The early detection of bladder cancer (BCa) significantly improves the probability of successful patient treatment and management. The development of molecular assays that can diagnose the disease accurately, or that can augment current methods of evaluation, would be a significant advance. A molecular assay that was applicable to non-invasively obtained body fluids, would facilitate not only diagnosis of at risk patients, but also asymptomatic screening, monitoring disease recurrence and response to treatment. The advent of advanced proteomics and genomics technologies, and associated bioinformatics development, is bringing these goals into focus.The gold standard for diagnosing BCa involves cystoscopic examination of the bladder along with biopsy and pathologic evaluation of a bladder lesion. Voided urinary cytology (VUC) remains as the go-to non-invasive adjunct to cystoscopy in the detection of BCa. While VUC has a specificity of >93%, its sensitivity is quite dismal at 25–40%, especially for low-grade and low-stage tumors [1], [2]. The need for more accurate urinary biomarkers for the detection of BCa is evident. A number of molecular tests have been developed to detect bladder tumors, including bladder tumor antigen (BTA) [3], nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP-22) [4], ImmunoCyt and Urovysion [5]. Unfortunately due to their limited sensitivity and/or specificity, none of these assays have been proven accurate enough to replace cystoscopy or VUC. Thus there are no urine-based BCa tests that dominate the field to date. The inadequate power of single biomarkers may partly explain why detecting BCa using urinalysis remains a challenge. There needs to be an evolution towards tests that monitor multiple biomarkers in order to achieve the desired diagnostic accuracy.The advent of new high-throughput genomic and proteomic techniques is driving biomarker discovery forward, and we have employed these techniques in a series of experiments [6], [7], [8] from which we have derived both nucleic acid and protein biomarker panels that facilitate non-invasive detection of BCa with unprecedented accuracy. Further selection and validation of 14 proteins from the proteomic studies, and some protein products from the genomic signature, was based on statistical ranking of association with BCa, and the availability of commercial ELISA kits. In this study, we investigated whether the monitoring of some of these targets using immune-based detection assays could confirm the potential clinical utility of a non-invasive diagnostic test. Using ELISA assays, we monitored three target proteins (C-C motif chemokine 18, CCL18; Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor 1, PAI-1; and CD44) in urine samples from a cohort of 127 subjects, and compared diagnostic performance to that obtained using the commercial BTA-Trak assay and VUC.
Results
Demographic, clinical and pathologic characteristics of the cohort are presented in
. Only 28% of the cancer cohort had a positive VUC whereas VUC specificity was 98%. Urinary CCL18 and PAI-1 were undetectable in the majority of subjects with no evidence of BCa. Both BTA and CD44 were detected in samples from both tumor-bearing and control groups. Mean urinary levels (
) of CCL18 (637.39 pg/ml vs. 4.81 pg/ml, p < 0.0001), PAI-1 (6.82 ng/ml vs. 0.06 ng/ml, p<0.0001), and BTA 1630.55 U/ml vs. 14.54 U/ml, p<0.0001) were significantly higher in subjects with BCa compared to subjects with no evidence of BCa. Mean urinary CD44 was elevated in subjects without BCa compared to subjects with BCa (117.22 ng/ml vs. 53.09 ng/ml, p<0.0001). ELISA data are presented in a boxplot figure (
).
Table 1
Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics of the study cohort.
Non-cancer (%)N = 63
Cancer (%)N = 64
Median Age (range, y)
60 (30–81)
69.5 (22–90)
Male: Female ratio
55: 8
55: 9
Race
White
41 (65)
58 (91)
African American
8 (13)
0 (0)
Other
14 (22)
6 (9)
Tobacco use
25 (40)
54 (84)
Gross hematuria
0 (0)
47 (73)
Suspicious/positive cytology
1 (2)
18 (28)
Median follow-up (months)
11.5
12.0
Clinical stage
Tiŝ
n/a
6 (9)
Ta
n/a
15 (23)
T1
n/a
9 (14)
T2
n/a
31 (48)
T3
n/a
4 (6)
T4
n/a
2 (3)
N+ ∼
n/a
3 (5)
Grade
Low
n/a
9 (14)
High
n/a
55 (86)
, 4 subjects with concomitant Tis had T1 (n = 2) and T2 (n = 2) disease.
∼, Subjects with T2 (n = 1), T3 ( = 1) and T4 (n = 1) disease and node positive.
Table 2
Concentration of the biomarker proteins in voided urine.
Non-cancer (%)N = 63
Cancer (%)N = 64
Urinary Proteins
Mean (range)
Mean (range)
CCl-18 (pg/ml)
4.81 (0–37.69)
637.39 (0–9523.04)
PAI-1 (ng/ml)
0.06 (0–0.64)
6.82 (0–125.26)
CD44 (ng/ml)
117.22 (16.08–616.3)
28.73 (16.67–344.04)
BTA (U/ml)
14.54 (0.5–36.87)
1630.55 (0–24865.4)
Figure 1
Comparison of urine concentrations of CCL18, PAI-1, CD44 and BTA between the bladder cancer and non-cancer groups.
Data are normalized to urinary creatinine. Median levels are depicted by horizontal lines. Significance (p<0.05) was assessed by the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
, 4 subjects with concomitant Tis had T1 (n = 2) and T2 (n = 2) disease.∼, Subjects with T2 (n = 1), T3 ( = 1) and T4 (n = 1) disease and node positive.The ability of the test biomarkers to predict the presence of BCa was analyzed using nonparametric ROC analyses, according to National Cancer Institute guidelines [9]. Based on the area under the ROC curve (AUROC), we determined Youden Index cutoff values to maximize the sum of sensitivity and specificity. Urinary CCL18 was the most accurate biomarker with an area under the curve of 0.919 (95% CI: 0.8704-0.9674). Using the Youden Index cutoff value (
), urinary CCL18 provided a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 86%, positive predictive value of 86% and negative predictive value of 87%. PAI-1 was a less accurate biomarker for BCa detection (area under the curve: 0.686; 95% CI: 0.6119-0.7601). Using the Youden Index cutoff value (
), urinary PAI-1 analyses revealed a sensitivity of 42%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 63%. Elevated levels of urinary CD44 were not indicative of BCa (area under the curve: 0.488; 95% CI: 0.383-0.5937). BTA served as our positive reference assay and was noted to have an AUROC of 0.818 (95% CI: 0.74-0.90,
). Using the Youden Index cutoff value, urinary BTA provided a sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 84%, positive predictive value of 84% and negative predictive value of 80%.
Figure 2
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for urinary CCL18, PAI-1, CD44 and BTA.
Based on the area under the ROC curve (AUROC), Youden Index cutoff values that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity were determined for each biomarker (diamond). Table provides performance values for each biomarker.
Comparison of urine concentrations of CCL18, PAI-1, CD44 and BTA between the bladder cancer and non-cancer groups.
Data are normalized to urinary creatinine. Median levels are depicted by horizontal lines. Significance (p<0.05) was assessed by the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for urinary CCL18, PAI-1, CD44 and BTA.
Based on the area under the ROC curve (AUROC), Youden Index cutoff values that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity were determined for each biomarker (diamond). Table provides performance values for each biomarker.In multivariate logistic regression analysis that adjusted for the effects of age and race, elevated CCL18 (OR: 18.31; 95% CI: 4.95-67.70; p<0.0001), elevated BTA (OR: 6.43; 95% CI: 1.86-22.21; p = 0.0033) and reduced urinary levels of CD44 (OR: 0.039; 95% CI: 0.004-0.35; p = 0.0036) were associated with BCa in voided urine samples (
).
Table 3
Logistic regression analysis of biomarkers in voided urine.
Variable
Coefficient
Odds Ratio
95% C.I.
p-value
CCL18
2.91
18.31
4.95–67.70
<0.0001
CD44
−3.25
0.039
0.004–0.35
0.0036
PAI-1
−0.72
0.48
0.096–2.44
0.38
BTA
1.86
6.43
1.86–22.21
0.0033
As stated earlier, single biomarkers fall short by not taking into consideration the complexity of heterogeneous tumors, thus a multiplex assay to detect a panel of biomarkers may prove to be beneficial. Utilizing the Youden Index cutoff values for CCL18, PAI-1 and CD44, these biomarkers were combined and analyzed (
). The combination of CCL18, PAI-1 and CD44 (area under the curve: 0.938) achieved a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 89%, positive predictive value of 89% and negative predictive value of 86%.
Figure 3
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to plot the performance of the combination of CCL18, PAI-1 and CD44 biomarkers.
Based on the area under the ROC curve (AUROC), Youden Index cutoff values that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity were determined. Data within the figure provide performance values. PPV, positive predictive value. NPV, negative predictive value.
Discussion
Using novel approaches [6]–[8], we have identified a preliminary diagnostic signature of 14 biomarkers related to BCa. In this study, we report our findings of three of these 14 biomarkers.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to plot the performance of the combination of CCL18, PAI-1 and CD44 biomarkers.
Under MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando Institutional Review Board approval and informed written consent, voided urine samples, and associated clinical information were prospectively collected. The study cohort consisted of 63 individuals with no previous history of urothelia carcinoma, gross hematuria, active urinary tract infection or urolithiasis, and 64 individuals with newly diagnosed urothelial carcinoma. Patients with known renal disease or documented renal insufficiency were not enrolled. According to the International Consensus Panel on Bladder Tumor Markers [27], this cohort served as a phase II (validation study). Data is reported using the STARD criteria [28]. In our cancer group, axial imaging of the abdomen and pelvis and cystoscopy were performed, and urothelial cell carcinoma was confirmed by histological examination of excised tissue. Pertinent information on clinical presentation, staging, histologic grading [29], [30] and outcome were recorded (
).Prior to any type of therapeutic intervention, 50–100 mL of voided urine was obtained from each subject. Fifty milliliters of urine was used for clinical laboratory analyses per standard procedures. The remaining urine aliquot was assigned a unique identifying number before immediate laboratory processing. Each urine sample was centrifuged at 600× g 4°C for 5 min. The supernatant was decanted and aliquoted, while the urinary pellet was snap frozen. Both the supernatant and pellet were stored at −80°C prior to analysis. Aliquots of urine supernatants were thawed and analyzed for protein content using a Pierce 660-nm Protein Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). Protein concentrations were measured using the NanoDrop spectrophotometer (ND-1000, ThermoScientific, Wilmington, DE, USA).
Urine Based Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)
Creatine is converted non-enzymatically to the metabolite creatinine, which diffuses into the blood and is excreted into the urine by the kidneys at a constant rate. Consequently, urinary creatinine is a useful tool for normalizing the levels of other molecules found in urine [31], [32]. Our preliminary results (not shown) demonstrated that due to the hematuria (microscopic or gross blood in the urine), which contains elevated levels of proteins, protein would not be a good marker for normalization. Thus, the concentrations of all monitored proteins (CCL18, PAI-1, CD44 and BTA) were normalized to urinary creatinine and these concentrations were reported as a ratio relative to urinary creatinine values. The creatinine assay was conducted according to the manufacturer's instructions (Cat# KGE005 R&D Systems Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). Briefly, urine supernatants were thawed, diluted with distilled water and treated with alkaline picrate solution. Treated samples were measured on a microplate reader (Bio-tek, SynergyTM HT, VT) at a wavelength of 490 nm. A standard curve using purified standards was generated by regression analysis using four-parameter logistic curve-fit, and signal intensities were converted to concentrations.
Statistical Analysis
The association between each biomarker and BCa was tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in which the value for sensitivity is plotted against false-positive rate (1-specificity) were generated. We defined a diagnostic test as positive or negative for BCa detection using a cutoff value. The optimal cutoff (Youden index) was selected to maximize the sum of the sensitivity and specificity [33]. The accuracy of a biomarker to predict the presence of BCa was defined as the average of the sensitivity and the specificity. To assess the independent association between biomarkers and BCa, logistic regression analysis was performed with BCa status (yes vs. no) as the response variable, and CCL18, PAI-1, CD44, BTA concentrations as the explanatory variables. Statistical significance in this study was set at p<0.05 and all reported p values were 2-sided. All analyses were performed with SAS software version 9.1.3.
Authors: G A McMahon; E Petitclerc; S Stefansson; E Smith; M K Wong; R J Westrick; D Ginsburg; P C Brooks; D A Lawrence Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2001-07-05 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: H Pedersen; J Grøndahl-Hansen; D Francis; K Osterlind; H H Hansen; K Danø; N Brünner Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1994-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Roozbeh Golshani; Luis Lopez; Veronica Estrella; Mario Kramer; Naoko Iida; Vinata B Lokeshwar Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Maria Frantzi; Agnieszka Latosinska; Leif Flühe; Marie C Hupe; Elena Critselis; Mario W Kramer; Axel S Merseburger; Harald Mischak; Antonia Vlahou Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Li-Mei Chen; Myron Chang; Yunfeng Dai; Karl X Chai; Lars Dyrskjøt; Marta Sanchez-Carbayo; Tibor Szarvas; Ellen C Zwarthoff; Vinata Lokeshwar; Carmen Jeronimo; Alexander S Parker; Shanti Ross; Michael Borre; Torben F Orntoft; Tobias Jaeger; Willemien Beukers; Luis E Lopez; Rui Henrique; Paul R Young; Virginia Urquidi; Steve Goodison; Charles J Rosser Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lauren L Atwell; Anna Hsu; Carmen P Wong; Jan F Stevens; Deborah Bella; Tian-Wei Yu; Clifford B Pereira; Christiane V Löhr; John Mark Christensen; Roderick H Dashwood; David E Williams; Jackilen Shannon; Emily Ho Journal: Mol Nutr Food Res Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 5.914
Authors: Elena Cantero-Navarro; Sandra Rayego-Mateos; Macarena Orejudo; Lucía Tejedor-Santamaria; Antonio Tejera-Muñoz; Ana Belén Sanz; Laura Marquez-Exposito; Vanessa Marchant; Laura Santos-Sanchez; Jesús Egido; Alberto Ortiz; Teresa Bellon; Raúl R Rodrigues-Diez; Marta Ruiz-Ortega Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-07-08