- Brand, Timothy C;
- Zhang, Nan;
- Crager, Michael R;
- Maddala, Tara;
- Dee, Anne;
- Sesterhenn, Isabell A;
- Simko, Jeffry P;
- Cooperberg, Matthew R;
- Srivastava, Shiv;
- Rosner, Inger L;
- Chan, June M;
- Febbo, Phillip G;
- Carroll, Peter R;
- Cullen, Jennifer;
- Lawrence, H Jeffrey
Objective
To perform patient-specific meta-analysis (MA) of two independent clinical validation studies of a 17-gene biopsy-based genomic assay as a predictor of favorable pathology at radical prostatectomy.Materials and methods
Patient-specific MA was performed on data from 2 studies (732 patients) using the Genomic Prostate Score (GPS; scale 0-100) together with Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score or National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group as predictors of the likelihood of favorable pathology (LFP). Risk profile curves associating GPS with LFP by CAPRA score and NCCN risk group were generated. Decision curves and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated using patient-specific MA risk estimates.Results
Patient-specific MA-generated risk profiles ensure more precise estimates of LFP with narrower confidence intervals than either study alone. GPS added significant predictive value to each clinical classifier. A model utilizing GPS and CAPRA provided the most risk discrimination. In decision-curve analysis, greater net benefit was shown when combining GPS with each clinical classifier compared with the classifier alone. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve improved from 0.68 to 0.73 by adding GPS to CAPRA, and 0.64 to 0.70 by adding GPS to NCCN risk group. The proportion of patients with LFP >80% increased from 11% using NCCN risk group alone to 23% using GPS with NCCN. Using GPS with CAPRA identified the highest proportion-31%-of patients with LFP >80%.Conclusion
Patient-specific MA provides more precise risk estimates that reflect the complete body of evidence. GPS adds predictive value to 3 widely used clinical classifiers, and identifies a larger proportion of low-risk patients than identified by clinical risk group alone.