2. UroToday Home
  3. Recent Abstracts
  4. Urologic Oncology
  5. Prostate Cancer

Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer

It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. 

Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. 

With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. 

A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 20;36(6):581-590. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.2940. Epub 2017 Nov 29.

Spratt DE1, Zhang J3, Santiago-Jiménez M3, Dess RT1, Davis JW4, Den RB5, Dicker AP5, Kane CJ6, Pollack A10, Stoyanova R10, Abdollah F2, Ross AE11, Cole A1, Uchio E7, Randall JM8, Nguyen H9, Zhao SG1, Mehra R1, Glass AG12, Lam LLC3, Chelliserry J3, du Plessis M3, Choeurng V3, Aranes M3, Kolisnik T3, Margrave J3, Alter J3, Jordan J3, Buerki C3, Yousefi K3, Haddad Z3, Davicioni E3, Trabulsi EJ5, Loeb S13, Tewari A14, Carroll PR9, Weinmann S12, Schaeffer EM15, Klein EA16, Karnes RJ17, Feng FY9, Nguyen PL18.

Author Information:

  1. Daniel E. Spratt, Robert T. Dess, Adam Cole, Shuang G. Zhao, and Rohit Mehra, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  2. Firas Abdollah, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI
  3. Jingbin Zhang, María Santiago-Jiménez, Lucia L.C. Lam, Jijumon Chelliserry, Marguerite du Plessis, Voleak Choeurng, Maria Aranes, Tyler Kolisnik, Jennifer Margrave, Jason Alter, Jennifer Jordan, Christine Buerki, Kasra Yousefi, Zaid Haddad, and Elai Davicioni, GenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  4. John W. Davis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
  5. Robert B. Den, Adam P. Dicker, and Edouard J. Trabulsi, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
  6. Christopher J. Kane, University of California San Diego, San Diego
  7. Edward Uchio, University of California Irvine
  8. Josh M. Randall, Orange County Urology Associates, Irvine
  9. Hao Nguyen, Peter R. Carroll and Felix Y. Feng, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
  10. Alan Pollack and Radka Stoyanova, University of Miami, Miami, FL
  11. Ashley E. Ross, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
  12. Andrew G. Glass and Sheila Weinmann, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR
  13. Stacy Loeb, New York University
  14. Ashutosh Tewari, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
  15. Edward M. Schaeffer, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
  16. Eric A. Klein, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
  17. R. Jeffrey Karnes, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  18. Paul L. Nguyen, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Related Content:

WATCH: Clinical Genomic Risk Classification - Daniel Spratt

ASCO 2017: Development and validation of a novel clinical-genomic risk group classification for prostate cancer incorporating genomic and clinicopathologic risk

Performance of a Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier in Predicting Metastasis in Men with Prostate-specific Antigen Persistence Postprostatectomy

SUO 2017: Genomics and Molecular Testing after Radical Prostatectomy