ArticleJCO precision oncology2025
Cross-Comparison Individual Patient-Level Analysis of Three Gene Expression Signatures in Localized Prostate in Over 50,000 Men.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards implementation of precision medicine biomarkers in early detection and prognostication of prostate cancer.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2026Review
- A Platform-Independent Binary Gene-Pair Signature Derived from CRPC-Enriched Single-Cell Transcriptomics for Predicting Recurrence-Free Survival in Prostate Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe 22-gene Decipher genomic classifier (GC) (22-gene GC) is the only gene expression test with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) level 1 evidence for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment decision making. It is unclear whether other commercial signatures-Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) or Prolaris (cell cycle progression [CCP])-correlate sufficiently to explain differences in evidence strength. This study assesses correlation between these three classifiers on a per-patient basis by performing a cross-comparison of these signatures in a large cohort of patients diagnosed with PCa. MATERIALS AND
methodsPrimary PCa biopsy samples underwent whole-transcriptome gene expression microarray analysis. 22-gene GC scores were calculated using the commercially locked model. To reduce bias, GPS and CCP signatures were retrained for prediction of metastasis to harmonize end points. Pearson correlations and linear regressions (univariable/multivariable) adjusting for age, grade group, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and T stage were calculated between signatures.
resultsAmong 50,881 patients (median age 68 years, median PSA 6.2 ng/mL), 60% were NCCN intermediate-risk. The GPS-derived and CCP-derived models had poor goodness-of-fit to 22-gene GC (
conclusionCorrelation between 22-gene GC and either GPS-derived or CCP-derived signatures is minimal to moderate. These tests are not interchangeable, and their use should be guided by the specific evidence supporting each signature.
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.