios (HRs) using random-effects modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined with the I(2) test. Results Five studies (975 total patients, and 855 patients with individual patient-level data) were eligible for analysis, with a median follow-up of 8 years. Of the total cohort, 60.9%, 22.6%, and 16.5% of patients were classified by Decipher as low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. The 10-year cumulative incidence metastases rates were 5.5%, 15.0%, and 26.7% ( P < .001), respectively, for the three risk classifications. Pooling the study-specific Decipher HRs across the five studies resulted in an HR of 1.52 (95% CI, 1.39 to 1.67; I(2) = 0%) per 0.1 unit. In multivariable analysis of individual patient data, adjusting for clinicopathologic variables, Decipher remained a statistically significant predictor of metastasis (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.47; P < .001) per 0.1 unit. The C-index for 10-year distant metastasis of the clinical model alone was 0.76; this increased to 0.81 with inclusion of Decipher. Conclusion The genomic classifier test, Decipher, can independently improve prognostication of patients postprostatectomy, as well as within nearly all clinicopathologic, demographic, and treatment subgroups. Future study of how to best incorporate genomic testing in clinical decision-making and subsequent treatment recommendations is warranted.

PubMed ID

28358655

Download

Share

COinS