George J Netto1, Liang Cheng. 1. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21231, USA. gnetto1@jhmi.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: The unprecedented advances in cancer genetics and genomics are rapidly affecting clinical management and diagnostics in solid tumor oncology. Molecular diagnostics is now an integral part of routine clinical management in patients with lung, colon, and breast cancer. In sharp contrast, molecular biomarkers have been largely excluded from current management algorithms of urologic malignancies. OBJECTIVE: To discuss promising candidate biomarkers that may soon make their transition to the realm of clinical management of genitourologic malignancies. The need for new treatment alternatives that can improve upon the modest outcome so far in patients with several types of urologic cancer is evident. Well-validated prognostic molecular biomarkers that can help clinicians identify patients in need of early aggressive management are lacking. Identifying robust predictive biomarkers that will stratify response to emerging targeted therapeutics is another crucially needed development. A compiled review of salient studies addressing the topic could be helpful in focusing future efforts. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed (US National Library of Medicine) search for published studies with the following search terms was conducted: molecular , prognostic , targeted therapy , genomics , theranostics and urinary bladder cancer , prostate adenocarcinoma , and renal cell carcinoma . Articles with large cohorts and multivariate analyses were given preference. CONCLUSIONS: Our recent understanding of the complex molecular alterations involved in the development and progression of urologic malignancies is yielding novel diagnostic and prognostic molecular tools and opening the doors for experimental targeted therapies for these prevalent, frequently lethal solid tumors.
CONTEXT: The unprecedented advances in cancer genetics and genomics are rapidly affecting clinical management and diagnostics in solid tumor oncology. Molecular diagnostics is now an integral part of routine clinical management in patients with lung, colon, and breast cancer. In sharp contrast, molecular biomarkers have been largely excluded from current management algorithms of urologic malignancies. OBJECTIVE: To discuss promising candidate biomarkers that may soon make their transition to the realm of clinical management of genitourologic malignancies. The need for new treatment alternatives that can improve upon the modest outcome so far in patients with several types of urologic cancer is evident. Well-validated prognostic molecular biomarkers that can help clinicians identify patients in need of early aggressive management are lacking. Identifying robust predictive biomarkers that will stratify response to emerging targeted therapeutics is another crucially needed development. A compiled review of salient studies addressing the topic could be helpful in focusing future efforts. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed (US National Library of Medicine) search for published studies with the following search terms was conducted: molecular , prognostic , targeted therapy , genomics , theranostics and urinary bladder cancer , prostate adenocarcinoma , and renal cell carcinoma . Articles with large cohorts and multivariate analyses were given preference. CONCLUSIONS: Our recent understanding of the complex molecular alterations involved in the development and progression of urologic malignancies is yielding novel diagnostic and prognostic molecular tools and opening the doors for experimental targeted therapies for these prevalent, frequently lethal solid tumors.
Authors: Andrew J Armstrong; George J Netto; Michelle A Rudek; Susan Halabi; David P Wood; Patricia A Creel; Kelly Mundy; S Lindsay Davis; Ting Wang; Roula Albadine; Luciana Schultz; Alan W Partin; Antonio Jimeno; Helen Fedor; Phillip G Febbo; Daniel J George; Robin Gurganus; Angelo M De Marzo; Michael A Carducci Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: C Billerey; D Chopin; M H Aubriot-Lorton; D Ricol; S Gil Diez de Medina; B Van Rhijn; M P Bralet; M A Lefrere-Belda; J B Lahaye; C C Abbou; J Bonaventure; E S Zafrani; T van der Kwast; J P Thiery; F Radvanyi Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Rebecca A Mason; Elaine V Morlock; Margaret R Karagas; Karl T Kelsey; Carmen J Marsit; Alan R Schned; Angeline S Andrew Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: A S Sarkis; G Dalbagni; C Cordon-Cardo; J Melamed; Z F Zhang; J Sheinfeld; W R Fair; H W Herr; V E Reuter Journal: J Urol Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sven Perner; Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Francesca Demichelis; Matthias D Hofer; Pamela L Paris; Jeff Simko; Colin Collins; Tarek A Bismar; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Angelo M De Marzo; Mark A Rubin Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Robert W Veltri; William G Nelson; Donald S Coffey; Eric A Singer; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marco Ragusa; Rosario Caltabiano; Andrea Russo; Lidia Puzzo; Teresio Avitabile; Antonio Longo; Mario D Toro; Cinzia Di Pietro; Michele Purrello; Michele Reibaldi Journal: Mol Vis Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 2.367