Tissue-based biomarkers in prostate cancer

References

• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Chan JM. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2017;35(6):849–849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shao YH, Demissie K, Shih W, et al. Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(18):1280–1283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welch HG, Gorski DH, Albertsen PC. Trends in metastatic breast and prostate cancer–lessons in cancer dynamics. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(18):1685–1687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):954–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–1424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(2):120–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Gore JL, Etzioni R. Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen–based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):145–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Force UPST. Draft recommendation statement: prostate cancer: screening. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. April 2017. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-recommendation-statement/prostate-cancer-screening1.
   Google Scholar
• D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271(5):368–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR. The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2011;117(22):5039–5046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(28):7005–7012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;185(3):869–875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Network NCC. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer, version 2.2017. 2017 [cited 2017 May 31]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ferro MBD, Perdona S, Marino A, et al. Prostate health index (Phi) and prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) significantly improve prostate cancer detection at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2-10 ng/mL. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e67687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantiello F, Russo GI, Cicione A, et al. PHI and PCA3 improve the prognostic performance of PRIAS and Epstein criteria in predicting insignificant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance. World J Urol. 2016;34(4):485–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4K score accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):464–470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auprich M, Bjartell A, Chun FK, et al. Contemporary role of prostate cancer antigen 3 in the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):1045–1054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erho N, Crisan A, Vergara IA, et al. Discovery and validation of a prostate cancer genomic classifier that predicts early metastasis following radical prostatectomy. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davicioni E, Choeurng V, Luo B, et al. Recalibration of genomic risk prediction models in prostate cancer to improve individual-level predictions. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:15_suppl, e16122-e16122.
   Google Scholar
• Glass AG, Leo MC, Haddad Z, et al. Validation of a genomic classifier for predicting post-prostatectomy recurrence in a community based health care setting. J Urol. 2016;195(6):1748–1753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein EA, Yousefi K, Haddad Z, et al. A genomic classifier improves prediction of metastatic disease within 5 years after surgery in node-negative high-risk prostate cancer patients managed by radical prostatectomy without adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):778–786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross AE, Johnson MH, Yousefi K, et al. Tissue-based genomics augments post-prostatectomy risk stratification in a natural history cohort of intermediate- and high-risk men. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):157–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spratt D.E., Yousefi K, Deheshi S, et al. Individual patient-level meta-analysis of the performance of the decipher genomic classifier in high-risk men after prostatectomy to predict development of metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(18):1991–1998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Davicioni E, Crisan A, et al. Combined value of validated clinical and genomic risk stratification tools for predicting prostate cancer mortality in a high-risk prostatectomy cohort. Eur Urol. 2015;67(2):326–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karnes RJ, Choeurng V, Ross AE, et al. Validation of a genomic risk classifier to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with adverse pathologic features. Eur Urol. 2017 Apr 8. pii: S0302-2838(17)30264-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.036. [Epub ahead of print].
   Google Scholar
• Ross AE, Feng FY, Ghadessi M, et al. A genomic classifier predicting metastatic disease progression in men with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17(1):64–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 2005;366(9485):572–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2009;181(3):956–962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U, et al. Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(18):2924–2930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sineshaw HM, Gray PJ, Efstathiou JA, et al. Declining use of radiotherapy for adverse features after radical prostatectomy: results from the National Cancer Data Base. Eur Urol. 2015;68(5):768–774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den RB, Yousefi K, Trabulsi EJ, et al. Genomic classifier identifies men with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy who benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(8):944–951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalela D., Santiago-Jimenez M, Yousefi K, et al. Genomic classifier augments the role of pathological features in identifying optimal candidates for adjuvant radiation therapy in patients with prostate cancer: development and internal validation of a multivariable prognostic model. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(18):1982–1990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parikh RR, Kim IY. Can genomic data guide the postoperative management of prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(18):1973–1975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den RB, Santiago-Jimenez M, Alter J, et al. Decipher correlation patterns post prostatectomy: initial experience from 2342 prospective patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(4):374–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badani K, Thompson DJS, Buerki C, et al. Impact of a genomic classifier of metastatic risk on postoperative treatment recommendations for prostate cancer patients: a report from the DECIDE study group. Oncotarget. 2013;4(4):600–609.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badani KK, Thompson DJ, Brown G, et al. Effect of a genomic classifier test on clinical practice decisions for patients with high-risk prostate cancer after surgery. BJU Int. 2015;115(3):419–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen PL, Shin H, Yousefi K, et al. Impact of a genomic classifier of metastatic risk on postprostatectomy treatment recommendations by radiation oncologists and urologists. Urology. 2015;86(1):35–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lobo JM, Dicker AP, Buerki C, et al. Evaluating the clinical impact of a genomic classifier in prostate cancer using individualized decision analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0116866.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michalopoulos SN, Kella N, Payne R, et al. Influence of a genomic classifier on post-operative treatment decisions in high-risk prostate cancer patients: results from the PRO-ACT study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(8):1547–1556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gore JL, du Plessis M, Santiago-Jiménez M, et al. Decipher test impacts decision making among patients considering adjuvant and salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy: interim results from the multicenter prospective PRO-IMPACT study. Cancer. 2017;123(15):2850–2859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudsen BS, Kim HL, Erho N, et al. Application of a clinical whole-transcriptome assay for staging and prognosis of prostate cancer diagnosed in needle core biopsy specimens. J Mol Diagn. 2016;18(3):395–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee HJ, Yousefi K, Haddad Z, et al. Evaluation of a genomic classifier in radical prostatectomy patients with lymph node metastasis. Res Rep Urol. 2016;8:77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein EA, Haddad Z, Yousefi K, et al. Decipher genomic classifier measured on prostate biopsy predicts metastasis risk. Urology. 2016;90:148–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen PL, Martin NE, Choeurng V, et al. Utilization of biopsy-based genomic classifier to predict distant metastasis after definitive radiation and short-course ADT for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(2):186–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen PL, Haddad Z, Ross AE, et al. Ability of a genomic classifier to predict metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality after radiation or surgery based on needle biopsy specimens. Eur Urol. 2017 May 18. pii: S0302-2838(17)30390-1. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.05.009. [Epub ahead of print].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):55–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(10):701–710.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray RG, Quirke P, Handley K, et al. Validation study of a quantitative multigene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay for assessment of recurrence risk in patients with stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(35):4611–4619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knezevic D, Pereira DM, Amaral JD, et al. Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX prostate cancer assay - a clinical RT-PCR assay optimized for prostate needle biopsies. BMC Genomics. 2013;14:690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):550–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC, et al. A biopsy-based 17-gene genomic prostate score predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy and adverse surgical pathology in a racially diverse population of men with clinically low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(1):123–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Den Eeden S, Zhang N, Shan J, et al. MP20-05 a diagnostic biopsy-based genomic prostate score as an independent predictor of prostate cancer death and metastasis in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017;197(4):e240–e241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albala D, Kemeter MJ, Febbo PG, et al. Health economic impact and prospective clinical utility of Oncotype DX(R) genomic prostate score. Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):123–132.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sommariva S, Tarricone R, Lazzeri M, et al. Prognostic value of the cell cycle progression score in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):107–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuzick J, Swanson GP, Fisher G, et al. Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(3):245–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Simko JP, Cowan JE, et al. Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(11):1428–1434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch MO, Cho JS, Kaimakliotis HZ, et al. Use of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score for predicting systemic disease and response to radiation of biochemical recurrence. Cancer Biomark. 2016;17(1):83–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishoff JT, Freedland SJ, Gerber L, et al. Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy. J Urol. 2014;192(2):409–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosoian JT, Chappidi MR, Bishoff JT, et al. Prognostic utility of biopsy-derived cell cycle progression score in patients with NCCN low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy: implications for treatment guidance. BJU Int. 2017 May 8. doi: 10.1111/bju.13911. [Epub ahead of print].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedland SJ, Gerber L, Reid J, et al. Prognostic utility of cell cycle progression score in men with prostate cancer after primary external beam radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86(5):848–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuzick J, Berney DM, Fisher G, et al. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(6):1095–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuzick J, Stone S, Fisher G, et al. Validation of an RNA cell cycle progression score for predicting death from prostate cancer in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer. 2015;113(3):382–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shore ND, Kella N, Moran B, et al. Impact of the cell cycle progression test on physician and patient treatment selection for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195(3):612–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford ED, Scholz MC, Kar AJ, et al. Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(6):1025–1031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Neste L, Bigley J, Toll A, et al. A tissue biopsy-based epigenetic multiplex PCR assay for prostate cancer detection. BMC Urol. 2012;12(1):16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trock BJ, Brotzman MJ, Mangold LA, et al. Evaluation of GSTP1 and APC methylation as indicators for repeat biopsy in a high-risk cohort of men with negative initial prostate biopsies. BJU Int. 2012;110(1):56–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heichman KA, Warren JD. DNA methylation biomarkers and their utility for solid cancer diagnostics. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012;50(10):1707–1721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desotelle J, Truong M, Ewald J, et al. CpG island hypermethylation frequently silences FILIP1L isoform 2 expression in prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;189(1):329–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Neste L, Herman JG, Otto G, et al. The epigenetic promise for prostate cancer diagnosis. Prostate. 2012;72(11):1248–1261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partin AW, Van Neste L, Klein EA, et al. Clinical validation of an epigenetic assay to predict negative histopathological results in repeat prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2014;192(4):1081–1087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart GD, Van Neste L, Delvenne P, et al. Clinical utility of an epigenetic assay to detect occult prostate cancer in histopathologically negative biopsies: results of the MATLOC study. J Urol. 2013;189(3):1110–1116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojno KJ, Costa FJ, Cornell RJ, et al. Reduced rate of repeated prostate biopsies observed in ConfirmMDx clinical utility field study. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014;7(3):129–134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov. PASCUAL (Prostate Assay Specific Clinical Utility at Launch) study. 2017 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02250313
   Google Scholar
• Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005;310(5748):644–648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver BS, Tran J, Gopalan A, et al. Aberrant ERG expression cooperates with loss of PTEN to promote cancer progression in the prostate. Nat Genet. 2009;41(5):619–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairns P, Okami K, Halachmi S, et al. Frequent inactivation of PTEN/MMAC1 in primary prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 1997;57(22):4997–5000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saal LH, Johansson P, Holm K, et al. Poor prognosis in carcinoma is associated with a gene expression signature of aberrant PTEN tumor suppressor pathway activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104(18):7564–7569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leinonen KA, Saramäki OR, Furusato B, et al. Loss of PTEN is associated with aggressive behavior in ERG-positive prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(12):2333–2344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krohn A, Diedler T, Burkhardt L, et al. Genomic deletion of PTEN is associated with tumor progression and early PSA recurrence in ERG fusion-positive and fusion-negative prostate cancer. Am J Pathol. 2012;181(2):401–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraldeschi R, Nava Rodrigues D, Riisnaes R, et al. PTEN protein loss and clinical outcome from castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone acetate. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):795–802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCall P, Witton CJ, Grimsley S, et al. Is PTEN loss associated with clinical outcome measures in human prostate cancer? Br J Cancer. 2008;99(8):1296–1301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson A, Graff RE, Bauer SR, et al. The TMPRSS2: ERGrearrangement, ERG expression, and prostate cancer outcomes: a cohort study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(9):1497–1509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boormans JL, Hermans KG, Made ACJZ-VD, et al. Expression of the androgen-regulated fusion gene TMPRSS2-ERG does not predict response to endocrine treatment in hormone-naive, node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57(5):830–835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leinonen KA, Tolonen TT, Bracken H, et al. Association of SPINK1 expression and TMPRSS2: ERGfusion with prognosis in endocrine-treated prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(10):2845–2851.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshimoto M, Joshua AM, Cunha IW, et al. Absence of TMPRSS2: ERGfusions and PTEN losses in prostate cancer is associated with a favorable outcome. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(12):1451–1460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahearn TU, Pettersson A, Ebot EM, et al. A prospective investigation of PTEN loss and ERG expression in lethal prostate cancer. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(2):djv346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kron KJ, Liu L, Pethe VV, et al. DNA methylation of HOXD3 as a marker of prostate cancer progression. Lab Invest. 2010;90(7):1060–1067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shipitsin M, Small C, Choudhury S, et al. Identification of proteomic biomarkers predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and lethality despite biopsy-sampling error. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(6):1201–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blume-Jensen P, Berman DM, Rimm DL, et al. Development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy-based multimarker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(11):2591–2600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parr RL, Dakubo GD, Thayer RE, et al. Mitochondrial DNA as a potential tool for early cancer detection. Hum Genomics. 2006;2(4):252–257.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maki J, Robinson K, Reguly B, et al. Mitochondrial genome deletion aids in the identification of false- and true-negative prostate needle core biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129(1):57–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson K, Creed J, Reguly B, et al. Accurate prediction of repeat prostate biopsy outcomes by a mitochondrial DNA deletion assay. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13(2):126–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao SG, Chang SL, Spratt DE, et al. Development and validation of a 24-gene predictor of response to postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a matched, retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1612–1620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack A, Kwon D, Walker G, et al. Prospective validation of diagnostic tumor biomarkers in men treated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(2):1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wallden B, Diallo A, Cruceanu C, et al. Development and verification of the PAM50-based Prosigna breast cancer gene signature assay. BMC Med Genomics. 2015;8:54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao SG, Chang SL, Erho N, et al. Associations of luminal and basal subtyping of prostate cancer with prognosis and response to androgen deprivation therapy. JAMA Oncol. 2017 May 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0751. [Epub ahead of print].
   Google Scholar
• Barbieri CE, Bangma CH, Bjartell A, et al. The mutational landscape of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;64(4):567–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor BS, Schultz N, Hieronymus H, et al. Integrative genomic profiling of human prostate cancer. Cancer Cell. 2010;18(1):11–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuchiya N, Slezak JM, Lieber MM, et al. Clinical significance of alterations of chromosome 8 detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis in pathologic organ-confined prostate cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2002;34(4):363–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu W, Xie CC, Thomas CY, et al. Genetic markers associated with early cancer-specific mortality following prostatectomy. Cancer. 2013;119(13):2405–2412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zafarana G, Ishkanian AS, Malloff CA, et al. Copy number alterations of c-MYC and PTEN are prognostic factors for relapse after prostate cancer radiotherapy. Cancer. 2012;118(16):4053–4062.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hieronymus H, Schultz N, Gopalan A, et al. Copy number alteration burden predicts prostate cancer relapse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(30):11139–11144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paris PL, Andaya A, Fridlyand J, et al. Whole genome scanning identifies genotypes associated with recurrence and metastasis in prostate tumors. Hum Mol Genet. 2004;13(13):1303–1313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Broeck T, Joniau S, Clinckemalie L, et al. The role of single nucleotide polymorphisms in predicting prostate cancer risk and therapeutic decision making. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:627510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriquez-Hernandez LA, Valenciano A, Foro-Arnalot P, et al. Association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms in DNA double-strand break repair genes and prostate cancer aggressiveness in the Spanish population. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(1):28–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khani F, Mosquera JM, Park K, et al. Evidence for molecular differences in prostate cancer between African American and Caucasian men. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(18):4925–4934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mao X, Yu Y, Boyd LK, et al. Distinct genomic alterations in prostate cancers in Chinese and Western populations suggest alternative pathways of prostate carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 2010;70(13):5207–5212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann TJ, Van Den Eeden SK, Sakoda LC, et al. A large multiethnic genome-wide association study of prostate cancer identified novel risk variants and substantial ethnic differences. Cancer Discov. 2015;5(8):878–891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeSantis C, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(3):151–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haiman CA, Carty CL, Taylor K, et al. Characterizing genetic risk at known prostate cancer susceptibility loci in African Americans. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(5):e1001387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spratt DE, Chan T, Waldron L, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities in genomic sequencing. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(8):1070–1074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamoah K, Johnson MH, Choeurng V, et al. Novel biomarker signature that may predict aggressive disease in African American men with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(25):2789–2796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alger J, Patil R, Chichura A, et al. MP20-04 decipher prostate cancer classifier does not correlate with clinicopathologic prostate cancer classifiers in African American men. J Urol. 2017;197(4):e240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei L, Wang J, Lampert E, et al. Intratumoral and intertumoral genomic heterogeneity of multifocal localized prostate cancer impacts molecular classifications and genomic prognosticators. Eur Urol. 2017;71(2):183–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):767-75; discussion 775-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magi-Galluzzi C, Maddala T, Falzarano SM, et al. Gene expression in normal-appearing tissue adjacent to prostate cancers are predictive of clinical outcome: evidence for a biologically meaningful field effect. Oncotarget. 2016;7(23):33855–33865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leapman M, Westphalen A, Ameli N, et al. MP53-18 association between A 17-gene genomic prostate score and multi-parametric prostate MRI in men with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCA). J Urol. 2015;193(4):e642–e643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoyanova R, Pollack A, Takhar M, et al. Association of multiparametric MRI quantitative imaging features with prostate cancer gene expression in MRI-targeted prostate biopsies. Oncotarget. 2016;7(33):53362–53376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medicine, C.o.t.R.o.O.-B.T.f.P.P.O.i.C.T.B.o.H.C.S.B.o.H.S.P.I.o. Evolution of translational omics: lessons learned and the path forward. In: Nass SJ, Micheel CM, Omenn GS, editors. Omics-based clinical discovery: science, technology, and applications. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Antonarakis ES, Lu C, Luber B, et al. Androgen receptor splice variant 7 and efficacy of taxane chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(5):582–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonarakis ES, Lu C, Wang H, et al. AR-V7 and resistance to enzalutamide and abiraterone in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(11):1028–1038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganguly B, Dolfi SC, Rodriguez-Rodriguez L, et al. Role of biomarkers in the development of PARP inhibitors. Biomark Cancer. 2016;8(Suppl 1):15–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mateo J, Carreira S, Sandhu S, et al. DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer. New England J Med. 2015;373(18):1697–1708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Meo A, Bartlett J, Cheng Y, et al. Liquid biopsy: a step forward towards precision medicine in urologic malignancies. Mol Cancer. 2017;16(1):80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegemann M, Stenzl A, Bedke J, et al. Liquid biopsy: ready to guide therapy in advanced prostate cancer? BJU Int. 2016;118(6):855–863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedlander TW, Fong L. The end of the beginning: circulating tumor cells as a biomarker in castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(11):1104–1106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar