Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry

Crawford, E. David; Scholz, Mark C.; Kar, Ashok; Fegan, Jeffrey E.; Haregewoin, Abebe; Kaldate, Rajesh; Brawer, Michael K.

doi:10.1185/03007995.2014.899208

Cited by 82 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, in an externalbeam radiation therapy (EBRT) cohort, the panel was an independent prognostic factor after adjusting for clinical variables [69]. The potential impact of Prolaris was investigated in one study where physicians were surveyed about treatment recommendations in 305 men with newly diagnosed PCa [70]. In 65% of the cases, the treatment recommendation changed after the genetic test, and in 40% there was reduction in treatment burden (interventional treatment changed to noninterventional).…”

Section: External Validation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genomic Predictors of Outcome in Prostate Cancer

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: External Validation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genomic Predictors of Outcome in Prostate Cancer

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They show the test leads to significant reductions or increases in interventional treatments based on patients' unique risk profiles [78,79]. In one study, 150 clinicians completed surveys in 305 cases assessing the influence of the Prolaris score on clinical decision making.…”

Section: Distinguishing Aggressive Versus Indolent Cancersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In one study, 150 clinicians completed surveys in 305 cases assessing the influence of the Prolaris score on clinical decision making. In 65% of cases, physicians changed their intended therapy based on the Prolaris test score [79]. The Prolaris test has been validated to predict PCa-specific mortality, risk of metastasis and BCR.…”

Section: Distinguishing Aggressive Versus Indolent Cancersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commercialized biomarkers: new horizons in prostate cancer diagnostics

Murphy

Prencipe

Gallagher

et al. 2015

Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limitations with current clinical tools available for diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer have resulted in over-diagnosis and costly overtreatment which is impacting on the outcomes and quality of life of men. The biotech industry is investing significant resources into developing more specific biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and patient stratification which would greatly advance the decision-making processes behind prostate cancer management and treatment. In this review we focus on those biomarkers which have been translated into commercial tests available to clinicians. Since these tests aim to fill specific gaps during the decision-making process of prostate cancer management, we have grouped them based on the clinical question they claim to address i.e. improved prostate cancer screening, false negative biopsy dilemma, prognostic tests following a positive biopsy and tests predicting relapse/metastases after surgery. We evaluate each test with respect to its development, platform, clinical validation, biomatrix, regulatory approval status and cost.

show abstract

“…73 Based on surveys of ordering physicians, use of CCP score led to a change in management selection in one-third to two-thirds of cases; however, as with the clinical utility studies of OncotypeDx, the long-term impact of these changes in management based on Prolaris results is unknown. 74,75 …”

Section: Molecular Testing In Active Surveillancementioning

confidence: 99%

Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools

Tosoian¹,

Loeb²,

Epstein³

et al. 2016

American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a standard management option for men with very low-risk and low-risk prostate cancer, and contemporary data indicate that use of AS is increasing in the United States and abroad. In the favorable-risk population, reports from multiple prospective cohorts indicate a less than 1% likelihood of metastatic disease and prostate cancer-specific mortality over intermediate-term follow-up (median 5 to 6 years). Higher-risk men participating in AS appear to be at increased risk of adverse outcomes, but these populations have not been adequately studied to this point. Although monitoring on AS largely relies on serial prostate biopsy, a procedure associated with significant morbidity, there is a need for improved diagnostic tools for patient selection and monitoring. Revisions from the 2014 International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference have yielded a more intuitive reporting system and detailed reporting of low-intermediate grade tumors, which should facilitate the practice of AS. Meanwhile, emerging modalities such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and tissue-based molecular testing have shown prognostic value in some populations. At this time, however, these instruments have not been sufficiently studied to consider their routine, standardized use in the AS setting. Future studies should seek to identify those platforms most informative in the AS population and propose a strategy by which promising diagnostic tools can be safely and efficiently incorporated into clinical practice.

show abstract

Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry

Cited by 82 publications

References 22 publications

Genomic Predictors of Outcome in Prostate Cancer

Genomic Predictors of Outcome in Prostate Cancer

Commercialized biomarkers: new horizons in prostate cancer diagnostics

Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About