Individualizing treatment recommendations for men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer remains a major challenge for clinicians. These challenges occupy many clinical scenarios ranging from newly diagnosed disease localized to the prostate to biochemically recurrent disease in the postprostatectomy setting, and in the distant metastatic settings. To date, clinical decision-making has largely rested on traditional clinicopathologic features, including Gleason grading, T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, margin status, lymph node involvement, and imaging. However, at best, these measures serve as incomplete surrogates for the actual underlying biology driving the behavior of the disease in each patient. Direct interrogation of biologic features of tumors (for example, in the form of gene expression assays) has been shown to provide superior prognostic accuracy over standard clinicopathologic features across several cancer types.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
McGuire SE. Deciphering Genomic Risk in Prostate Cancer—Ready for Prime Time. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(4):553–554. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7579
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: