Genomic prostate score and treatment selection in favourable intermediate‐risk prostate cancer

Fuente: Wiley Open Access
Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eric Margolis, Benjamin H. Lowentritt, Christopher M. Pieczonka, John P. Bennett, Marina Pavlova, Joao Paulo Zambon, Jack Groskopf, Edward Uchio
Formato: Artículo Open Access
Publicado: Wiley 2025
Materias:
Acceso en línea:
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
_version_ 1867014119684571136
author Eric Margolis
Benjamin H. Lowentritt
Christopher M. Pieczonka
John P. Bennett
Marina Pavlova
Joao Paulo Zambon
Jack Groskopf
Edward Uchio
author_facet Eric Margolis
Benjamin H. Lowentritt
Christopher M. Pieczonka
John P. Bennett
Marina Pavlova
Joao Paulo Zambon
Jack Groskopf
Edward Uchio
Eric Margolis
Benjamin H. Lowentritt
Christopher M. Pieczonka
John P. Bennett
Marina Pavlova
Joao Paulo Zambon
Jack Groskopf
Edward Uchio
collection Wiley Open Access
contents Genomic prostate score and treatment selection in favourable intermediate‐risk prostate cancer Eric Margolis Benjamin H. Lowentritt Christopher M. Pieczonka John P. Bennett Marina Pavlova Joao Paulo Zambon Jack Groskopf Edward Uchio BJUI Compass AbstractObjectiveTo assess the factors associated with the use of active surveillance (AS) in NCCN favourable intermediate‐risk (FIR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients who received the 17‐gene Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) assay.Material and MethodsContemporary data were collected from academic and large community group practices across the United States. Eligible patients had localized PCa classified as FIR per NCCN guidelines and received a GPS report between May 2017 and April 2019. Higher GPS results (scale: 0–100) were associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes. The proportion of patients selecting AS was calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Uni‐and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association between AS selection and relevant covariates.ResultsThere were 324 eligible patients (Gleason Score 3 + 4, 79%; PSA 10–20 ng/ml, 19%; clinical stage T2b‐T2c, 2%; median percent positive cores, 16.7%; median GPS result, 26). The distribution of GPS results was 0–19 (23%), 20–40 (60%), and 41–100 (16%). Overall, 31% (95% CI 26%, 36%) selected AS: 58% (46%, 69%) with GPS 0–19, 27% (21%, 33%) with GPS 20–40, and 6% (1%, 16%) with GPS 41–100. In univariable models, the Gleason score, percent positive cores, PSA, and GPS results were significantly associated with AS selection. In a multivariable model, the percent positive cores and the GPS result remained significantly associated with AS selection. AS persistence was 91% (82%, 95%) at 12 months.ConclusionsThe GPS result and percent positive cores appear associated with AS use after controlling for relevant clinical variables in NCCN FIR prostate cancer patients. 10.1002/bco2.494 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
doi_str_mv 10.1002/bco2.494
format Artículo Open Access
id wiley_oa_10_1002_bco2_494
institution Wiley Open Access
license_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
publishDate 2025
publisher Wiley
record_format wiley_oa
spellingShingle Genomic prostate score and treatment selection in favourable intermediate‐risk prostate cancer
Eric Margolis
Benjamin H. Lowentritt
Christopher M. Pieczonka
John P. Bennett
Marina Pavlova
Joao Paulo Zambon
Jack Groskopf
Edward Uchio
BJUI Compass
Genomic prostate score and treatment selection in favourable intermediate‐risk prostate cancer Eric Margolis Benjamin H. Lowentritt Christopher M. Pieczonka John P. Bennett Marina Pavlova Joao Paulo Zambon Jack Groskopf Edward Uchio BJUI Compass AbstractObjectiveTo assess the factors associated with the use of active surveillance (AS) in NCCN favourable intermediate‐risk (FIR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients who received the 17‐gene Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) assay.Material and MethodsContemporary data were collected from academic and large community group practices across the United States. Eligible patients had localized PCa classified as FIR per NCCN guidelines and received a GPS report between May 2017 and April 2019. Higher GPS results (scale: 0–100) were associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes. The proportion of patients selecting AS was calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Uni‐and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association between AS selection and relevant covariates.ResultsThere were 324 eligible patients (Gleason Score 3 + 4, 79%; PSA 10–20 ng/ml, 19%; clinical stage T2b‐T2c, 2%; median percent positive cores, 16.7%; median GPS result, 26). The distribution of GPS results was 0–19 (23%), 20–40 (60%), and 41–100 (16%). Overall, 31% (95% CI 26%, 36%) selected AS: 58% (46%, 69%) with GPS 0–19, 27% (21%, 33%) with GPS 20–40, and 6% (1%, 16%) with GPS 41–100. In univariable models, the Gleason score, percent positive cores, PSA, and GPS results were significantly associated with AS selection. In a multivariable model, the percent positive cores and the GPS result remained significantly associated with AS selection. AS persistence was 91% (82%, 95%) at 12 months.ConclusionsThe GPS result and percent positive cores appear associated with AS use after controlling for relevant clinical variables in NCCN FIR prostate cancer patients. 10.1002/bco2.494 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Genomic prostate score and treatment selection in favourable intermediate‐risk prostate cancer
topic BJUI Compass
url https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bco2.494