ArticleOncotarget2013
Impact of a genomic classifier of metastatic risk on postoperative treatment recommendations for prostate cancer patients: a report from the DECIDE study group.
Article in Oncotarget, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
GenomeDx Decipher Test for Metastatic Disease in Prostate Cancer for Patients With Adverse Pathology Post Radical Prostatectomy: Does it Impact Physician Decision Making?
GenomeDx Decipher Test for Metastatic Disease Prognosis in Prostate Cancer for Patients With Adverse Pathology Post Radical Prostatectomy: Does it Impact Radiation Oncologist' Treatment Recommendations?
ASSESSing the Impact of Decipher on Practice Decision Making in Prostate Cancer After Surgery
PROspective Study of the IMPACT of Decipher™ Prostate Cancer Classifier on Physician and Patient Treatment Consideration and Decisions Following Radical Prostatectomy [PRO-IMPACT]
Genomics in Michigan Impacting Observation or Radiation (G-MINOR)
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of genetics clinical decision support tools on health-care providers' decision making: a mixed-methods systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Deficits of Molecular Prognosis/Diagnosis Studies in Underserved Populations.JCO oncology practice · 2024Review
- Review
- Decision impact studies, evidence of clinical utility for genomic assays in cancer: A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Potential Role of Seven Proteomics Tissue Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer in Urine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate as a Cause of Prostate Cancer Metastasis: A Molecular Portrait.Cancers · 2022Review
- Tissue- and Liquid-Based Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: Role of Available Biomarkers in Daily Practice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Clinical proteomics for prostate cancer: understanding prostate cancer pathology and protein biomarkers for improved disease management.Clinical proteomics · 2020Review
- Merging new-age biomarkers and nanodiagnostics for precision prostate cancer management.Nature reviews. Urology · 2019Review
- Providing guidance for genomics-based cancer treatment decisions: insights from stakeholder engagement for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Article
- Evaluation of a 24-gene signature for prognosis of metastatic events and prostate cancer-specific mortality.BJU international · 2017Article
- Tissue-based biomarkers in prostate cancer.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2017Article
- The Use of Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment.Reviews in urology · 2017Review
- How Precisely Can Prostate Cancer Be Managed?International neurourology journal · 2016Review
- Prostate cancer radiomics and the promise of radiogenomics.Translational cancer research · 2016Article
- The Role of Proteomics in Biomarker Development for Improved Patient Diagnosis and Clinical Decision Making in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Review
- PSA and beyond: alternative prostate cancer biomarkers.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnly a minority of prostate cancer patients with adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence (BCR) post radical prostatectomy (RP) experience metastasis and die from prostate cancer. Improved risk prediction models using genomic information may enable clinicians to better weigh the risk of metastasis and the morbidity and costs of treatment in a clinically heterogeneous population. PURPOSE: We present a clinical utility study that evaluates the influence on urologist treatment recommendations for patients at risk of metastasis using a genomic-based prediction model (DecipherTM).
methodsA prospective, pre-post design was used to assess urologist treatment recommendations following RP in both the adjuvant (without any evidence of PSA rise) and salvage (BCR) settings. Urologists were presented de-identified pathology reports and genomic classifier (GC) test results for 24 patients from a previously conducted GC validation study in high-risk post-RP men. Participants were fellowship trained, high-volume urologic oncologists (n=21) from 18 US institutions. Treatment recommendations for secondary therapy were made based solely on clinical information (pre-GC) and then with genomic biomarker information (post-GC). This study was approved by an independent IRB.
resultsTreatment recommendations changed from pre-GC to post-GC in 43% of adjuvant, and in 53% of salvage setting case evaluations. In the adjuvant setting, urologists changed their treatment recommendations from treatment (i.e. radiation and/or hormones) to close observation post-GC in 27% of cases. For cases with low GC risk (more than 3% risk of metastasis), observation was recommended for 79% of the case evaluations post-GC. Consistent trends were observed in the salvage setting.
conclusionThese results indicate that urologists across a range of practice settings are likely to change treatment decisions when presented with genomic biomarker information following RP. Implementation of genomic risk stratification into routine clinical practice may better direct treatment decision-making post-RP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.