The Prolaris test on diagnostic biopsy for localized prostate cancer prognosis across risk groups and management: An individual participant data meta-analysis.
Abstract
394 Background: Tools to risk stratify localized prostate cancer are limited. We sought to conduct a robust, individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of the performance of Prolaris from diagnostic biopsy in localized prostate cancer. Prolaris is based on a combined clinical risk (CCR) score that categorizes individual patient risk into low, intermediate, or high risk based on locked and validated active surveillance (AS) and multi-modal therapy thresholds. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed, and IPD were collected where possible to perform a two-step IPD analysis. The primary endpoint was a composite of distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM), also analyzed individually. Within each cohort Cox proportional hazards models were fit adjusting for treatment received. Random-effects meta-analyses with Knapp-Hartung adjustment were used to create combined hazard ratio (HR) estimates across studies. Results: Fourteen eligible studies included 8,480 total patients, of which 7,926 had IPD. The cohort consisted of 20.0%, 33.9%, 32.5%, and 13.6% NCCN Low-, Favorable Intermediate-, Unfavorable Intermediate-, and High-Risk disease, respectively. Initial management was 42.9% non-interventional (e.g. AS), 23.6% surgery, 16.4% radiation therapy (RT), and 13.0% RT plus androgen deprivation therapy. CCR was prognostic for composite DM-PCSM after accounting for treatment received (HR 2.28 (95% CI 1.92, 2.62), p=9.14x10-9) with insignificant heterogeneity (I2 =14%, p=0.3) and was also individually prognostic for DM (p=1.87x10⁻⁶) and PCSM (p=3.14x10⁻⁴). Influence analyses demonstrated that results were not materially influenced by any one study. Additional meta-analyses demonstrated that CCR adds independent prognostic information to Gleason, CAPRA, or NCCN (all p<10) and that Prolaris Risk Groups are prognostic for composite DM-PCSM, as well as for individual endpoints (all p<0.05). Conclusions: Prolaris improves prognostication across NCCN Risk Groups and treatment strategies in localized prostate cancer. Prognostic value persists after adjusting for initial treatments and established clinical factors, highlighting utility in supplementing conventional risk models.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (18)
Steven Monda
Matthew Schiewer
Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
Lauren Lenz
Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
Wyatt Clegg
Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
Ivan Henriquez Lopez
Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus, Reus, Spain
Raquel García
Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus, Institut d’Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain
David Crawford
University of California, San Diego, Koman Family Outpatient Pavilion, San Diego, CA
Neal D. Shore
START Carolinas/Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC
Jeffrey J. Tosoian
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
Cameron J. Britton
Vanderbilt, Nashville, TN
Patrick Lewicki
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Sanoj Punnen
Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL
Rob Finch
Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
Brent Mabey
Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
Alexander Gutin
Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
Jeff Jasper
Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
Todd Matthew Morgan
Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Jonathan David Tward
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT