Utility of the Oncotype DX® Prostate Cancer Assay in Clinical Practice for Treatment Selection in Men Newly Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Chart Review Analysis. Issue 6 (November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dall'Era, Marc A.; Maddala, Tara; Polychronopoulos, Louise; Gallagher, Jack R.; Febbo, Phillip G.; Denes, Béla S.
• Is Part Of: Urology practice. Volume 2:Issue 6(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-11
• Subjects: prostatic neoplasms -- watchful waiting -- biological markers -- molecular diagnostic techniques -- risk assessment
• DOI: 10.1016/j.urpr.2015.02.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-0779

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: : The 17‐gene Oncotype DX® prostate cancer assay (Genomic Health Inc., Redwood City, California) is a validated, biopsy based gene expression assay that reports the Genomic Prostate Score. Combined with clinical risk features, Genomic Prostate Score provides an individualized estimation of disease aggressiveness at diagnosis. With this retrospective chart review we assessed the impact of incorporating the Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score on treatment recommendations and decisions for men with newly diagnosed low risk prostate cancer in community urology practices. Methods: : A total of 24 urologists who ordered the Oncotype DX prostate cancer assay soon after launch (May 2013) were invited to participate in the study. Clinicopathological data, Genomic Prostate Score results and treatment related information were retrieved from medical records. Data also were collected for a pre‐Genomic Prostate Score baseline group diagnosed from May 2012 to April 2013. Descriptive analyses were performed to evaluate the proportion of men for whom active surveillance was recommended and used before and after the availability of Genomic Prostate Score. Results: : Overall 15 physicians contributing 211 patients (Genomic Prostate Score group 124, baseline group 87) participated in the chart review. Patients in the Genomic Prostate Score and baseline groups had comparable risk based on traditional clinical pathological features, with 82% with NCCN® very low or low risk disease. With Genomic Prostate Score the relative increase in active surveillance recommended was 22% (baseline 50% and Genomic Prostate Score 61%, absolute increase of 11%) and the relative increase in use of active surveillance was 56% (baseline 43% and Genomic Prostate Score 67%, absolute increase of 24%). Treatment recommendations for active surveillance were directionally consistent with assay reported risk. Conclusions: : Genomic Prostate Score testing was associated with greater physician recommendation of and use of active surveillance in community clinical practices.