Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33356482›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2021

Heterogeneity in Genomic Risk Assessment from Tissue Based Prognostic Signatures Used in the Biopsy Setting and the Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy.

Sanoj Punnen, Radka Stoyanova, Deukwoo Kwon, Isildinha M Reis, Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash, Chad R Ritch, Bruno Nahar, Mark L Gonzalgo, Bruce Kava, Yang Liu and 9 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Sanoj PunnenDepartment of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Radka StoyanovaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Deukwoo KwonBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource and Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Isildinha M ReisBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource and Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Nachiketh Soodana-PrakashDepartment of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Chad R RitchDepartment of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Bruno NaharDepartment of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Mark L GonzalgoDepartment of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Bruce KavaDepartment of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Yang LiuResearch and Development, Decipher Biosciences, San Diego, California.
Himanshu AroraDepartment of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Sandra M GastonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Rosa P Castillo AcostaDepartment of Radiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Alan Dal PraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Matthew AbramowitzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Oleksandr N KryvenkoDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Elai DavicioniResearch and Development, Decipher Biosciences, San Diego, California.
Alan PollackDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.
Dipen J ParekhDepartment of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida.

Funding

Tumor Biology Research ProgramP30CA240139 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI George S. Grills · 2019 to 2026
$24.1M
MRI Imaging and Genetic Signatures to Manage Prostate Cancer OverdiagnosisR01CA189295 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI POLLACK, ALAN · 2014 to 2018
$3.2M
MRI Imaging and Biomarkers for Early Detection of Aggressive Prostate CancerU01CA239141 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI POLLACK, ALAN, PUNNEN, SANOJ · 2019 to 2023
$3.0M
(PQC4) Habitats in Prostate CancerR01CA190105 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR & RES INST · PI BALAGURUNATHAN, YOGANAND, GILLIES, ROBERT J. · 2014 to 2017
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA240139NCI NIH HHS R01 CA189295NCI NIH HHS R01 CA190105NCI NIH HHS U01 CA239141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGenomic prognostic signatures are used on prostate biopsy tissue for cancer risk assessment, but tumor heterogeneity and multifocality may be an issue. We evaluated the variability in genomic risk assessment from different biopsy cores within the prostate using 3 prognostic signatures (Decipher, CCP, GPS). MATERIALS AND

methodsMen in this study came from 2 prospective prostate cancer trials of patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with genomic profiling of positive biopsy cores. We explored the relationship among tumor grade, magnetic resonance imaging risk and genomic risk for each signature. We evaluated the variability in genomic risk assessment between different biopsy cores and assessed how often magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy or the current standard of care (profiling the core with the highest grade) resulted in the highest genomic risk level.

resultsIn all, 224 positive biopsy cores from 78 men with prostate cancer were profiled. For each signature, higher biopsy grade (p <0.001) and magnetic resonance imaging risk level (p <0.001) were associated with higher genomic scores. Genomic scores from different biopsy cores varied with risk categories changing by 21% to 62% depending on which core or signature was used. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and profiling the core with the highest grade resulted in the highest genomic risk level in 72% to 84% and 75% to 87% of cases, respectively, depending on the signature used.

conclusionsThere is variation in genomic risk assessment from different biopsy cores regardless of the signature used. Magnetic resonance imaging directed biopsy or profiling the highest grade core resulted in the highest genomic risk level in most cases.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAgedBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleGenomicsHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingPrognosisProspective StudiesProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRisk Assessmentbiomarkersgenomicsmagnetic resonance imagingprostatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID33356482
PMCPMC8443270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.