Rafal Turo1, Patricia Harnden2, Helene Thygesen3, Achim Fleischmann4, George N Thalmann5, Roland Seiler6, William R Cross1, Margaret A Knowles7. 1. Department of Urology, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Histopathology, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom. 3. Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom. 4. Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Urology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 6. Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Urology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 7. Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom. Electronic address: m.a.knowles@leeds.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: FGFR3 is considered a good therapeutic target for bladder cancer. However, to our knowledge it is unknown whether the FGFR3 status of primary tumors is a surrogate for related metastases, which must be targeted by FGFR targeted systemic therapies. We assessed FGFR3 protein expression in primary bladder tumors and matched nodal metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined matched primary tumor and nodal metastases from 150 patients with bladder cancer clinically staged as N0M0. Four samples per patient were incorporated into a tissue microarray and FGFR3 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry. FGFR3 expression was tested for an association with categorical clinical data using the Fisher exact test, and with overall and recurrence-free survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Duplicate spots from primary tumors and lymph node metastases were highly concordant (OR 8.6 and 16.7, respectively, each p <0.001). Overall FGFR protein expression levels did not differ between primary and metastatic lesions (p = 0.78). Up-regulated expression was recorded in 53 of 106 evaluable primary tumor spots and 56 matched metastases. Concordance of FGFR3 expression levels in 79 matched primary tumor and metastasis specimens was high (OR 8.45, p <0.001). In 15 and 12 patients expression was up-regulated in only metastasis and in only the primary tumor, respectively. Overall and recurrence-free survival was not related to FGFR3 expression. CONCLUSIONS: FGFR3 expression in matched primary and metastasized bladder cancer specimens showed good but not absolute concordance. Thus, in most patients primary tumor FGFR3 status can guide the selection of FGFR targeted therapy.
PURPOSE:FGFR3 is considered a good therapeutic target for bladder cancer. However, to our knowledge it is unknown whether the FGFR3 status of primary tumors is a surrogate for related metastases, which must be targeted by FGFR targeted systemic therapies. We assessed FGFR3 protein expression in primary bladder tumors and matched nodal metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined matched primary tumor and nodal metastases from 150 patients with bladder cancer clinically staged as N0M0. Four samples per patient were incorporated into a tissue microarray and FGFR3 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry. FGFR3 expression was tested for an association with categorical clinical data using the Fisher exact test, and with overall and recurrence-free survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Duplicate spots from primary tumors and lymph node metastases were highly concordant (OR 8.6 and 16.7, respectively, each p <0.001). Overall FGFR protein expression levels did not differ between primary and metastatic lesions (p = 0.78). Up-regulated expression was recorded in 53 of 106 evaluable primary tumor spots and 56 matched metastases. Concordance of FGFR3 expression levels in 79 matched primary tumor and metastasis specimens was high (OR 8.45, p <0.001). In 15 and 12 patients expression was up-regulated in only metastasis and in only the primary tumor, respectively. Overall and recurrence-free survival was not related to FGFR3 expression. CONCLUSIONS:FGFR3 expression in matched primary and metastasized bladder cancer specimens showed good but not absolute concordance. Thus, in most patients primary tumorFGFR3 status can guide the selection of FGFR targeted therapy.
Authors: David P Perrault; Gene K Lee; Sun Young Park; Sunju Lee; Dongwon Choi; Eunson Jung; Young Jin Seong; Eun Kyung Park; Cynthia Sung; Roy Yu; Antoun Bouz; Austin Pourmoussa; Soo Jung Kim; Young-Kwon Hong; Alex K Wong Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 2.589
Authors: Chong-Xian Pan; Hongyong Zhang; Clifford G Tepper; Tzu-yin Lin; Ryan R Davis; James Keck; Paramita M Ghosh; Parkash Gill; Susan Airhart; Carol Bult; David R Gandara; Edison Liu; Ralph W de Vere White Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Cédric Poyet; Thomas Hermanns; Qing Zhong; Eva Drescher; Daniel Eberli; Maximilian Burger; Ferdinand Hofstaedter; Arndt Hartmann; Robert Stöhr; Ellen C Zwarthoff; Tullio Sulser; Peter J Wild Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Koos Koole; Pauline M W van Kempen; Justin E Swartz; Ton Peeters; Paul J van Diest; Ron Koole; Robert J J van Es; Stefan M Willems Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Christian Kollmannsberger; Carolyn D Britten; Anthony J Olszanski; Joan Andrews Walker; Wei Zang; Melinda D Willard; David B Radtke; Daphne L Farrington; Katherine M Bell-McGuinn; Amita Patnaik Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 3.850