985 VALUE OF CELL CYCLE PROGRESSION (CCP) SCORE TO PREDICT BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE AND DEFINITIVE POST-SURGICAL PATHOLOGY (2013)

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Basic Research (V)1 Apr 2013985 VALUE OF CELL CYCLE PROGRESSION (CCP) SCORE TO PREDICT BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE AND DEFINITIVE POST-SURGICAL PATHOLOGY Thorsten Schlomm, Zaina Sangale, Jerry S. Lanchbury, Alexander Gutin, Julia Reid, Markus Graefen, Alexander Haese, Pierre Tennstedt, Stefan Steurer, Guido Sauter, and Steve Stone Thorsten SchlommThorsten Schlomm Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author , Zaina SangaleZaina Sangale Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author , Jerry S. LanchburyJerry S. Lanchbury Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author , Alexander GutinAlexander Gutin Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author , Julia ReidJulia Reid Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author , Markus GraefenMarkus Graefen Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author , Alexander HaeseAlexander Haese Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author , Pierre TennstedtPierre Tennstedt Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author , Stefan SteurerStefan Steurer Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author , Guido SauterGuido Sauter Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author , and Steve StoneSteve Stone Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.567AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The CCP score has predicted prostate cancer outcomes in multiple patient cohorts and different clinical settings. In this study, we have extended the demonstrated clinical utility to a patient cohort from Europe, and for the first time, provided evidence that the score can be used to predict definitive post-surgical tumor stage. The CCP expression score is an emerging and important component in evaluating prostate cancer prognosis. METHODS The eligible patient population was treated by radical prostatectomy at a single high volume center from 2005 to 2006. We randomly selected 390 patients, and prepared a “simulated biopsy” from each patient by removing a tissue cylinder (diameter = 0.6mm) from the post-surgical FFPE block containing the largest tumor foci. 249 patients remained eligible for analysis after excluding patients for either insufficient tumor in the biopsy, or receiving neoadjuvant therapy. The median follow-up time for patients who did not recur was 60.8 months (IQR 60.2, 72.5), and 46 patients experienced BCR. CCP scores were generated as in previous studies. Cox PH models and logistic regression were used to evaluate CCP associations with outcome. RESULTS The CCP signature was a highly significant univariate predictor of BCR (HR per unit CCP score = 2.03 (95% CI: 1.48-2.79), p = 3.1 x 10-5). After adjusting for Gleason score and PSA, the HR for CCP score remained significant (1.6 per unit CCP score (95%CI: 1.15-2.24), p = 0.0068). As in previous studies, the CCP score was only modestly correlated with other clinical variables (most correlated with clinical stage, ρ = 0.31). By logistic regression, the CCP score was a highly significant predictor of pT2 versus pT3 disease (OR per unit CCP score = 1.80 (95% CI: 1.30-2.50), p = 0.00027). In a multivariate least squares regression model including PSA, biopsy Gleason, and clinical stage, CCP score was an independent predictor of pT stage (p-value 0.029). In this analysis, PSA was the most predictive variable, but CCP score and clinical stage also provided important and non-redundant information. CONCLUSIONS The CCP score has predicted PCA outcomes in multiple patient cohorts and different clinical settings. In this study, we have extended the demonstrated clinical utility to a patient cohort from Europe, and for the first time, provided evidence that the score can be used to predict definitive post-surgical tumor stage. The CCP expression score is an emerging and important component in evaluating PCA prognosis. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e404 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Thorsten Schlomm Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Zaina Sangale Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author Jerry S. Lanchbury Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author Alexander Gutin Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author Julia Reid Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author Markus Graefen Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Alexander Haese Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Pierre Tennstedt Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Stefan Steurer Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Guido Sauter Hamburg, Germany More articles by this author Steve Stone Salt Lake City, UT More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...