Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

  • Article
  • Clinical Research
  • Published:

Genomic classifiers and prognosis of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

Refinement of the risk classification for localized prostate cancer is warranted to aid in clinical decision making. A systematic analysis was undertaken to evaluate the prognostic ability of three genomic classifiers, Decipher, GPS, and Prolaris, for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Methods

Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were queried for reports published from January 2010 to April 2022. Study selection: prospective or retrospective studies reporting prognosis for patients with localized prostate cancer. Data extraction: relevant data were extracted into a customized database by one researcher with a second overreading. Risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool for prognostic studies, Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS). Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by input from a third reviewer. We assessed the certainty of evidence by GRADE incorporating adaptation for prognostic studies.

Results

Data synthesis: a total of 39 studies (37 retrospective) involving over 10,000 patients were identified. Twenty-two assessed Decipher, 5 GPS, and 14 Prolaris. Thirty-four studies included patients who underwent prostatectomy. Based on very low to low certainty of evidence, each of the three genomic classifiers modestly improved upon the prognostic ability for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases, and prostate cancer-specific mortality compared to standard clinical risk-classification schemes. Limitations: downgrading of confidence in the evidence stemmed largely from bias due to the retrospective nature of the studies, heterogeneity in treatment received, and era in which patients were treated (i.e., prior to the 2000s).

Conclusions

Genomic classifiers provide a small but consistent improvement upon the prognostic ability of clinical classification schemes, which may be helpful when treatment decisions are uncertain. However, evidence from current management-era data and of the predictive ability of these tests is needed.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Hazard ratio forest plot for biochemical recurrence by genomic classifier.
Fig. 2: Hazard ratio forest plot for development of metastases by genomic classifier.
Fig. 3: Hazard ratio forest plot for prostate cancer-specific mortality by genomic classifier.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Study protocol: available at www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero (PROSPERO: CRD42022347950).

Code availability

Statistical code and data set: available from AMG (adelaide.gordon@va.gov).

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cuzick J, Swanson GP, Fisher G, Brothman AR, Berney DM, Reid JE, 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;12:245–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Knezevic D, Goddard AD, Natraj N, Cherbavaz DB, Clark-Langone KM, Snable J, 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Erho N, Crisan A, Vergara IA, 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  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. NRG Oncology. Two studies for patients with high risk prostate cancer testing less intense treatment for patients with a low gene risk score and testing a more intense treatment for patients with a high gene risk score. The PREDICT-RT Trial. 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04513717.

  7. NRG Oncology. Two studies for patients with unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer testing less intense treatment for patients with a low gene risk score and testing a more intense treatment for patients with a higher gene risk score. 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05050084.

  8. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Riley RD, Moons KGM, Snell KIE, Ensor J, Hooft L, Altman DG, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. BMJ. 2019;364:k4597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Côté P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:280–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grooten WJA, Tseli E, Äng BO, Boersma K, Stålnacke BM, Gerdle B, et al. Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS-aspects of interrater agreement. Diagn Progn Res. 2019;3:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Iorio A, Spencer FA, Falavigna M, Alba C, Lang E, Burnand B, et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ. 2015;350:h870.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vince RA Jr., Jiang R, Qi J, Tosoian JJ, Takele R, Feng FY, et al. Impact of Decipher Biopsy testing on clinical outcomes in localized prostate cancer in a prospective statewide collaborative. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;20:20.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brooks MA, Thomas L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Li J, Crager MR, Lu R, et al. GPS assay association with long-term cancer outcomes: twenty-year risk of distant metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021;5:PO.20.00325.

  16. Lehto TK, Sturenberg C, Malen A, Erickson AM, Koistinen H, Mills IG, et al. Transcript analysis of commercial prostate cancer risk stratification panels in hard-to-predict grade group 2-4 prostate cancers. Prostate. 2021;81:368–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Feng FY, Huang HC, Spratt DE, Zhao SG, Sandler HM, Simko JP, et al. Validation of a 22-gene genomic classifier in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: an ancillary study of the NRG/RTOG 9601 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:544–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramotar M, Chua MLK, Truong H, Hosni A, Pintilie M, Davicioni E, et al. Subpathologies and genomic classifier for treatment individualization of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy. Urologic Oncol. 2022;40:5.e1–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tosoian JJ, Birer SR, Jeffrey Karnes R, Zhang J, Davicioni E, Klein EE, et al. Performance of clinicopathologic models in men with high risk localized prostate cancer: impact of a 22-gene genomic classifier. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:646–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Howard LE, Zhang J, Fishbane N, Hoedt AM, Klaassen Z, Spratt DE, et al. Validation of a genomic classifier for prediction of metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality in African-American men following radical prostatectomy in an equal access healthcare setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:419–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shangguan X, Qian H, Jiang Z, Xin Z, Pan J, Dong B, et al. Cell cycle progression score improves risk stratification in prostate cancer patients with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2020;146:687–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Canter DJ, Freedland S, Rajamani S, Latsis M, Variano M, Halat S, et al. Analysis of the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score generated from needle biopsy in men treated with definitive therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:102–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kornberg Z, Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Chan JM, Shinohara K, Simko JP, et al. A 17-gene genomic prostate score as a predictor of adverse pathology in men on active surveillance. J Urol. 2019;202:702–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Canter DJ, Reid J, Latsis M, Variano M, Halat S, Rajamani S, et al. Comparison of the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score for predicting clinical outcomes in African American and non-African American men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;75:515–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Berlin A, Murgic J, Hosni A, Pintilie M, Salcedo A, Fraser M, et al. Genomic classifier for guiding treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancers to dose-escalated image guided radiation therapy without hormone therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103:84–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Xue L, Stohr B, Simko J, et al. Comparing prognostic utility of a single-marker immunohistochemistry approach with commercial gene expression profiling following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2018;74:668–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Leon P, Cancel-Tassin G, Drouin S, Audouin M, Varinot J, Comperat E, et al. Comparison of cell cycle progression score with two immunohistochemical markers (PTEN and Ki-67) for predicting outcome in prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2018;36:1495–500.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Spratt DE, Dai DLY, Den RB, Troncoso P, Yousefi K, Ross AE, et al. Performance of a prostate cancer genomic classifier in predicting metastasis in men with prostate-specific antigen persistence postprostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2018;74:107–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Spratt DE, Zhang J, Santiago-Jimenez M, Dess RT, Davis JW, Den RB, et al. Development and validation of a novel integrated clinical-genomic risk group classification for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:581–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Den Eeden SK, Lu R, Zhang N, Quesenberry CP Jr., Shan J, Han JS, et al. A biopsy-based 17-gene genomic prostate score as a predictor of metastases and prostate cancer death in surgically treated men with clinically localized disease. Eur Urol. 2018;73:129–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Karnes RJ, Choeurng V, Ross AE, Schaeffer EM, Klein EA, Freedland SJ, et al. Validation of a genomic risk classifier to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with adverse pathologic features. Eur Urol. 2018;73:168–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nguyen PL, Haddad Z, Ross AE, Martin NE, Deheshi S, Lam LLC, 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;72:845–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tosoian JJ, Chappidi MR, Bishoff JT, Freedland SJ, Reid J, Brawer M, et al. Prognostic utility of biopsy-derived cell cycle progression score in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy: implications for treatment guidance. BJU Int. 2017;120:808–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dalela D, Santiago-Jimenez M, Yousefi K, Karnes RJ, Ross AE, Den RB, 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;35:1982–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Nguyen PL, Martin NE, Choeurng V, Palmer-Aronsten B, Kolisnik T, Beard CJ, 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;20:186–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Oderda M, Cozzi G, Daniele L, Sapino A, Munegato S, Renne G, et al. Cell-cycle progression-score might improve the current risk assessment in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. Urology. 2017;102:73–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ross AE, Den RB, Yousefi K, Trock BJ, Tosoian J, Davicioni E, et al. Efficacy of post-operative radiation in a prostatectomy cohort adjusted for clinical and genomic risk. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19:277–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Klein EA, Haddad Z, Yousefi K, Lam LL, Wang Q, Choeurng V, et al. Decipher genomic classifier measured on prostate biopsy predicts metastasis risk. Urology. 2016;90:148–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Glass AG, Leo MC, Haddad Z, Yousefi K, du Plessis M, Chen C, et al. Validation of a genomic classifier for predicting post-prostatectomy recurrence in a community based health care setting. J Urol. 2016;195:1748–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ross AE, Johnson MH, Yousefi K, Davicioni E, Netto GJ, Marchionni L, et al. Tissue-based genomics augments post-prostatectomy risk stratification in a natural history cohort of intermediate- and high-risk men. Eur Urol. 2016;69:157–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cuzick J, Stone S, Fisher G, Yang ZH, North BV, Berney DM, 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;113:382–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Den RB, Yousefi K, Trabulsi EJ, Abdollah F, Choeurng V, Feng FY, et al. Genomic classifier identifies men with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy who benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:944–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Klein EA, Yousefi K, Haddad Z, Choeurng V, Buerki C, Stephenson AJ, 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;67:778–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC, Zhang N, Tsiatis AC, Moncur J, 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;68:123–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cooperberg MR, Davicioni E, Crisan A, Jenkins RB, Ghadessi M, Karnes RJ. Combined value of validated clinical and genomic risk stratification tools for predicting prostate cancer mortality in a high-risk prostatectomy cohort. Eur Urol. 2015;67:326–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Freedland SJ, Gerber L, Reid J, Welbourn W, Tikishvili E, Park 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;86:848–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Cooperberg MR, Simko JP, Cowan JE, Reid JE, Djalilvand A, Bhatnagar S, et al. Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1428–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cuzick J, Berney DM, Fisher G, Mesher D, Moller H, Reid JE, 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;106:1095–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Bauman G, Breau RH, Kamel-Reid S, Louie AV, Pautlere S. Ontario health technology assessment series: Prolaris cell cycle progression test for localized prostate cancer: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2017;17:1–75.

  50. Bishoff JT, Freedland SJ, Gerber L, Tennstedt P, Reid J, Welbourn W, et al. Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy. J Urol. 2014;192:409–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Shahait M, Liu VYT, Vapiwala N, Lal P, Kim J, Trabulsi EJ, et al. Impact of Decipher on use of post-operative radiotherapy: individual patient analysis of two prospective registries. BJUI Compass. 2021;2:267–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Carrion DM, Rivas JG, Alvarez-Maestro M, Martinez-Pineiro L. Biomarkers in prostate cancer management. Is there something new? Arch Esp Urol. 2019;72:105–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fine ND, LaPolla F, Epstein M, Loeb S, Dani H. Genomic classifiers for treatment selection in newly diagnosed prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2019;124:578–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Health Quality Ontario. Prolaris cell cycle progression test for localized prostate cancer: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2017;17:1–75.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Jairath NK, Dal Pra A, Vince R Jr., Dess RT, Jackson WC, Tosoian JJ, et al. A systematic review of the evidence for the Decipher genomic classifier in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2021;79:374–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lamy PJ, Allory Y, Gauchez AS, Asselain B, Beuzeboc P, de Cremoux P, et al. Prognostic biomarkers used for localised prostate cancer management: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:790–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Spratt DE, Zumsteg ZS, Feng FY, Tomlins SA. Translational and clinical implications of the genetic landscape of prostate cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13:597–610.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Bostrom PJ, Bjartell AS, Catto JW, Eggener SE, Lilja H, Loeb S, et al. Genomic predictors of outcome in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1033–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2017. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_ 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Cassarino G, Artioli P, Cecchin D, dal Moro F, et al. PET/MRI in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:859–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Krauss DJ, Karrison T, Martinez AA, Morton G, Yan D, Bruner DW, et al. Dose-escalated radiotherapy alone or in combination with short-term androgen deprivation for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: results of a Phase III Multi-Institutional Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:3203–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:CD009625.

  63. Jackson WC, Tang M, Schipper MJ, Sandler HM, Zumsteg ZS, Efstathiou JA, et al. Biochemical failure is not a surrogate end point for overall survival in recurrent prostate cancer: analysis of NRG Oncology/RTOG 9601. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:3172–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Prolaris Enhanced Risk Stratification – an ecONomic and clinicAL Evaluation (PERSONAL). 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03851211.

  65. Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc. Clinical Outcomes in Men With Prostate Cancer Who Selected Active Surveillance Using Prolaris® Testing (URO-009Low). 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT03511235.

  66. Shore ND, Boczko J, Kella N, Moran BJ, Crawford ED, Hamilton SA, et al. Impact of CCP test on personalizing treatment decisions: results from a prospective registry of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc. Registry to Measure the Impact of Adding Genomic Testing. 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02454595?tab=results.

  68. Ong CW, Maxwell P, Alvi MA, McQuaid S, Waugh D, Mills I, et al. A gene signature associated with PTEN activation defines good prognosis intermediate risk prostate cancer cases. J Pathol Clin Res. 2018;4:103–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Yoon J, Kim M, Posadas EM, Freedland SJ, Liu Y, Davicioni E, et al. A comparative study of PCS and PAM50 prostate cancer classification schemes. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24:733–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Zhao SG, Chang SL, Spratt DE, Erho N, Yu M, Ashab HA, 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;17:1612–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Nguyen PL, Huang HR, Spratt DE, Davicioni E, Sandler HM, Shipley WU, et al. Analysis of a biopsy-based genomic classifier in high-risk prostate cancer: meta-analysis of the NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202, 9413, and 9902 Phase 3 Randomized Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023;116:521–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Spratt DE, Liu VYT, Michalski J, Davicioni E, Berlin A, Simko JP, et al. Genomic classifier performance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: results from NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 Randomized Phase 3 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023;117:370–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the following key stakeholders and technical expert panel members for providing advice during the conduct of this review but who do not necessarily endorse the stated conclusions: Drs Maria Kelly, Edward Obedian, Michael G. Chang, Andrew Armstrong, Daniel Spratt, and Jeremy Shelton. In addition, we would like to thank Liz Wing and Stacy Lavin, for editorial assistance, and Julie Snyder for administrative support.

Funding

This project was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (ESP 09- 010). This work was also supported by the Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT) (CIN 13-410) at the Durham VA Health Care System. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (PROSPERO CRD42022347950). The US Department of Veterans Affairs was not involved in the design, conduct, or analysis interpretation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA

    Matthew J. Boyer, Jeffrey R. Gingrich, Rhonda L. Bitting, Adelaide M. Gordon, Belinda Ear, Jennifer M. Gierisch, Morgan Jacobs & Karen M. Goldstein

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Matthew J. Boyer

  3. Wellstar Radiation Oncology, Hiram, GA, USA

    David J. Carpenter

  4. Department of Urology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Jeffrey R. Gingrich

  5. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Sudha R. Raman

  6. Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Deepika Sirohi

  7. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA

    Amir Alishahi Tabriz

  8. Division of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Alexis Rompre-Broduer

  9. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Joseph Lunyera, Jennifer M. Gierisch & Karen M. Goldstein

  10. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Fahmin Basher & Rhonda L. Bitting

  11. Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Andrzej Kosinski

  12. Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Sarah Cantrell

  13. Department of Population Health, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Jennifer M. Gierisch

Authors
  1. Matthew J. Boyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David J. Carpenter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey R. Gingrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sudha R. Raman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Deepika Sirohi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Amir Alishahi Tabriz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alexis Rompre-Broduer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Joseph Lunyera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Fahmin Basher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Rhonda L. Bitting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Andrzej Kosinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Sarah Cantrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Adelaide M. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Belinda Ear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Jennifer M. Gierisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Morgan Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Karen M. Goldstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MB, DJC, JRG, SRR, DS, AAT, AR-B, JL, FB, RLB, SC, AMG, BE, JMG, KMG. Data curation: AK, AMG, BE, MJ, KMG. Formal analysis: MB, DJC, AK, AMG, KMG. Investigation: MB, DJC, JRG, SRR, DS, AAT, AR-B, JL, FB, RLB, AMG, JMG, KMG. Methodology: MB, DJC, JRG, SRR, DS, AAT, AR-B, JL, FB, RLB, AK, SC, AMG, BE, JMG, KMG. Project administration: AMG, BE, MJ. Supervision: KMG. Visualization: AK, MJ, KMG. Writing—original draft: MB, DJC, JRG, SRR, DS, AAT, AR-B, JL, FB, RLB, AMG, BE, KMG. Writing—review and editing: MB, DJC, JRG, SRR, DS, AAT, AR-B, JL, FB, RLB, AK, SC, AMG, JMG, KMG.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Boyer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boyer, M.J., Carpenter, D.J., Gingrich, J.R. et al. Genomic classifiers and prognosis of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00766-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00766-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links