MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MP28-03 DO ELDERLY MEN (>75) HARBOR MORE AGGRESSIVE PROSTATE CANCER? COMPARISON OF DECIPHER AND PAM50 TESTS AMONG DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS

2019· article· en· W2940601802 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hanan Goldberg, Jaime O. Herrera‐Cáceres, María Santiago‐Jiménez, Nick Fishbaen, Elai Davicioni, Zachary Klaassen, Thenappan Chandrasekar, Christopher Wallis, Dixon Woon, Robert J. Hamilton, Girish S. Kulkarni, Alejandro Berlín, Neil Fleshner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDECIPHERProstate cancerCancerGynecologyPopulationGerontologyInternal medicineBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Markers II (MP28)1 Apr 2019MP28-03 DO ELDERLY MEN (>75) HARBOR MORE AGGRESSIVE PROSTATE CANCER? COMPARISON OF DECIPHER AND PAM50 TESTS AMONG DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS Hanan Goldberg*, Jaime Omar Herrera Cáceres, Maria Santiago-Jimenez, Nick Fishbaen, Elai Davicioni, Zachary Klaassen, Thenappan Chandrasekar, Christopher Wallis, Dixon Woon, Robert Hamilton, Girish Kulkarni, Alejandro Berlin, and Neil Fleshner Hanan Goldberg*Hanan Goldberg* More articles by this author , Jaime Omar Herrera CáceresJaime Omar Herrera Cáceres More articles by this author , Maria Santiago-JimenezMaria Santiago-Jimenez More articles by this author , Nick FishbaenNick Fishbaen More articles by this author , Elai DavicioniElai Davicioni More articles by this author , Zachary KlaassenZachary Klaassen More articles by this author , Thenappan ChandrasekarThenappan Chandrasekar More articles by this author , Christopher WallisChristopher Wallis More articles by this author , Dixon WoonDixon Woon More articles by this author , Robert HamiltonRobert Hamilton More articles by this author , Girish KulkarniGirish Kulkarni More articles by this author , Alejandro BerlinAlejandro Berlin More articles by this author , and Neil FleshnerNeil Fleshner More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555708.92392.e3AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Age is an important prognostic factor in oncology. Over 20% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC) are > = 75 years old. In the growing elderly population, objective methods for predicting outcomes beyond chronologic age are necessary in order minimize the likelihood of withholding curative treatment when warranted. Herein, we describe and analyze age-related differences in clinico-genomic prognostic indices of aggressiveness in localized PC. METHODS: Clinical and genomic data for 8355 patients from the Decipher Genomic Resource Information Database (GRID; NCT02609269) was obtained. Conventional and genomic prognostic indices including Decipher GC scores, PAM50 molecular subtypes (e.g. luminal A/B or basal) NCCN risk groups and Gleason groups (GG) were stratified by age using multivariable logistic regression analyses (MLRA). RESULTS: With increasing decile of age, we observed a higher proportion of high GG and higher Decipher scores. There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients with high Decipher scores with increasing age among GG1 and GG2 ( < 55 - 10.2%, 30.7%, 55-60 – 15.4%, 25.6%, 60-65 – 15.9%, 29.7%, 65-70 – 16.9%, 28.2%, 70-75 – 17.9%, 30%, and > 75 – 20.3%, 37.3%, respectively). Furthermore, the prevalence of the PAM50 luminal B subtype (associated with worse prognosis) increased with age among GG1 and GG2 ( < 60 – 22.2%, 40%, 60-65 – 29.1%, 41.7%, 65-70 – 28.2%, 39.2%, 70-75 – 30%, 43.4%, 75-80 – 33.5%, 44.3%, > 80 – 34.2%, 52%, respectively). Among higher grade tumors (GG 3-5), no statistically significant differences between the different age groups were observed. MLRA demonstrated that in addition to higher T stage, PSA and GG, each age decile entailed a 20% increased risk for a high Decipher score (OR 1.2, 95% C.I 1.11-1.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Older men with lower grade tumors, as opposed to higher grade tumors, harbored worse disease based on genomic risk models. The accepted paradigm of elderly PC patients being treated conservatively based solely on chronologic age, needs to be changed. We provide evidence suggesting the utility of clinical-genomic characterization for better treatment individualization decisions. Source of Funding: Decipher GenomeDX Toronto, Canada; Vancouver, Canada; Toronto, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e403-e404 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Hanan Goldberg* More articles by this author Jaime Omar Herrera Cáceres More articles by this author Maria Santiago-Jimenez More articles by this author Nick Fishbaen More articles by this author Elai Davicioni More articles by this author Zachary Klaassen More articles by this author Thenappan Chandrasekar More articles by this author Christopher Wallis More articles by this author Dixon Woon More articles by this author Robert Hamilton More articles by this author Girish Kulkarni More articles by this author Alejandro Berlin More articles by this author Neil Fleshner More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207