Impact of Genomic Classifiers on Risk Stratification and Treatment Intensity in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer : A Systematic Review.

Tabriz AA, Boyer MJ, Gordon AM, Carpenter DJ, Gingrich JR, Raman SR, Sirohi D, Rompre-Brodeur A, Lunyera J, Basher F, Bitting RL, Kosinski AS, Cantrell S, Ear B, Gierisch JM, Jacobs M, Goldstein KM. Impact of Genomic Classifiers on Risk Stratification and Treatment Intensity in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer : A Systematic Review. Annals of internal medicine. 2025 Jan 21.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Tissue-based genomic classifiers (GCs) have been developed to improve prostate cancer (PCa) risk assessment and treatment recommendations. PURPOSE: To summarize the impact of the Decipher, Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (GPS), and Prolaris GCs on risk stratification and patient-clinician decisions on treatment choice among patients with localized PCa considering first-line treatment. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science published from January 2010 to August 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently identified studies on risk classification and treatment choice after GC testing for patients with localized PCa considering first-line treatment. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant data extracted by 1 researcher and overread by a second. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies reported risk reclassification after GC testing. In low ROB observational studies, very low- or low-risk patients with PCa were more likely to have their risk levels classified as the same or lower (GPS, 100% to 88.1%; Decipher, 87.2% to 82.9%; Prolaris, 76.9%). However, 1 randomized trial found that GC testing with GPS reclassified 34.5% of very low-risk and 29.4% of low-risk patients to a higher risk category. Twelve observational studies indicated that treatment decisions after GC testing either remained unchanged or slightly favored active surveillance. In contrast, analyses from a single randomized trial found fewer choices for active surveillance after GPS testing. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity in screening patterns, risk-determination cutoffs, pathology, and clinical practices. Studies on treatment choice were moderate to high ROB. CONCLUSION: Although GC tests do not consistently influence risk classification or treatment decisions, the differences observed between observational and randomized studies highlight a need for well-designed trials to explore the role of GC tests in patients with newly diagnosed PCa considering first-line treatment. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42022347950).