Can Genomic classifiers in biopsy cores with Grade Group 1 cancer predict higher-grade disease elsewhere in the prostate? Results from the prospective Miami Active Surveillance Trial (MAST).
Pedro F S Freitas,Archan Khandekar,Joao G Porto,Hui Yu,Adam D Williams,Yuval Avda,Ankur Malpani,Tarek Ajami,Dinno F Mendiola,Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash,Sanjaya Swain,Sandra Gaston,Oleksandr Kryvenko,Elai Davicioni,Mohammed Alshalalfa,Yangyang Hao,Brandon Mahal,Elena Cortizas,Zoe Szczotka,Timothy Guerard,Bruce Kava,Radka Stoyanova,Chad R Ritch,Bruno Nahar,Mark L Gonzalgo,Alan Pollack,Dipen J Parekh,Sanoj Punnen
{"title":"Can Genomic classifiers in biopsy cores with Grade Group 1 cancer predict higher-grade disease elsewhere in the prostate? Results from the prospective Miami Active Surveillance Trial (MAST).","authors":"Pedro F S Freitas,Archan Khandekar,Joao G Porto,Hui Yu,Adam D Williams,Yuval Avda,Ankur Malpani,Tarek Ajami,Dinno F Mendiola,Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash,Sanjaya Swain,Sandra Gaston,Oleksandr Kryvenko,Elai Davicioni,Mohammed Alshalalfa,Yangyang Hao,Brandon Mahal,Elena Cortizas,Zoe Szczotka,Timothy Guerard,Bruce Kava,Radka Stoyanova,Chad R Ritch,Bruno Nahar,Mark L Gonzalgo,Alan Pollack,Dipen J Parekh,Sanoj Punnen","doi":"10.1097/ju.0000000000004652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\r\nTo investigate whether expression signatures from Grade Group 1 (GG1) biopsy cores can detect the presence of higher-grade cancer elsewhere in the prostate.\r\n\r\nMETHODS AND MATERIALS\r\nWe enrolled 205 men with low to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance on a prospective protocol. All participants underwent MRI and confirmatory biopsy at enrollment, followed by annual biopsies for three more years. Select cores were sent for Decipher genomic classifier (DGC) testing, and derived Genomic Prostate Score (dGPS) and Cell Cycle Progression (dCCP) signatures were obtained. We compared genomic scores from GG1 biopsy cores with versus without coexisting GG2 and GG3 or higher cancer (GG2+ and GG3+, respectively). We repeated this comparison using only the highest-volume GG1 core from each biopsy, which is the current standard of care.\r\n\r\nKEY FINDINGS\r\nGenomic profiling was successful in 141 of 205 patients (324 GG1 cores). There were no significant differences in DGC, dCCP, or dGPS scores between GG1 cores with versus without coexisting GG2+ cancer elsewhere. This remained true, when using the largest volume GG1 core from each biopsy. dGPS was higher among GG1 cores with coexisting GG3+ cancer compared to those without (0.24 vs 0.10, p=0.012); however, there was no difference between the groups on DGC or dCCP scores.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nGenomic classifiers in GG1 cores did not predict coexisting GG2+ cancer, while dGPS signatures showed some promise in detecting GG3+ cancer elsewhere in the gland. None of the signatures showed a difference between groups when using the highest volume GG1 core, which is the standard practice for genomic classifiers.","PeriodicalId":501636,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Urology","volume":"238 1","pages":"101097JU0000000000004652"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000004652","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
PURPOSE
To investigate whether expression signatures from Grade Group 1 (GG1) biopsy cores can detect the presence of higher-grade cancer elsewhere in the prostate.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
We enrolled 205 men with low to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance on a prospective protocol. All participants underwent MRI and confirmatory biopsy at enrollment, followed by annual biopsies for three more years. Select cores were sent for Decipher genomic classifier (DGC) testing, and derived Genomic Prostate Score (dGPS) and Cell Cycle Progression (dCCP) signatures were obtained. We compared genomic scores from GG1 biopsy cores with versus without coexisting GG2 and GG3 or higher cancer (GG2+ and GG3+, respectively). We repeated this comparison using only the highest-volume GG1 core from each biopsy, which is the current standard of care.
KEY FINDINGS
Genomic profiling was successful in 141 of 205 patients (324 GG1 cores). There were no significant differences in DGC, dCCP, or dGPS scores between GG1 cores with versus without coexisting GG2+ cancer elsewhere. This remained true, when using the largest volume GG1 core from each biopsy. dGPS was higher among GG1 cores with coexisting GG3+ cancer compared to those without (0.24 vs 0.10, p=0.012); however, there was no difference between the groups on DGC or dCCP scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Genomic classifiers in GG1 cores did not predict coexisting GG2+ cancer, while dGPS signatures showed some promise in detecting GG3+ cancer elsewhere in the gland. None of the signatures showed a difference between groups when using the highest volume GG1 core, which is the standard practice for genomic classifiers.
目的探讨1级组(GG1)活检芯的表达特征是否可以检测前列腺其他部位更高级别癌的存在。方法和材料:我们招募了205名低至中危前列腺癌患者,接受前瞻性方案的主动监测。所有参与者在入组时都进行了MRI和确认性活检,随后三年每年进行一次活检。选择的核心被发送用于破译基因组分类器(DGC)测试,并获得基因组前列腺评分(dGPS)和细胞周期进展(dCCP)签名。我们比较了GG1活检芯的基因组评分,比较了是否同时存在GG2和GG3或更高的癌症(分别为GG2+和GG3+)。我们重复了这个比较,只使用每个活检中最高体积的GG1核,这是目前的护理标准。205例患者(324例GG1核心)中有141例基因组分析成功。DGC、dCCP或dGPS评分在GG1患者与其他部位不存在GG2+癌患者之间无显著差异。当每次活检使用最大体积的GG1核时,情况仍然如此。合并GG3+癌的GG1核心患者的dGPS高于未合并GG3+癌的GG1核心患者(0.24 vs 0.10, p=0.012);然而,DGC和dCCP评分在两组之间没有差异。结论GG1核心的基因组分类器不能预测共存的GG2+癌,而dGPS标记在检测腺体其他部位的GG3+癌方面有一定的希望。当使用最高容量的GG1核心时,没有任何签名显示组之间的差异,这是基因组分类器的标准做法。