Impact of genomic risk scores on treatment decisions following radical prostatectomy in a prospective Medicare registry.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
John L. Gore ◽  
Darlene Dai ◽  
Robert Benjamin Den ◽  
Kasra Yousefi ◽  
Tiffany Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Impact

72 Background: Prostate cancer patients and providers confront uncertainty as they consider adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy (ART, SRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). We prospectively evaluated the impact of the Decipher RP test, which predicts metastasis risk after RP, on decision-making for postoperative radiation therapy. Methods: Between October 2016 and May 2017, 1,319 patients treated with RP and considering ART or SRT were enrolled into a Medicare Certification and Training Registry (CTR). Providers submitted a management recommendation based on initial clinical and pathology findings prior to obtaining the Decipher RP test and again upon receiving test results. Only Medicare patients that met the Local Coverage Determination inclusion criteria (i.e., non-organ confined prostate cancer or positive margins or rising PSA) and whose provider was certified in the CTR registry were included in the analysis. Results: Based on clinical variables alone, treatment was recommended for 26% of adjuvant and 19% of salvage patients. Obtaining a Decipher score, changed treatment recommendations in 34% (95% CI 30-39%) and 28% (95% CI 19-38%) of men considering adjuvant or salvage therapy respectively. Among men considering ART, 9% of Decipher low risk patients and 45% of Decipher high-risk patients were recommended treatment. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that – independent of pathology risk factors, a high-risk Decipher score was associated with an odds ratio of 7.3 (95% CI 3.9-14.2 p < 0.001) in the adjuvant and 5.5 (95% CI, 1.3-27.8, p = 0.026) in the salvage setting. Conclusions: A prospective CTR demonstrated that use of Decipher resulted in significant changes in treatment decisions for Medicare beneficiaries with PCa considering adjuvant and salvage therapies. Ongoing prospective studies aim at determining how increased use of therapy in men with high Decipher risk impacts oncologic outcomes and whether decreased use in Decipher low risk individuals improves health related quality of life without harming patient survival.

Redefining the role of adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy for T3 disease and/or positive margins.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 367-367
Author(s):  
Barry W. Goy ◽  
In-Lu Amy Liu
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Positive Margins ◽  
Salvage Radiation Therapy

367 Background: SWOG 8794 recommends adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for T3 and/or positive margins. Our purpose was to assess 12-year outcomes on 862 RP patients who had either T3 and/or positive margins who underwent surveillance, salvage radiation therapy (SRT), or hormonal therapy (HT), while categorizing these patients into very low risk (VLR), low risk (LR), high risk (HR), and ultra high risk (UHR) groups. Methods: From 2004 - 2007, 862 RP patients had adverse factors of extracapsular penetration (T3a), seminal vesicle invasion (T3b), positive margins, and/or detectable post-operative PSA. Management included surveillance (54.8%), SRT (36.8%), and HT (8.5%) as first salvage therapy, and 21.5% eventually received hormonal therapy. Twenty patients underwent ART, and were excluded from this analysis. We assessed prognostic factors using multivariable analysis, and 12-year estimates of freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from salvage therapy (FFST), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS). VLR were those with Gleason Score (GS) of 6. LR were GS 3+4 with only T3a or positive margins, but an undetectable postoperative PSA <0.1. HR were T3b with GS 7-10, any GS 7-10 with T3a/b and positive margins, but an undetectable PSA. UHR were those with a detectable PSA with a GS 7-10. Results: Median follow-up was 12.1 years. Median age was 61.6 years. Median time to first salvage treatment for VLR, LR, HR, and UHR were 10.8, 11.1, 5.3, and 0.6 years, p<0.001. 12-year estimates of FFBF for VLR, LR, HR, and UHR were 60.2%, 52.9%, 28.4%, and 0%, p<0.0001. For FFST, 70.9%, 68.6%, 40.5%, and 0%, p<0.0001. For DMFS, 99.1%, 97.8%, 88.6%, and 63.6%, p<0.0001. For PCSS, 99.4%, 99.5%, 93.5%, and 78.9%, p<0.0001. For OS, 91.8%, 91.8%, 81.0%, and 69.9%, p<0.0001. Conclusions: Outcomes of T3 and/or positive margins using surveillance or SRT as initial management yields excellent outcomes for VLR and LR groups, in which ART should be avoided. For HR, ART can be considered reasonable, since FFBF is only 28.4%. For VHR, these patients may benefit from combined hormonal therapy and ART.

scholarly journals Comparison of Oncological Outcomes Between Radical Prostatectomy and Radiotherapy by Type of Radiotherapy in Elderly Prostate Cancer Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-Xiao Guo ◽  
Hao-Ran Xia ◽  
Hui-Min Hou ◽  
Ming Liu ◽  
Jian-Ye Wang
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
The Other ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Patients

ObjectiveWe aimed compare the oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) with those of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), or EBRT + BT (EBBT) in elderly patients with localised prostate cancer (PCa).MethodsLocalised PCa patients aged ≥70 years who underwent RP, EBRT, BT, or EBBT between 2004 and 2016 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Multivariable competing risks survival analyses were used to estimate prostate cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM). Subgroup analyses according to risk categories were also conducted.ResultsOverall, 14057, 37712, 8383, and 5244 patients aged ≥70 years and treated with RP, EBRT, BT, and EBBT, respectively, were identified. In low- to intermediate-risk patients, there was no significant difference in CSM risk between RP and the other three radiotherapy modalities (all P &gt; 0.05). The corresponding 10-year CSM rates for these patients were 1.2%, 2.3%, 2.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. In high-risk patients, EBRT was associated with a higher CSM than RP (P = 0.003), whereas there was no significant difference between RP and BT or RP and EBBT (all P &gt; 0.05). The 10-year CSM rates of high-risk patients in the RP, EBRT, BT, and EBBT groups were 7.5%, 10.2%, 8.3%, and 7.6%, respectively. Regarding OCM, the risk was generally lower in RP than in the other three radiotherapy modalities (all P &lt; 0.001).ConclusionsAmong men aged ≥70 years with localised PCa, EBRT, BT, and EBBT offer cancer-specific outcomes similar to those of RP for individuals with low- to intermediate-risk disease. In patients with high-risk disease, EBBT had outcomes equally favourable to those of RP, but RP is more beneficial than EBRT. More high-quality trials are warranted to confirm and expand the present findings.

Prospective randomized trial of gene expression classifier utility following radical prostatectomy (G-MINOR).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15-15
Author(s):  
Todd Matthew Morgan ◽  
Linda A. Okoth ◽  
Daniel Eidelberg Spratt ◽  
Rodney Dunn ◽  
Felix Y Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
The Impact

15 Background: Decipher is a tissue-based genomic classifier (GC) developed and validated in the post-radical prostatectomy (RP) setting as a predictor of metastasis. We conducted the first prospective randomized controlled trial assessing the use of a prostate cancer GC, with a primary objective to determine the impact of test results on adjuvant treatment decisions. Methods: The Genomics in Michigan ImpactiNg Observation or Radiation (G-MINOR) randomized trial enrolled participants across 12 centers between January 2017-August 2018. Eligible patients had undergone RP within 9 months of enrollment, had pT3-4 disease and/or positive surgical margins, and a PSA < 0.1ng/mL. Patients were assigned to either the GC or Usual Care (UC) group using cluster-crossover block randomization. Patients and providers in both arms received a CAPRA-S recurrence risk score. Decipher scores were obtained on RP tissue of all patients, but patients and providers in the UC arm were blinded to the results. The primary endpoint was the impact of impact of GC test result on adjuvant treatment decisions compared to clinical factors alone within 18 months of RP. Results: 356 patients were randomized and 340 had at least 18 months of follow-up. Of these, all but 2 control (UC) patients had sufficient tissue to pass quality control for GC testing. Randomization resulted in 175 (51.5%) GC and 165 (48.5%) UC patients. There were no significant differences in clinical variables or Decipher scores between arms. At 18 months post-RP, 19 (10.9%) patients in the GC group and 12 (7.3%) patients in the UC group had received adjuvant treatment. In the primary analysis, availability of the GC score in the GC arm was significantly associated with adjuvant treatment in GC high-risk patients after controlling for CAPRA-S risk (OR 7.6, 95%CI 1.95-29.6, p = 0.009). In the GC arm, both GC score (OR 8.8, 95%CI 1.9-39.7, p = 0.005) and CAPRA-S score (OR 3.8, 95%CI 1.09-12.9, p = 0.04) were independently associated with adjuvant treatment in a multivariable logistic regression model. Conclusions: In the first ever randomized trial testing the impact of a prostate cancer genomic classifier on treatment decisions, the use of a GC post-RP impacted post-operative treatment in a manner concordant with classifier risk. Further follow-up will be necessary to assess the impact of GC testing on oncologic outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT02783950. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY AND PROGNOSTIC STRATIFICATION IN PATIENTS WITH CLINICALLY LOCALLY ADVANCED PROSTATE CANCER

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 30-37
Author(s):  
Sergiy Vozianov ◽  
Viacheslav Grygorenko ◽  
Mark Vikarchuk ◽  
Rostislav Danylets ◽  
Oleksandr Banas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Biopsy Gleason Score

Oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy in 106 patients with clinically locally advanced prostate cancer were demonstrated. The mean follow-up was 50.6 (12-129) months. 5-year recurrence-free survival was 47.7 %, 5-year cancer-specific and overall survival - 85.8 %. Patients were devided into three different risk groups: low risk patients had PSA level <20 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason score ≤6 and absence of the seminal vesicle invasion of cancer; intermediate risk was noted when the patient had only one of poor prognostic factors (PSA ≥20 ng/ml or biopsy Gleason score≥7 or presence of cancer invasion to the seminal vesicle) and high risk patients had 2 or 3 poor prognostic factors. For patients of low, intermediate and high risk the biochemical reccurence rates were 14.3 %, 37.1 % and 70.2 %, respectively (p=0.002). The patients of intermediate and high risk had clinically significant higher risk of biochemical reccurence than those of low risk with odds ratio 3.0 and 8.5, respectively. Such grouping may help in guiding the individualized treatment for these patients.

Prostate cancer–specific mortality after definitive radiation therapy: Who dies of disease?

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 181-181
Author(s):  
M. M. Kim ◽  
K. E. Hoffman ◽  
L. B. Levy ◽  
S. J. Frank ◽  
S. Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
High Risk Disease ◽  
Specific Mortality ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Cancer Specific Mortality

181 Background: A competing risks analysis was undertaken to identify patient subgroups at greatest risk of dying from prostate cancer (CAP) after treatment with definitive external beam radiation therapy (RT) +/− androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the PSA era, and to determine which factors predict for survival from disease. Methods: A total of 2,675 men with localized CAP treated with RT +/− ADT at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1987-2007 were evaluated. Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and other cause mortality rates were calculated after stratifying patients according to NCCN risk group, RT dose, use of ADT, and age at treatment. In total, 21% had low-risk, 40% had intermediate-risk, and 39% had high-risk disease. Multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed using Cox regression modeling. Results: Median age was 68.5 years and median follow-up was 6.4 years. For patients with low-risk disease, only 0.2% died of CAP 10 years after treatment. None of the low-risk patients <70 years old who received ≥72 Gy died of CAP. The majority of deaths in the intermediate-risk group were also due to other causes; men ≥70 years old who received <72 Gy had the highest 10-year PCSM (5%). High-risk patients <70 years old who received <72 Gy without ADT had similar 10-year rates of CAP (15.2%) and non-CAP (18.5%) mortality. Men with high-risk disease <70 years old treated with higher doses >72 Gy were twice as likely to die from non-CAP causes (15.9%) than die from CAP (8.6%). In older men ≥70 years old with high risk disease, dose-escalation with ADT reduced 10-year PCSM from 14% to 4%, and most deaths were due to other causes (41% and 20%). On MVA, dose (p=0.002), ADT (p=0.007), PSA (p<0.0001) and Gleason score (p<0.0001) were predictive of PCSM in the high-risk group. Conclusions: Men with low- and intermediate-risk CAP treated with definitive RT are unlikely to die of disease. PCSM is higher in men with high-risk disease but can be reduced with dose escalation and ADT, although patients are still twice as likely to die of other causes. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

The role of advanced genetic testing in the management of prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5089-5089
Author(s):  
Edward M. Schaeffer ◽  
Ismael A. Vergara ◽  
Anamaria Crisan ◽  
Nicholas Erho ◽  
Mercedeh Ghadessi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Expression Profiles ◽  
Transcriptome Profiling ◽  
Good Prognosis ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinicopathologic Factors ◽  
Risk Patients

5089 Background: The genomic classifier (Decipher, GC) is a prospectively validated assay that predicts clinical metastasis post radical prostatectomy (RP) more accurately than standard clinicopathologic factors. While over 70% of high risk patients tested in a previous validation had low GC scores and good prognosis, patients with high GC scores had a cumulative incidence of metastasis over 25% over the study duration. Among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, these most at risk patients may derive the greatest benefit from novel therapies. We thus examined differential expression (DE) of druggable genes that may be targeted in this group. Methods: High-density microarray expression profiles of primary FFPE tumor specimens from 764 men treated with RP at the Mayo Clinic (1987-2006) were evaluated. A subset of 323 patients was flagged as high risk of clinical metastasis (mets) by virtue of having GC score ≥ 0.4. Enrichment and identification of DE genes as druggable targets were pursued using DAVID and DrugBank. Results: Median follow-up of patients was 15.1 years. Among the 323 patients with high GC scores, 62% had mets during follow-up.We identified 2,262 genes DE between mets and non-mets, 230 of which are associated with 331 approved pharmaceuticals and 547 experimental agents. These agents included multiple established anti-neoplastic therapies not currently used to treat prostate cancer such as bortezomib, capecitabine, dasatinib, etoposide, gemcitabine, imatinib, irinotecan, pemetrexed and vinblastine. The two most enriched pathways, spliceosome and ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis, have been proposed previously as therapeutic targets in cancer. Conclusions: Advanced genomic testing that includes validated molecular risk scores as well as transcriptome profiling from a single assay may better enable application of directed, multimodal therapy for individual patients with high risk prostate cancer.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of studies comparing oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 241-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Cozzi ◽  
Gennaro Musi ◽  
Roberto Bianchi ◽  
Danilo Bottero ◽  
Antonio Brescia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Patients

Background: The aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) with brachytherapy (BT). Methods: A literature review was conducted according to the ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses’ (PRISMA) statement. We included studies reporting comparative oncologic outcomes of RP versus BT for localized prostate cancer (PCa). From each comparative study, we extracted the study design, the number and features of the included patients, and the oncologic outcomes expressed as all-cause mortality (ACM), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) or, when the former were unavailable, as biochemical recurrence (BCR). All of the data retrieved from the selected studies were recorded in an electronic database. Cumulative analysis was conducted using the Review Manager version 5.3 software, designed for composing Cochrane Reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Statistical heterogeneity was tested using the Chi-square test. Results: Our cumulative analysis did not show any significant difference in terms of BCR, ACM or PCSM rates between the RP and BT cohorts. Only three studies reported risk-stratified outcomes of intermediate- and high-risk patients, which are the most prone to treatment failure. Conclusions: our analysis suggested that RP and BT may have similar oncologic outcomes. However, the analysis included a limited number of studies, and most of them were retrospective, making it impossible to derive any definitive conclusion, especially for intermediate- and high-risk patients. In this scenario, appropriate urologic counseling remains of utmost importance.

scholarly journals Oncologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the active surveillance era

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyssa S. Louis ◽  
Robin Kalnin ◽  
Manjula Maganti ◽  
Melania Pintilie ◽  
Andrew G Matthew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Preoperative Risk

Objective: In this study, we examine the oncologic outcomes of men with low, intermediate and high preoperative risk for prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy prior to and during the active surveillance era.Methods: We analyzed records from patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our Canadian tertiary care facility from 2000 to 2012. Patients were stratified by D’Amico preoperative risk category and by year of treatment. Biochemical recurrence-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results: We included 2643 consecutive patients in our analysis. The proportion of men with low-risk disease undergoing radical prostatectomy decreased from 2007 onwards coincident with the implementation of an active surveillance strategy in our institution. Men with low-risk and high-risk disease showed significantly worse biochemical outcomes from 2007 to 2012 compared to 2000 to 2006 (p < 0.05), while men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer showed no significant differences (p = 0.27). Within the low-risk cohort, the later treatment group displayed significantly lower age, pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and tumour volume and significantly higher testosterone and body mass index.Conclusions: The time period corresponding with the implementation of active surveillance at our institution corresponded with significant deterioration of biochemical outcomes in the low- and high-risk groups. This suggests that the men with most favourable disease deferred treatment, whereas men with worse preoperative disease characteristics were increasingly treated with radical prostatectomy in the past 6 years perhaps to their benefit.

Is radiation therapy superior to conservative management in men with localized prostate cancer?

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 73-73
Author(s):  
G. L. Lu-Yao ◽  
S. Kim ◽  
D. Moore ◽  
W. Shih ◽  
Y. Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Disease Specific Survival ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Geographic Variations ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Disease Specific

73 Background: Radiation therapy is commonly employed for localized prostate cancer; however, there is little data regarding the comparative effectiveness of radiation therapy (RAD) vs. conservative management (CM). Methods: We performed a population-based cohort study, using Medicare claims data linked to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, to evaluate outcomes in 42,039 men aged 65-85 years treated with either primary RAD or CM for T1-T2 prostate cancer diagnosed in 1992-2005. To overcome potential biases associated with unmeasured confounding variables, we used instrumental variable analysis (IVA), a pseudo-randomization technique that captures the randomness associated with geographic variations in the use of RAD, to control for overt and hidden confounders. Results: The majority of patients (57%) had low-risk disease (Gleason score ≤7, PSA <10, and T stage ≤T2a), and RAD was commonly used (60%) with considerable geographic variations. With median age 74 years and median follow-up 119 months, higher RAD use was not associated with improved survival in low-risk patients (10-year disease-specific survival differed by −0.9%, 94.9% vs. 95.8% in the highest and lowest tertile RAD use areas respectively; 95% C.I. −.1 to 0.6%). Among high-risk patients (Gleason score >7 or PSA >20), highest tertile RAD areas showed a borderline improved (2.7%) 10-year disease-survival (83.9% vs. 81.2% in the highest and lowest tertile radiation use areas; 95% C.I. −1.1% to 7.0%). The results in the moderate-risk group were between that of the low- and high-risk group. Primary RAD did not reduce future ADT use (odds ratios 0.95 for low-risk, 1.02 for moderate-risk, and 1.07 for high-risk with corresponding P values of 0.50, 0.86, and 0.51, respectively). Conclusions: In patients aged over 65 years old with low-risk prostate cancer, primary RAD is unlikely to improve 10-year disease-specific survival or prevent future ADT use. Weighing the potential risks and benefits of radiation therapy is critical for decision making. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals CanAssist Breast Impacting Clinical Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage HR+ Breast Cancer Patients: Indian Scenario

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satish Sankaran ◽  
Jyoti Bajpai Dikshit ◽  
Chandra Prakash SV ◽  
SE Mallikarjuna ◽  
SP Somashekhar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Not Given ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Risk Of Cancer ◽  
The Impact

AbstractCanAssist Breast (CAB) has thus far been validated on a retrospective cohort of 1123 patients who are mostly Indians. Distant metastasis–free survival (DMFS) of more than 95% was observed with significant separation (P < 0.0001) between low-risk and high-risk groups. In this study, we demonstrate the usefulness of CAB in guiding physicians to assess risk of cancer recurrence and to make informed treatment decisions for patients. Of more than 500 patients who have undergone CAB test, detailed analysis of 455 patients who were treated based on CAB-based risk predictions by more than 140 doctors across India is presented here. Majority of patients tested had node negative, T2, and grade 2 disease. Age and luminal subtypes did not affect the performance of CAB. On comparison with Adjuvant! Online (AOL), CAB categorized twice the number of patients into low risk indicating potential of overtreatment by AOL-based risk categorization. We assessed the impact of CAB testing on treatment decisions for 254 patients and observed that 92% low-risk patients were not given chemotherapy. Overall, we observed that 88% patients were either given or not given chemotherapy based on whether they were stratified as high risk or low risk for distant recurrence respectively. Based on these results, we conclude that CAB has been accepted by physicians to make treatment planning and provides a cost-effective alternative to other similar multigene prognostic tests currently available.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document