Stephanie A Mullane1, Lillian Werner2, Elizabeth A Guancial3, Rosina T Lis4, Edward C Stack4, Massimo Loda5, Philip W Kantoff6, Toni K Choueiri6, Jonathan Rosenberg7, Joaquim Bellmunt8. 1. Bladder Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Medicine, Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. 4. Center for Molecular Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 6. Bladder Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 7. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 8. Bladder Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: joaquim_bellmunt@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Combination platinum chemotherapy is standard first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Defining the platinum response biomarkers for patients with mUC could establish personalize medicine and provide insights into mUC biology. Although DNA repair mechanisms have been hypothesized to mediate the platinum response, we sought to analyze whether increased expression of DNA damage genes would correlate with worse overall survival (OS) in patients with mUC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified a clinically annotated cohort of patients with mUC, who had been treated with first-line platinum combination chemotherapy. A tissue microarray was constructed from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue from the primary tumor before treatment. Immunohistochemical analysis of the following DNA repair proteins was performed: ERCC1, RAD51, BRCA1/2, PAR, and PARP-1. Nuclear and cytoplasmic expression was analyzed using multispectral imaging. Nuclear staining was used for the survival analysis. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the associations between the percentage of positive nuclear staining and OS in multivariable analysis, controlling for known prognostic variables. RESULTS: In a cohort of 104 patients with mUC, a greater percentage of nuclear staining of ERCC1 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-4.9; P = .0007), RAD51 (HR, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.7-18.3; P = .005), and PAR (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-4.4; P = .026) was associated with worse OS. BRCA1, BRCA2, and PARP-1 expression was not associated with OS (P = .76, P = .38, and P = .09, respectively). A greater percentage of combined ERCC1 and RAD51 nuclear staining was strongly associated with worse OS (P = .005). CONCLUSION: A high percentage of nuclear staining of ERCC1, RAD51, and PAR, assessed by immunohistochemistry, correlated with worse OS for patients with mUC treated with first-line platinum combination chemotherapy, supporting the evidence of the DNA repair pathways' role in the prognosis of mUC. We also report new evidence that RAD51 and PAR might play a role in the platinum response. Additional prospective studies are required to determine the prognostic or predictive nature of these biomarkers in mUC.
BACKGROUND: Combination platinum chemotherapy is standard first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Defining the platinum response biomarkers for patients with mUC could establish personalize medicine and provide insights into mUC biology. Although DNA repair mechanisms have been hypothesized to mediate the platinum response, we sought to analyze whether increased expression of DNA damage genes would correlate with worse overall survival (OS) in patients with mUC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified a clinically annotated cohort of patients with mUC, who had been treated with first-line platinum combination chemotherapy. A tissue microarray was constructed from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue from the primary tumor before treatment. Immunohistochemical analysis of the following DNA repair proteins was performed: ERCC1, RAD51, BRCA1/2, PAR, and PARP-1. Nuclear and cytoplasmic expression was analyzed using multispectral imaging. Nuclear staining was used for the survival analysis. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the associations between the percentage of positive nuclear staining and OS in multivariable analysis, controlling for known prognostic variables. RESULTS: In a cohort of 104 patients with mUC, a greater percentage of nuclear staining of ERCC1 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-4.9; P = .0007), RAD51 (HR, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.7-18.3; P = .005), and PAR (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-4.4; P = .026) was associated with worse OS. BRCA1, BRCA2, and PARP-1 expression was not associated with OS (P = .76, P = .38, and P = .09, respectively). A greater percentage of combined ERCC1 and RAD51 nuclear staining was strongly associated with worse OS (P = .005). CONCLUSION: A high percentage of nuclear staining of ERCC1, RAD51, and PAR, assessed by immunohistochemistry, correlated with worse OS for patients with mUC treated with first-line platinum combination chemotherapy, supporting the evidence of the DNA repair pathways' role in the prognosis of mUC. We also report new evidence that RAD51 and PAR might play a role in the platinum response. Additional prospective studies are required to determine the prognostic or predictive nature of these biomarkers in mUC.
Authors: Monika Graeser; Afshan McCarthy; Christopher J Lord; Kay Savage; Margaret Hills; Janine Salter; Nicholas Orr; Marina Parton; Ian E Smith; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Mitch Dowsett; Alan Ashworth; Nicholas C Turner Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nikhil R Bhagwat; Vera Y Roginskaya; Marie B Acquafondata; Rajiv Dhir; Richard D Wood; Laura J Niedernhofer Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Ana M Mendes-Pereira; Sarah A Martin; Rachel Brough; Afshan McCarthy; Jessica R Taylor; Jung-Sik Kim; Todd Waldman; Christopher J Lord; Alan Ashworth Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 12.137
Authors: Ioannis Boukovinas; Chara Papadaki; Pedro Mendez; Miquel Taron; Dimitris Mavroudis; Anastasios Koutsopoulos; Maria Sanchez-Ronco; Jose Javier Sanchez; Maria Trypaki; Eustathios Staphopoulos; Vassilis Georgoulias; Rafael Rosell; John Souglakos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Min Yuen Teo; Richard M Bambury; Emily C Zabor; Emmet Jordan; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Mariel E Boyd; Nancy Bouvier; Stephanie A Mullane; Eugene K Cha; Nitin Roper; Irina Ostrovnaya; David M Hyman; Bernard H Bochner; Maria E Arcila; David B Solit; Michael F Berger; Dean F Bajorin; Joaquim Bellmunt; Gopakumar Iyer; Jonathan E Rosenberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Kevin B Givechian; Kamil Wnuk; Chad Garner; Stephen Benz; Hermes Garban; Shahrooz Rabizadeh; Kayvan Niazi; Patrick Soon-Shiong Journal: NPJ Genom Med Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 8.617
Authors: Sayani Bhattacharjee; Matthew J Sullivan; Rebecca R Wynn; Alex Demagall; Andrew S Hendrix; Puneet Sindhwani; Firas G Petros; Nagalakshmi Nadiminty Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 4.430