Citations

36 Background: Following radical prostatectomy (RP), 30-40% of patients have adverse pathology and are deemed at high risk for metastatic progression. The objective of this study was to validate the ability of Decipher, a genomic classifier (GC), to improve prediction of metastatic disease progression compared with clinical variables in order to better identify candidates for therapy intensification. Methods: A previously developed 22-feature GC model was validated in a prospectively designed case-cohort study of a clinically high-risk population (i.e., with one or more adverse pathological features) of 1,010 RP patients treated at Mayo Clinic between 2000-2006. A random sample of 20% of the cohort was subjected to microarray analysis and GC scores were generated for 219 patients. The primary endpoint, the c-index for predicting metastatic disease progression (i.e., positive bone or CT scans) was evaluated in a blinded analysis. Cox modeling and decision curve analyses were used to compare the performance of GC to individual clinical variables and prediction models. Results: GC had a c-index 0.79 (95% CI 0.71-0.86) that was significantly better than any single clinical variable. Cumulative incidence curves in the cohort showed that 72% of patients had low GC scores with only 3% and 6% incidence of metastatic disease at 5 and 10 years post RP. In contrast, for the 28% of patients with high GC scores, the cumulative incidence was 17% and 25% at 5 and 10 years post RP. Decision curve analysis showed that the GC model had higher overall net benefit compared to clinical variables over a wide range of ‘decision-to-treat’ thresholds for risk of metastasis. In multivariable modeling with clinicopathologic variables, GC remained the only significant independent predictor of metastasis (HR=1.51, for each 0.1 unit increment, p<0.001). Conclusions: GC can better predict metastatic disease progression compared with clinical variables and may select among patients with adverse pathology a majority that is in fact at low risk for metastasis.

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.