Abstract PR4: Biochemical recurrence is not a definitive surrogate endpoint for development of clinically useful predictive models for post-prostatectomy patients
Authors: Crisan Anamaria , Davicioni Elai , Karnes R. Jeffery , Jenkins Robert B. , Ghadessi Mercedeh H. , Buerki Christine , Bergstrahl Eric J. , Erho Nicholas , Vergara Ismael A. , Ballman Karla V. , Black Peter C. , Triche Timothy J. 
Published: May 2013

Abstract
Introduction: Multivariable models that predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) can indicate patients at higher risk for developing clinical progression after prostatectomy. However, most patients that experience BCR do not metastasize or die from prostate cancer, making BCR an unreliable surrogate endpoint. In this study we compared the clinical and genomic characteristics of prostatectomy patients in order to better delineate the relationship between BCR and aggressive prostate cancer.
Methods: Postoperative patients were retrospectively classified into three outcome groups: NED (no evidence of disease recurrence); BCR-only (patients that experienced BCR but didn't have progressive disease as evidenced by bone or CT scans); and CP (clinical progression with BCR plus positive CT or bone scans). Patient specimens were from the Mayo Clinic Radical Prostatectomy Registry, selected using a nested case-control design with 14 years median follow-up. RNA expression levels from FFPE tumor specimens were measured with 1.4 million feature whole-transcriptome oligonucleotide microarrays on 106 matching patients from each outcome group (total 318 patients). We analyzed the clinical covariates of the outcome groups in a pairwise manner (NED vs. BCR-only; NED vs. CP; CP vs. BCR-only), using a conditional logistic model in univariable and multivariable analyses. We performed feature reduction for the genomic data set using Kruskal-Wallis tests and regularized logistic regression. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to quantify the variance of the genomic data with respect to the patient outcome groups.
Results: Our initial hypothesis was that all three outcome groups would have different clinical and genomic characteristics. Univariable analysis of clinical variables failed to show statistically significant differences between NED and BCR-only groups. Multivariable analysis of the clinical variables also failed to show statistically significant differences between NED and BCR-only groups. Among the clinical variables only pathological Gleason score was statistically significant when comparing the BCR-only vs. CP and NED vs. CP groups. Genomic analysis found 363 coding and non-coding features that passed thresholds for differential expression between the three outcome groups. PCA established that the primary source of variance in the genomic data stemmed from the separation of CP from NED and BCR-only patients; whereas only a small amount of variance separates NED and BCR-only groups. The 363 features were further compared in the three outcome groups using Wilcoxon tests, adjusting for false-discovery using Benjamini-Hochberg. At a cutoff of p &lt; 0.001 there were no features differentially expressed between NED and BCR-only, while 52 and 34 statistically significant features were found in the NED vs. CP and CP vs. BCR-only comparisons, respectively.
Conclusion: Considering the clinical and genomic results together, we find that: 1) Patients that developed clinical progression were significantly different from those that did not, irrespective of whether they experienced BCR or not; 2) the NED and BCR-only groups were statistically very similar to each other. We therefore conclude that BCR may not be the most appropriate endpoint for predictive models that attempt to stratify patients at risk for progression.
This abstract is also presented as Poster B44.
Citation Format: Anamaria Crisan, Elai Davicion, R. Jeffery Karnes, Robert B. Jenkins, Mercedeh H. Ghadessi, Christine Buerki, Eric J. Bergstrahl, Nicholas Erho, Ismael A. Vergara, Karla V. Ballman, Peter C. Black, Timothy J. Triche. Biochemical recurrence is not a definitive surrogate endpoint for development of clinically useful predictive models for post-prostatectomy patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advances in Prostate Cancer Research; 2012 Feb 6-9; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PR4.