Klee, George G.

175 Background: The efficient delivery of adjuvant and salvage therapy after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer is hampered by a lack of biomarkers to assess the risk of clinically significant recurrence and progression. Methods: Mayo Clinic Radical Prostatectomy Registry (RP) patient specimens were selected from a case-control cohort with 14 years median follow-up for training and initial validation of an expression biomarker genomic classifier (GC). An independent, blinded case-cohort study of high-risk RP subjects was used to validate GC, comparing the performance of GC to a multivariate logistic regression clinical model (CM) and GC combined with clinical variables (genomic-clinical classifier, GCC) for predicting clinical recurrence (defined as positive bone or CT scan within 5 years after biochemical recurrence). The concordance index (c-index) and Cox model were used to evaluate discrimination and estimate the risk of clinical recurrence. Results: In the training subset (n=359), both GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.90 whereas CM had a c-index of 0.76. In the internal validation set (n=186), GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.76 and 0.75, while CM had a c-index of 0.69. In an independent high-risk study (n=219), GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.77 and 0.76, while CM had a c-index of 0.68. In subset analysis of Gleason score 7 patients within the high-risk group, GC and GCC showed improved discrimination with c-index of 0.78 and 0.76, respectively compared to 0.70 for CM. In the high-risk group, the risk of recurrence by GC model score quartiles at 5 years after RP was estimated at 1%, 5%, 5% and 18%. Conclusions: The GC model shows improved performance over CM in the prediction of clinical recurrence in a high-risk cohort and in subset analysis of Gleason score 7 patients. The addition of clinical variables to the GC model did not significantly contribute to classifier performance in patients with high-risk features. We are further testing the performance of the GC and GCC models and their usefulness in guiding decision-making (e.g., for the adjuvant therapy setting) in additional studies of prostate cancer clinical risk groups.

Objective To examine the use of the Prostate Health Index ( PHI ) as a continuous variable in multivariable risk assessment for aggressive prostate cancer in a large multicentre US study. Materials and Methods The study population included 728 men, with prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) levels of 2–10 ng/ mL and a negative digital rectal examination, enrolled in a prospective, multi‐site early detection trial. The primary endpoint was aggressive prostate cancer, defined as biopsy Gleason score ≥7. First, we evaluated whether the addition of PHI improves the performance of currently available risk calculators (the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial [ PCPT ] and European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ ERSPC ] risk calculators). We also designed and internally validated a new PHI ‐based multivariable predictive model, and created a nomogram. Results Of 728 men undergoing biopsy, 118 (16.2%) had aggressive prostate cancer. The PHI predicted the risk of aggressive prostate cancer across the spectrum of values. Adding PHI significantly improved the predictive accuracy of the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators for aggressive disease. A new model was created using age, previous biopsy, prostate volume, PSA and PHI , with an area under the curve of 0.746. The bootstrap‐corrected model showed good calibration with observed risk for aggressive prostate cancer and had net benefit on decision‐curve analysis. Conclusion Using PHI as part of multivariable risk assessment leads to a significant improvement in the detection of aggressive prostate cancer, potentially reducing harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis.

Abstract This paper, prepared by the EFLM Task and Finish Group on Allocation of laboratory tests to different models for performance specifications (TFG-DM), is dealing with criteria for allocating measurands to the different models for analytical performance specifications (APS) recognized in the 1st EFLM Strategic Conference Consensus Statement. Model 1, based on the effect of APS on clinical outcome, is the model of choice for measurands that have a central role in the decision-making of a specific disease or clinical situation and where cut-off/decision limits are established for either diagnosing, screening or monitoring. Total cholesterol, glucose, HbA 1c , serum albumin and cardiac troponins represent practical examples. Model 2 is based on components of biological variation and should be applied to measurands that do not have a central role in a specific disease or clinical situation, but where the concentration of the measurand is in a steady state. This is best achieved for measurands under strict homeostatic control in order to preserve their concentrations in the body fluid of interest, but it can also be applied to other measurands that are in a steady state in biological fluids. In this case, it is expected that the “noise” produced by the measurement procedure will not significantly alter the signal provided by the concentration of the measurand. This model especially applies to electrolytes and minerals in blood plasma (sodium, potassium, chloride, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, inorganic phosphate) and to creatinine, cystatin C, uric acid and total protein in plasma. Model 3, based on state-of-the-art of the measurement, should be used for all the measurands that cannot be included in models 1 or 2.