Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Clinical Research

A genomic classifier predicting metastatic disease progression in men with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy



Due to their varied outcomes, men with biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP) present a management dilemma. Here, we evaluate Decipher, a genomic classifier (GC), for its ability to predict metastasis following BCR.


The study population included 85 clinically high-risk patients who developed BCR after RP. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, weighted Cox proportional hazard models and decision curves were used to compare GC scores to Gleason score (GS), PSA doubling time (PSAdT), time to BCR (ttBCR), the Stephenson nomogram and CAPRA-S for predicting metastatic disease progression. All tests were two-sided with a type I error probability of 5%.


GC scores stratified men with BCR into those who would or would not develop metastasis (8% of patients with low versus 40% with high scores developed metastasis, P<0.001). The area under the curve for predicting metastasis after BCR was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76–0.86) for GC, compared to GS 0.64 (0.58–0.70), PSAdT 0.69 (0.61–0.77) and ttBCR 0.52 (0.46–0.59). Decision curve analysis showed that GC scores had a higher overall net benefit compared to models based solely on clinicopathologic features. In multivariable modeling with clinicopathologic variables, GC score was the only significant predictor of metastasis (P=0.003).


When compared to clinicopathologic variables, GC better predicted metastatic progression among this cohort of men with BCR following RP. While confirmatory studies are needed, these results suggest that use of GC may allow for better selection of men requiring earlier initiation of treatment at the time of BCR.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3


  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A . Cancer statistics 2012. Cancer Stat 2012; 62: 10–29.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR . Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1117–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Moul J . Prostate specific antigen only progression of prostate cancer. J Urol 2000; 163: 1632–1642.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Punnen S, Cooperberg MR, D’Amico A V, Karakiewicz PI, Moul JW, Scher HI et al. Management of biochemical recurrence after primary treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2013; (e-pub ahead of print).

  5. Antonarakis ES, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Carducci M a, Partin AW et al. The natural history of metastatic progression in men with prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: long-term follow-up. BJU Int 2012; 109: 32–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Saylor PJ, Smith MR . Metabolic complications of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2009; 181: 1998–2006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel AR, Stephenson AJ . Radiation therapy for prostate cancer after prostatectomy: adjuvant or salvage? Nature reviews. Urology 2011; 8: 385–392.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Kattan MW, Pisansky TM, Kevin M, Klein EA et al. Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2035–2041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, DeWeese TL, Partin AW et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2008; 299: 2760–2769.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Moul JW, Wu H, Sun L, McLeod DG, Amling C, Donahue T et al. Early versus delayed hormonal therapy for prostate-specific antigen only recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 171: 1141–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC . Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999; 281: 1591–1597.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ, Yossepowitch O, Vickers AJ et al. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4300–4305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Abdueva D, Wing M, Schaub B, Triche T, Davicioni E . Quantitative expression profiling in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples by affymetrix microarrays. J Mol Diagno 2010; 12: 409–417.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Thompson RH, Blute ML, Slezak JM, Bergstralh EJ, Leibovich BC . Is the GPSM scoring algorithm for patients with prostate cancer valid in the contemporary era? J Urol 2007; 178: 459–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Barlow WE, Ichikawa L, Rosner D, Izumi S . Analysis of case-cohort designs. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 1165–1172.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Erho N, Crisan A, Vergara I a, Mitra AP, Ghadessi M, Buerki C et al. Discovery and validation of a prostate cancer genomic classifier that predicts early metastasis following radical prostatectomy. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e66855.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Iocca A, Scherer B, Zincke H . Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001; 165: 119–125.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Karnes RJ, Bergstralh EJ, Davicioni E, Ghadessi M, Buerki C, Mitra AP et al. Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk patient population. J Urol 2013. (e-pub ahead of print).

  19. Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR . The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117: 5039–5046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ Jr, Dotan A, Diblasio CJ et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 23: 7005–7012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ihaka R, Gentleman R . R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 1996; 5: 299–314.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Heagerty PJ, Lumley T, Pepe MS . Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics 2000; 56: 337–344.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Elkin EB, Gonen M . Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. BMC Med Inform Decision Making 2008; 8: 53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moul JW, Bañez LL, Freedland SJ . Rising PSA in nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Oncology 2007; 21: 1436–1445.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lin DY, Ying Z . Cox regression with incomplete covariate measurements. J Am Statist Assoc 88: 1341–1349.

  26. Grambsch PM, Therneau TM . Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika 1994; 81: 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fine JP, Gray RJ . A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Statist Assoc 1999; 94: 496–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Barlow WE . Robust variance estimation for the case-cohort design. Biometrics 2013; 50: 1064–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy RC, Kawashima A, Peller PJ . The utility of 11C-choline PET/CT for imaging prostate cancer: a pictorial guide. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 1390–1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ding Z, Wu C-J, Chu GC, Xiao Y, Ho D, Zhang J et al. SMAD4-dependent barrier constrains prostate cancer growth and metastatic progression. Nature 2011; 470: 269–273.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor BS, Schultz N, Hieronymus H, Gopalan A, Xiao Y, Carver BS et al. Integrative genomic profiling of human prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 2010; 18: 11–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


AER is supported by the John Hopkins Clinician Scientist Award, EMS is supported by the Howard Hughes Clinician-Scientist Early Careers Award and AUA/Astellas Rising Star Award, and DS is supported by NIH Training Grant T32DK007552.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to A E Ross.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Mercedeh Ghadessi, Nicholas Erho, Anamaria Crisan, Christine Buerki, and Ismael A Vergara are employees of GenomeDx Biosciences. Darby J S Thompson is a consultant for GenomeDx Biosciences. Timothy J Triche and Elai Davicioni are founders of GenomeDx Biosciences. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ross, A., Feng, F., Ghadessi, M. et al. A genomic classifier predicting metastatic disease progression in men with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17, 64–69 (2014).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • biochemical recurrence
  • genomic classifier
  • prognostic models
  • metastasis
  • clinical validation

This article is cited by


Quick links