Use of Decipher Prostate Biopsy Test in Patients with Favorable-risk Disease Undergoing Conservative Management or Radical Prostatectomy in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry
Alec Zhu,James A Proudfoot,Elai Davicioni,Ashley E Ross,Valentina I Petkov,Sarah Bonds,Nicki Schussler,Nicholas G Zaorsky,Angela Y Jia,Daniel E Spratt,Edward M Schaeffer,Yang Liu,Mary O Strasser,Jim C Hu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2024.06.007
2024-07-06
Abstract:Background and objective: The extent of prostate cancer found on biopsy, as well as prostate cancer grade and genomic tests, can affect clinical decision-making. The impact of these factors on the initial management approach and subsequent patient outcomes for men with favorable-grade prostate cancer has not yet been determined on a population level. Our objective was to explore the association of Decipher 22-gene genomic classifier (GC) biopsy testing on the initial use of conservative management versus radical prostatectomy (RP) and to determine the independent effect of GC scores on RP pathologic outcomes. Methods: A total of 87 140 patients diagnosed with grade group 1 and 2 prostate cancer between 2016 and 2018 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data were linked to GC testing results (2576 tested and 84 564 untested with a GC). The primary endpoints of interest were receipt of conservative management or RP, pathologic upgrading (pathologic grade group 3-5), upstaging (pathologic ≥T3b), and adverse pathologic features (pathologic upgrading, upstaging, or lymph node invasion). Multivariable logistic regressions quantified the association of variables with outcomes of interest. Key findings and limitations: GC tested patients were more likely to have grade group 2 on biopsy (51% vs 46%, p < 0.001) and lower prostate-specific antigen (6.1 vs 6.3, p = 0.016). Conservative management increased from 37% to 39% and from 22% to 24% during 2016-2018 for the GC tested and untested populations, respectively. GC testing was significantly associated with increased odds of conservative management (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-2.4, p < 0.001). The distribution of biopsy GC risk was as follows: 45% low risk, 30% intermediate risk, and 25% high risk. In adjusted analyses, higher GC (per 0.1 increment) scores (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17-1.31, p < 0.001) and percent positive cores (1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12, p = 0.009) were significantly associated with the receipt of RP. A higher GC score was significantly associated with all adverse outcomes (pathologic upgrading [OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.12-1.49, p < 0.001], upstaging [OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05-1.62, p = 0.020], and adverse pathology [OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12-1.45, p < 0.001]). Limitations include observational biases associated with the retrospective study design. Conclusions and clinical implications: Men who underwent GC testing were more likely to undergo conservative management. GC testing at biopsy is prognostic of adverse pathologic outcomes in a large population-based registry. Patient summary: In this population analysis of men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, those who underwent genomic testing at biopsy were more likely to undergo conservative management. Of men who initially underwent radical prostatectomy, higher genomic risk but not tumor volume was associated with adverse pathologic outcomes. The use of genomic testing at prostate biopsy improves risk stratification and may better inform treatment decisions than the use of tumor volume alone.