Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 10, 2026
Microarray-based Identification of Individual HERV Loci Expression: Application to Biomarker Discovery in Prostate Cancer
Published on: November 2, 2013
Impact of Gene Expression Classifier Testing on Adjuvant Treatment Following Radical Prostatectomy: The G-MINOR
Todd M Morgan1, Stephanie Daignault-Newton1, Daniel E Spratt2
1University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Background And Objective:
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 a prospective randomized controlled cluster-crossover trial assessing the use of Decipher to determine its impact on adjuvant treatment after RP.
Methods:
Eligible patients had undergone RP within 9 mo of enrollment, had pT3-4 disease and/or positive surgical margins, and prostate-specific antigen <0.1 ng/ml. Centers were randomized to a sequence of 3-mo periods of either GC-informed care or usual care (UC). Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) recurrence risk scores were provided to treating physicians and patients in all periods.
Key Findings And Limitations:
Impact of GC test results on adjuvant treatment were compared with UC alone. Longitudinal patient-reported urinary and sexual function was assessed. A total of 175 patients were enrolled in 27 periods with GC and 163 in 28 periods with UC. At 18 mo after RP, an average patient in the GC arm received adjuvant treatment 9.7% of the time compared with 8.7% for an average individual in the UC arm (0.99% mean difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.6%, 9.6%, p = 0.8). While controlling for CAPRA-S score, higher GC scores tended to result in an increased likelihood of adjuvant treatment that was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] = 1.35 per 0.1 increase in GC score, 95% CI 0.98-1.85, p = 0.066). Using the GC risk groups, reflecting clinical use, a high GC risk was associated with significantly higher odds of receiving adjuvant treatment (OR = 6.9, 95% CI 1.8, 26, p = 0.005) compared with a low GC score, adjusted for CAPRA-S score. There were no differences in patient-reported urinary and sexual function between the study arms. As oncologic outcomes are immature, the present data cannot address whether GC testing provides any cancer control benefit.
Conclusions And Clinical Implications:
GC testing impacts adjuvant therapy administration when viewed through the risk categories presented in the patient report; however, these data do not provide specific support for GC testing in the adjuvant treatment setting.
