Impact of a Genomic Test on Treatment Decision in a Predominantly African American Population With Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Trial. Issue 15 (20th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Murphy, Adam B.; Abern, Michael R.; Liu, Li; Wang, Heidy; Hollowell, Courtney M. P.; Sharifi, Roohollah; Vidal, Patricia; Kajdacsy-Balla, Andre; Sekosan, Marin; Ferrer, Karen; Wu, Shoujin; Gallegos, Marlene; King-Lee, Patrice; Sharp, Lisa K.; Ferrans, Carol E.; Gann, Peter H.
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical oncology. Volume 39:Issue 15(2021)
• Page Start: 1660
• Page End: 1670
• Publication Date: 2021-05-20
• Subjects: Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Periodicals; Oncology; Medical Oncology; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Cancer -- Périodiques; Cancérologie; Cancer; Oncology; Oncologia; Càncer; Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.20.02997
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0732-183X

Abstract

Abstract : PURPOSE: The Genomic Prostate Score (GPS), performed on biopsy tissue, predicts adverse outcome in prostate cancer (PCa) and has shown promise for improving patient selection for active surveillance (AS). However, its impact on treatment choice in high-risk populations of African Americans is largely unknown and, in general, the effect of the GPS on this difficult decision has not been evaluated in randomized trials. METHODS: Two hundred men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network very low to low-intermediate PCa from three Chicago hospitals (70% Black, 16% college graduates) were randomly assigned at diagnosis to standard counseling with or without a 12-gene GPS assay. The primary end point was treatment choice at a second postdiagnosis visit. The proportion of patients choosing AS was compared, and multivariable modeling was used to estimate the effects of various factors on AS acceptance. RESULTS: AS acceptance was high overall, although marginally lower in the intervention group (77% v 88%; P = .067), and lower still when men with inadequate specimens were excluded ( P = .029). Men with lower health literacy who received a GPS were seven-fold less likely to choose AS compared with controls, whereas no difference was seen in men with higher health literacy ( P interaction = .022). Among men with low-intermediate risk, 69% had GPS values consistent with unfavorable intermediate or high-risk cancer. AS choice was also independently associated with a family history of PCa and having health insurance. CONCLUSION: In contrast to other studies, the net effect of the GPS was to move patients away from AS, primarily among men with low health literacy. These findings have implications for our understanding of how prognostic molecular assays that generate probabilities of poor outcome can affect treatment decisions in diverse clinical populations.