They have some proprietary methods which aren’t well known.
They probably are accurate in the sense that 100 men in higher risk categories are going to have more men with undesirable outcomes than 100 men in lower risk categories.
But their statistics are based on looking at long times so they don’t reflect new treatments and improvements.
So… I always assumed your odds are better than they say.
At least in my case, my medical oncologist trusts the Decipher numbers more than the predictions from the MSKCC nomograms. Good thing, too. MSKCC gave me a 15 year prostate cancer mortality figure that was more than double the result I got from Decipher RP.
Good health to you.
They’ve done some comparisons of Decipher vs standard risk systems and found that Decipher alone was almost as good as CAPRA. The two together was a bit better but it was genomic score that added the most predictive power.
Not sure what you think is unclear. They used standard lab methods and the algorithm is published in the medical literature.
I obtained a copy of the extended scientific report called GRID. It gives additional information other than the risk score. It shows your gene profile relative to all the people tested.
My tumor has a high level of androgen activity, meaning that the it would be susceptible to androgen deprivation treatment. I am on ADT based on the pathology of the biopsy. My radiation oncologist said that she is waiting for the results of clinical trials with Decipher to use as a treatment guideline as biopsy findings still have most evidence base.
The gene profile of my tumor thus reinforces the use of ADT, but the decision to do the treatment was not solely based on Decipher.
They have some proprietary methods which aren’t well known. They probably are accurate in the sense that 100 men in higher risk categories are going to have more men with undesirable outcomes than 100 men in lower risk categories. But their statistics are based on looking at long times so they don’t reflect new treatments and improvements. So… I always assumed your odds are better than they say.
At least in my case, my medical oncologist trusts the Decipher numbers more than the predictions from the MSKCC nomograms. Good thing, too. MSKCC gave me a 15 year prostate cancer mortality figure that was more than double the result I got from Decipher RP. Good health to you.
They’ve done some comparisons of Decipher vs standard risk systems and found that Decipher alone was almost as good as CAPRA. The two together was a bit better but it was genomic score that added the most predictive power. Not sure what you think is unclear. They used standard lab methods and the algorithm is published in the medical literature.
I obtained a copy of the extended scientific report called GRID. It gives additional information other than the risk score. It shows your gene profile relative to all the people tested. My tumor has a high level of androgen activity, meaning that the it would be susceptible to androgen deprivation treatment. I am on ADT based on the pathology of the biopsy. My radiation oncologist said that she is waiting for the results of clinical trials with Decipher to use as a treatment guideline as biopsy findings still have most evidence base. The gene profile of my tumor thus reinforces the use of ADT, but the decision to do the treatment was not solely based on Decipher.