Michael Jamie, Li Eric V, Huang Mitch, Handa Nicole, Kundu Nalin, Ho Austin, Patel Hiten D, Proudfoot James A, Kumar Sai Kaushik Shankar Ramesh, Schaeffer Edward M, Davicioni Elai, Alam Ridwan, Ross Ashley E
Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Veracyte, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Prostate. 2025 Sep;85(12):1114-1120. doi: 10.1002/pros.24924. Epub 2025 Jun 20.
Genomic biomarkers offer opportunities to improve risk stratification for patients with prostate cancer. We performed a transcriptomic profile of active surveillance (AS)-eligible patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) to understand genomic associations with adverse pathologic features (APF) at RP.
Patients considered AS-eligible (NCCN low-favorable intermediate risk) but proceeded to RP from February 2012 to September 2024 were identified from our prospective institutional database. Outcomes were classified by presence or absence of APF at RP, which was defined as grade group (GG) ≥ 3, pT3b, or pN1 disease. Previously established genomic signatures of interest were compared between the two groups. Scaled multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations between multiple genomic classification systems and the outcome of APF.
There were 184 AS-eligible patients, of whom 153 (83.2%) had favorable intermediate risk disease and 31 (16.8%) had low risk disease. There were 41 patients (22.3%) who had APF at RP. The incidence of favorable intermediate risk disease did not differ between those with and without APF (80.5% vs. 83.9%, p = 0.64). Patients with APF had a higher baseline PSA (5.6 ng/mL vs. 4.9 ng/mL, p = 0.01) and Decipher score (0.55 vs. 0.41, p = 0.004) compared to those without APF. On scaled logistic regression with adjustment for log-transformed PSA, the Decipher score, PTEN loss, activated CD4, and ERG positive rate were significantly associated with APF (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11-2.32, p = 0.01). Of ten other previously published genomic classifiers, nine were significantly associated with APF.
AS-eligible patients with APF at RP demonstrate differences in gene expression when compared to those without APF. We established that multiple existing genomic classifiers not previously studied in this context demonstrate the ability to predict APF in this patient population. Inclusion of genomics in the risk stratification of AS-eligible patients has the potential to better inform clinical decisions.
基因组生物标志物为改善前列腺癌患者的风险分层提供了机会。我们对符合主动监测(AS)标准且接受了根治性前列腺切除术(RP)的患者进行了转录组分析,以了解RP时与不良病理特征(APF)相关的基因组关联。
从我们的前瞻性机构数据库中识别出2012年2月至2024年9月期间被认为符合AS标准(NCCN低有利中危)但进行了RP的患者。结局根据RP时是否存在APF进行分类,APF定义为分级组(GG)≥3、pT3b或pN1疾病。比较两组之间先前建立的感兴趣的基因组特征。进行缩放多变量逻辑回归以评估多种基因组分类系统与APF结局之间的关联。
有184例符合AS标准的患者,其中153例(83.2%)患有有利中危疾病,31例(16.8%)患有低危疾病。有41例患者(22.3%)在RP时存在APF。有和没有APF的患者中有利中危疾病的发生率没有差异(80.5%对83.9%,p = 0.64)。与没有APF的患者相比,有APF的患者基线PSA水平更高(5.6 ng/mL对4.9 ng/mL,p = 0.01),Decipher评分更高(0.55对0.41,p = 0.004)。在对log转换后的PSA、Decipher评分、PTEN缺失、活化CD4和ERG阳性率进行调整的缩放逻辑回归分析中,Decipher评分与APF显著相关(OR 1.61,95% CI 1.11 - 2.32,p = 0.01)。在其他十个先前发表的基因组分类器中,九个与APF显著相关。
与没有APF的患者相比,RP时存在APF的符合AS标准的患者在基因表达上存在差异。我们确定,多个在此背景下以前未研究过的现有基因组分类器显示出预测该患者群体中APF的能力。将基因组学纳入符合AS标准患者的风险分层有可能更好地为临床决策提供信息。