Search

Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) affects more than 30 000 individuals in the United States annually, with smoking and alcohol consumption being the main risk factors. Management of early‐stage tumors usually includes surgical resection followed by postoperative radiotherapy in certain cases. The cervical lymph nodes (LNs) are the most common site for local metastasis, and elective neck dissection is usually performed if the primary tumor thickness is greater than 3.5 mm. However, postoperative histological examination often reveals that many patients with early‐stage disease are negative for neck nodal metastasis, posing a pressing need for improved risk stratification to either avoid overtreatment or prevent the disease progression. To this end, we aimed to identify a primary tumor gene signature that can accurately predict cervical LN metastasis in patients with early‐stage OSCC. Using gene expression profiles from 189 samples, we trained K‐top scoring pairs models and identified six gene pairs that can distinguish primary tumors with nodal metastasis from those without metastasis. The signature was further validated on an independent cohort of 35 patients using real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in which it achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and accuracy of 90% and 91%, respectively. These results indicate that such signature holds promise as a quick and cost effective method for detecting patients at high risk of developing cervical LN metastasis, and may be potentially used to guide the neck treatment regimen in early‐stage OSCC. What's new? In oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), early diagnosis of lymph‐node metastasis is essential for successful treatment. However, there is a pressing need for techniques that can improve risk stratification, in order to spare patients without metastases from further invasive surgery. In this study, the authors used a computer model to identify a simple, clinic‐friendly gene panel that can predict which OSCC tumors will likely spread to the lymph nodes. The reliability of this panel underscores the importance of embedding biological knowledge in the training process of cancer predictive models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Decipher 22-gene genomic classifier (GC) may help in post-radical prostatectomy (RP) decision making given its superior prognostic performance over clinicopathologic variables alone. However, most studies evaluating the GC have had a modest representation of African-American men (AAM). We evaluated the GC within a large Veteran Affairs cohort and compared its performance to CAPRA-S for predicting outcomes in AAM and non-AAM after RP., Methods: GC scores were generated for 548 prostate cancer (PC) patients, who underwent RP at the Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center between 1989 and 2016. This was a clinically high-risk cohort and was selected to have either pT3a, positive margins, seminal vesicle invasion, or received post-RP radiotherapy. Multivariable Cox models and survival C-indices were used to compare the performance of GC and CAPRA-S for predicting the risk of metastasis and PC-specific mortality (PCSM)., Results: Median follow-up was 9 years, during which 37 developed metastasis and 20 died from PC. Overall, 55% (n = 301) of patients were AAM. In multivariable analyses, GC (high vs. intermediate and intermediate vs. low) was a significant predictor of metastasis in all men (all p < 0.001). Consistent with prior studies, relative to CAPRA-S, GC had a higher C-index for 5-year metastasis (0.78 vs. 0.72) and 10-year PCSM (0.85 vs. 0.81). There was a suggestion GC was a stronger predictor in AAM than non-AAM. Specifically, the 5-year metastasis risk C-index was 0.86 in AAM vs. 0.69 in non-AAM and the 10-year PCSM risk C-index was 0.91 in AAM vs. 0.78 in non-AAM. However, the test for interaction of race and the performance of the GC in the Cox model was not significant for either metastasis or PCSM (both p ≥ 0.3)., Conclusions: GC was a very strong predictor of poor outcome and performed well in both AAM and non-AAM. Our data support the use of GC for risk stratification in AAM post-RP. While our data suggest that GC may actually work better in AAM, given the limited number of events, further validation is needed.