↓ Skip to main content

Validation of a 22-Gene Genomic Classifier in Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Oncology, April 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
29 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
96 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Validation of a 22-Gene Genomic Classifier in Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer
Published in
JAMA Oncology, April 2021
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7671
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felix Y. Feng, Huei-Chung Huang, Daniel E. Spratt, Shuang Zhao, Howard M. Sandler, Jeffry P. Simko, Elai Davicioni, Paul L. Nguyen, Alan Pollack, Jason A. Efstathiou, Adam P. Dicker, Tamara Todorovic, Jennifer Margrave, Yang Liu, Bashar Dabbas, Darby J. S. Thompson, Rajdeep Das, James J. Dignam, Christopher Sweeney, Gerhardt Attard, Jean-Paul Bahary, Himanshu R. Lukka, William A. Hall, Thomas M. Pisansky, Amit B. Shah, Stephanie L. Pugh, William U. Shipley, Phuoc T. Tran

Abstract

Decipher (Decipher Biosciences Inc) is a genomic classifier (GC) developed to estimate the risk of distant metastasis (DM) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with prostate cancer. To validate the GC in the context of a randomized phase 3 trial. This ancillary study used RP specimens from the phase 3 placebo-controlled NRG/RTOG 9601 randomized clinical trial conducted from March 1998 to March 2003. The specimens were centrally reviewed, and RNA was extracted from the highest-grade tumor available in 2019 with a median follow-up of 13 years. Clinical-grade whole transcriptomes from samples passing quality control were assigned GC scores (scale, 0-1). A National Clinical Trials Network-approved prespecified statistical plan included the primary objective of validating the independent prognostic ability of GC for DM, with secondary end points of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed from September 2019 to December 2019. Salvage radiotherapy (sRT) with or without 2 years of bicalutamide. The preplanned primary end point of this study was the independent association of the GC with the development of DM. In this ancillary study of specimens from a phase 3 randomized clinical trial, GC scores were generated from 486 of 760 randomized patients with a median follow-up of 13 years; samples from a total of 352 men (median [interquartile range] age, 64.5 (60-70) years; 314 White [89.2%] participants) passed microarray quality control and comprised the final cohort for analysis. On multivariable analysis, the GC (continuous variable, per 0.1 unit) was independently associated with DM (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32; P = .006), PCSM (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63; P < .001), and OS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.29; P = .002) after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, Gleason score, T stage, margin status, entry prostate-specific antigen, and treatment arm. Although the original planned analysis was not powered to detect a treatment effect interaction by GC score, the estimated absolute effect of bicalutamide on 12-year OS was less when comparing patients with lower vs higher GC scores (2.4% vs 8.9%), which was further demonstrated in men receiving early sRT at a prostate-specific antigen level lower than 0.7 ng/mL (-7.8% vs 4.6%). This ancillary validation study of the Decipher GC in a randomized trial cohort demonstrated association of the GC with DM, PCSM, and OS independent of standard clinicopathologic variables. These results suggest that not all men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after surgery benefit equally from the addition of hormone therapy to sRT. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00002874.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Other 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Professor 4 5%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 34 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 40 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 261. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2022.
All research outputs
#139,623
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Oncology
#250
of 3,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,351
of 454,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Oncology
#3
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.