Tissue-Based Genomic Testing in Prostate Cancer: 10-Year Analysis of National Trends on the Use of Prolaris, Decipher, ProMark, and Oncotype DX

• Published in: Clinics and practice Vol. 14; no. 2; pp. 508 - 520
• Main Authors: Bologna, Eugenio, Ditonno, Francesco, Licari, Leslie Claire, Franco, Antonio, Manfredi, Celeste, Mossack, Spencer, Pandolfo, Savio Domenico, De Nunzio, Cosimo, Simone, Giuseppe, Leonardo, Costantino, Franco, Giorgio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 01.04.2024; MDPI
• Subjects: active surveillance; adjuvant therapies; Androgens; Biomarkers; Biopsy; Cancer therapies; Clinical outcomes; Decision making; Genes; Genetic testing; genetic tests; Patients; PCa; Prostate cancer; Proteins; Regression analysis; Trends; United States > US; AS; aRT; genetic tests; active surveillance; PCa; adjuvant therapies
• ISSN: 2039-7283; 2039-7275; 2039-7283
• DOI: 10.3390/clinpract14020039

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) management is moving towards patient-tailored strategies. Advances in molecular and genetic profiling of tumor tissues, integrated with clinical risk assessments, provide deeper insights into disease aggressiveness. This study aims to offer a comprehensive overview of the pivotal genomic tests supporting PCa treatment decisions, analyzing—through real-world data—trends in their use and the growth of supporting literature evidence. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the extensive PearlDiver™ Mariner database, which contains de-identified patient records, in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were employed to identify patients diagnosed with PCa during the study period—2011 to 2021. We determined the utilization of primary tissue-based genetic tests (Oncocyte DX®, Prolaris®, Decipher®, and ProMark®) across all patients diagnosed with PCa. Subsequently, within the overall PCa cohort, patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and received genetic testing postoperatively were identified. The yearly distribution of these tests and the corresponding trends were illustrated with graphs. Results: During the study period, 1,561,203 patients with a PCa diagnosis were recorded. Of these, 20,748 underwent tissue-based genetic testing following diagnosis, representing 1.3% of the total cohort. An increasing trend was observed in the use of all genetic tests. Linear regression analysis showed a statistically significant increase over time in the use of individual tests (all p-values < 0.05). Among the patients who underwent RP, 3076 received genetic analysis following surgery, representing 1.27% of this group. Conclusions: Our analysis indicates a growing trend in the utilization of tissue-based genomic testing for PCa. Nevertheless, they are utilized in less than 2% of PCa patients, whether at initial diagnosis or after surgical treatment. Although it is anticipated that their use may increase as more scientific evidence becomes available, their role requires further elucidation.