Prolaris Case Study 1

Prolaris Patient Information

Initial Planned Managment

  • Provider initially considered active surveillance for this patient given the low risk features of his tumor
  • Patient and his partner were hesitant not to pursue immediate treatment of the cancer
  • Provider ordered Prolaris testing to gain independent molecular insight beyond the pathology of the cancer

Prolaris Impact

Prolaris Impact

Final Planned Managment

  • The Prolaris score showed a more aggressive tumor than his pathology report would have indicated
  • Provider and patient decided to pursue radical prostatectomy instead of surveillance
  • Final surgical pathology report revealed a more aggressive tumor (Gleason 4+3=7)

Prolaris Case Study 2

Prolaris Patient Information

Initial Planned Managment

  • Provider had an Active Surveillance protocol criteria including all NCCN Low Risk patients
  • Patient and his partner, however, were still nervous since they had just received a prostate cancer diagnosis/li>
  • Prolaris was ordered to assess the specific cancer aggressiveness of the patient’s tumor, beyond what the pathology was indicating

Prolaris Impact

Prolaris Impact

Final Planned Managment

  • Provider explained that the patient’s specific cancer was even less aggressive than the average patient with his clinical features. Further reinforcing the recommendation for Active Surveillance
  • This information helped both the patient and his partner have the confidence to move forward with Active Surveillance
  • Provider suggested the first follow-up should be in one year instead of the normal 6 months

Prolaris Case Study 3

Prolaris Patient Information

Initial Planned Managment

  • The Patient’s clinical and pathologic features placed him in the AUA Intermediate Risk category
  • The Urologist normally considers Radical Prostatectomy for this group, however due to the fact that the patient falls within the new NCCN Favorable Intermediate Risk group category, he decided to get independent insight into the molecular cancer aggressiveness since these patients may be appropriate for Active Surveillance according to NCCN
  • Prolaris was therefore ordered to gain that independent insight

Prolaris Impact

Prolaris Impact

Final Planned Managment

  • The disease specific mortality is shown to be within the gray box and may be considered appropriate for conservative management
  • The urologist and patient as a result decided to opt for active surveillance instead of definitive treatment
  • The patient expressed satisfaction that his personal cancer molecular aggressiveness profile had impacted the decision

Prolaris Case Study 4

Prolaris Patient Information

Initial Planned Managment

  • A urologist initially placed his patient into Active Surveillance (A/S) due to his NCCN low risk clinical features
  • The urologist later began using Prolaris in his practice and decided to re-evaluate some of his recently placed A/S protocol patients, including this patient

Prolaris Impact

Prolaris Impact

Final Planned Managment

  • The Prolaris score showed a considerably more aggressive cancer, and an associated 6.8% mortality risk
  • The provider noted in his discussion with the patient that his specific cancer was more than 99% of all other patients in the NCCN low risk category
  • After the discussion and due to the patient’s cancer aggressiveness, the provider and his patient decided to move forward with immediate treatment by radical prostatectomy with close monitoring for potential recurrence

Prolaris Case Study 5

Prolaris Patient Information

Initial Planned Managment

  • According to NCCN guidelines, the patient’s clinical and pathological features placed him as a favorable intermediate
  • The urologist and his patient were uncertain on whether or not to move forward with a radical prostatectomy
  • The physician ordered a Prolaris test to get a better understanding on how the patient’s cancer was behaving and its aggressiveness

Prolaris Impact

Prolaris Impact

Final Planned Managment

  • The Prolaris score indicated his patient’s cancer was considerably less aggressive with only 3% of NCCN favorable intermediate risk patients having lower scores.
  • The urologist felt confident to place his patient on active surveillance as supported by the NCCN guidelines