Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23592338›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2013

Impact of a genomic classifier of metastatic risk on postoperative treatment recommendations for prostate cancer patients: a report from the DECIDE study group.

Ketan Badani, Darby J S Thompson, Christine Buerki, Elai Davicioni, Jill Garrison, Mercedeh Ghadessi, Anirban P Mitra, Penelope J Wood, John Hornberger

5 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02020876 completednot on this map

GenomeDx Decipher Test for Metastatic Disease in Prostate Cancer for Patients With Adverse Pathology Post Radical Prostatectomy: Does it Impact Physician Decision Making?

TypeobservationalSponsorGenomeDx Biosciences CorpRan2012 to 2013Enrolled21ConditionsProstate CancerArmsDECIPHER Questionnaire
NCT02034812 completednot on this map

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?

TypeobservationalSponsorGenomeDx Biosciences CorpRan2013 to 2014Enrolled25ConditionsProstate CancerArmsDecipher Questionnaire
NCT02034825 completednot on this map

ASSESSing the Impact of Decipher on Practice Decision Making in Prostate Cancer After Surgery

TypeobservationalSponsorGenomeDx Biosciences CorpRan2013 to 2015Enrolled50ConditionsProstate CancerArmsDecipher Questionnaire
NCT02080689 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

PROspective Study of the IMPACT of Decipher™ Prostate Cancer Classifier on Physician and Patient Treatment Consideration and Decisions Following Radical Prostatectomy [PRO-IMPACT]

TypeinterventionalSponsorGenomeDx Biosciences CorpRan2014 to 2017Enrolled286ConditionsProstate CancerArmsDecipher
NCT02783950 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Genomics in Michigan Impacting Observation or Radiation (G-MINOR)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Michigan Rogel Cancer CenterRan2017 to 2024Enrolled356ConditionsProstate CancerArmsDecipher Prostate Cancer Classifier
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Tissue-based biomarkers in prostate cancer.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2017
    Article
  16. Review
  17. How Precisely Can Prostate Cancer Be Managed?International neurourology journal · 2016
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. PSA and beyond: alternative prostate cancer biomarkers.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ketan BadaniDepartment of Urology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. kb2388@mail.cumc.columbia.edu
Darby J S Thompson
Christine Buerki
Elai Davicioni
Jill Garrison
Mercedeh Ghadessi
Anirban P Mitra
Penelope J Wood
John Hornberger
Genome British Columbia · CAColumbia University · USStanford University · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedBiomarkers, TumorGenomicsHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMaleMiddle AgedProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRisk FactorsSalvage TherapyBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID23592338
PMCPMC3720607
OpenAlexW1888052965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.