Evidence Hub

Analysis of a biopsy-based genomic classifier in high-risk prostate cancer: Meta-analysis of the NRG Oncology/RTOG 9202, 9413, and 9902 phase III randomized trials

P. Nguyen, H. Huang, D. Spratt, E. Davicioni, H. Sandler, W. Shipley, J. Efstathiou, J. Simko et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2022

45 citations

Abstract

Background: Decipher is a genomic classifier (GC) prospectively validated post-prostatectomy. Herein, we validate the performance of the GC in pre-treatment biopsy samples within the context of three randomized phase III high-risk definitive radiotherapy trials. Methods: A pre-specified analysis plan (NRG-GU-TS006) was approved to obtain formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue from biopsy specimens from the NRG biobank from patients enrolled on the NRG/RTOG 9202, 9413, and 9902 phase III randomized trials. After central review, the highest-grade tumors were profiled on clinical-grade whole-transcriptome arrays and GC scores were obtained. The primary objective was to validate the independent prognostic ability for the GC for distant metastases (DM), and secondary for prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS) with Cox univariable (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA). Results: GC scores were obtained on 385 samples, of which 265 passed microarray quality control (69%) and had a median follow-up of 11 years (interquartile range, 9, 13). In the pooled cohort, on UVA, the GC was shown to be a prognostic factor for DM (per 0.1 unit; sHR 1.29, 95%CI 1.18-1.41, p<0.001), PCSM (sHR 1.28, 95%CI 1.16-1.41, p<0.001), and OS (HR 1.16, 95%CI 1.08-1.22, p<0.001). On MVA, the GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently associated with DM (sHR 1.22, 95%CI 1.09-1.36), PCSM (sHR 1.23, 95%CI 1.09-1.39), and OS (HR 1.12, 95%CI 1.05-1.20) after adjusting for age, PSA, Gleason…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free