ArticleJCO precision oncology2018
Clinical Utility of Gene Expression Classifiers in Men With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards implementation of precision medicine biomarkers in early detection and prognostication of prostate cancer.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2026Review
- Correlation of unfavourable and favourable histology at radical prostatectomy with Decipher scores and freedom from biochemical recurrence.Histopathology · 2026Article
- The Role of Genomic Scores in the Management of Prostate Cancer Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Active surveillance selection and 3-year durability in intermediate-risk prostate cancer following genomic testing.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Observational
- Gene Signatures and Oncology Treatment Implications.Hematology/oncology clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Clinical validation of a biopsy-based six-gene signature prognostic for aggressive prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- New biomarkers and multiplex tests for diagnosis of aggressive prostate cancer and therapy management.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Use of the Decipher genomic classifier among men with prostate cancer in the United States.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- Histology Specific Molecular Biomarkers: Ushering in a New Era of Precision Radiation Oncology.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2023Review
- Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data.Cancers · 2022Review
- Validation of the cell cycle progression score to differentiate indolent from aggressive prostate cancer in men diagnosed through transurethral resection of the prostate biopsy.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Review
- Making External Validation Valid for Molecular Classifier Development.JCO precision oncology · 2021Article
- Review
- Incorporating Prognostic Biomarkers into Risk Assessment Models and TNM Staging for Prostate Cancer.Cells · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTissue-based gene expression classifiers (GECs) may assist with management decisions in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. We sought to assess the current use of GEC tests and determine how the test results are associated with primary disease management.
methodsIn this observational study, patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were tracked through the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry. The utilization and results of three GECs (Decipher Prostate Biopsy, Oncotype DX Prostate, and Prolaris) were prospectively collected. Practice patterns, predictors of GEC use, and effect of GEC results on disease management were investigated.
resultsOf 3,966 newly diagnosed patients, 747 (18.8%) underwent GEC testing. The rate of GEC use in individual practices ranged from 0% to 93%, and patients undergoing GEC testing were more likely to have a lower prostate-specific antigen level, lower Gleason score, lower clinical T stage, and fewer positive cores (all
conclusionThere is large variability in practice-level use and GEC tests ordered in patients with newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer. In patients with clinical favorable risk of cancer, GEC testing significantly increased the use of AS. Additional follow-up will help determine whether incorporation of GEC testing into initial patient care favorably affects clinical outcomes.
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.