| Literature DB >> 27231851 |
Virginia Urquidi1, Mandy Netherton1, Evan Gomes-Giacoia1, Daniel Serie2, Jeanette Eckel-Passow3, Charles J Rosser4, Steve Goodison2,5.
Abstract
The early detection of bladder cancer is important as the disease has a high rate of recurrence and progression. The development of accurate, non-invasive urinary assays would greatly facilitate detection. In previous studies, we have reported the discovery and initial validation of mRNA biomarkers that may be applicable in this context. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of proposed molecular signatures in an independent cohort.Forty-four mRNA transcripts were monitored blindly in urine samples obtained from a cohort of 196 subjects with known bladder disease status (89 with active BCa) using quantitative real-time PCR (RT-PCR). Statistical analyses defined associations of individual biomarkers with clinical data and the performance of predictive multivariate models was assessed using ROC curves. The majority of the candidate mRNA targets were confirmed as being associated with the presence of BCa over other clinical variables. Multivariate models identified an optimal 18-gene diagnostic signature that predicted the presence of BCa with a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 88% (AUC 0.935). Analysis of mRNA signatures in naturally micturated urine samples can provide valuable information for the evaluation of patients under investigation for BCa. Additional refinement and validation of promising multi-target signatures will support the development of accurate assays for the non-invasive detection and monitoring of BCa.Entities:
Keywords: bladder cancer; diagnostic biomarkers; multiplex; non-invasive; urinalysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27231851 PMCID: PMC5122424 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.9587
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics of study cohort
| Controls n=107 | Cases n=89 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 59 | (19-90) | 70 | (29-94) | 0.0001 | |
| Male | 82 | (7.6%) | 75 | (84.3%) | 0.18 |
| Female | 25 | (23.4%) | 14 | (15.7%) | |
| White | 71 | (66.3%) | 70 | (78.6%) | |
| African American | 8 | (7.4%) | 7 | (7.8%) | |
| Other | 9 | (8.4%) | 8 | (8.9%) | |
| Unknown | 19 | 4 | |||
| Missing | 81 | 5 | |||
| Negative | 19 | (17.7%) | 35 | (49.3%) | |
| Reactive | 4 | (3.7%) | 5 | (7.0%) | |
| Suspicious | 2 | (1.8%) | 3 | (4.2%) | |
| Positive | 1 | (0.9%) | 28 | (39.4%) | |
| Tis | n/a | 8 | (9.5%) | ||
| Ta | n/a | 20 | (23.8%) | ||
| T1 | n/a | 18 | (21.4%) | ||
| T2 | n/a | 31 | (36.9%) | ||
| T3 | n/a | 7 | (8.3%) | ||
| Missing | n/a | 8 | |||
| Low | n/a | 14 | (17.3%) | ||
| High | n/a | 67 | (82.7%) | ||
| Missing | 8 | 2 | |||
| Yes | 9 | (9.1%) | 27 | (31.0%) | 0.0002 |
| No | 90 | (90.9%) | 60 | (69.0%) | |
Univariate Tobit model results for testing the association of 44 candidate biomarkers with case-control status
| Gene | Study [Ref] | % Samples Censored | Tobit Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controls n=107 | Cases n=89 | Estimate | |||
| SNAI2 | Florida [ | 0.75 | 0.19 | 5.94 | 4.92E-13 |
| IGF2 | Barcelona [ | 0.29 | 0.02 | 4.75 | 2.07E-12 |
| CA9 | Florida | 0.83 | 0.31 | 6.67 | 2.38E-10 |
| MDK | Australasia [ | 0.19 | 0.03 | 3.25 | 1.45E-09 |
| MMP12 | Florida | 0.23 | 0.07 | 3.33 | 5.70E-07 |
| CRH | Barcelona | 0.91 | 0.45 | 8.09 | 1.33E-06 |
| KRT20 | Barcelona | 0.25 | 0.07 | 3.38 | 3.08E-06 |
| PPP1R14D | Barcelona | 0.72 | 0.25 | 3.62 | 3.42E-06 |
| RAB1A | Florida | 0.16 | 0.04 | 1.50 | 4.63E-06 |
| TMEM45A | Florida | 0.52 | 0.19 | 4.41 | 5.05E-06 |
| MMP1 | Florida | 0.30 | 0.11 | 2.93 | 1.42E-05 |
| SERPINE1 | Florida | 0.25 | 0.09 | 1.82 | 7.06E-05 |
| MAGEA3 | Barcelona | 0.97 | 0.63 | 11.01 | 7.96E-05 |
| BIRC5 | Florida | 0.69 | 0.29 | 2.42 | 8.97E-05 |
| MMP9 | Florida | 0.07 | 0.02 | 1.57 | 1.21E-04 |
| POSTN | Barcelona | 0.92 | 0.57 | 4.91 | 2.74E-04 |
| DMBT1 | Florida | 0.60 | 0.22 | 2.90 | 2.78E-04 |
| DSC2 | Florida | 0.13 | 0.07 | 1.47 | 3.33E-04 |
| ERBB2 | Florida | 0.07 | 0.02 | 1.44 | 6.21E-04 |
| ANXA10 | Barcelona | 0.49 | 0.26 | 3.65 | 6.92E-04 |
| SLC1A6 | Barcelona | 0.91 | 0.57 | 4.25 | 8.01E-04 |
| CCL18 | Florida | 0.50 | 0.17 | 2.48 | 1.19E-03 |
| CTAG2 | [ | 0.95 | 0.67 | 9.88 | 1.58E-03 |
| CDK1 | Australasia | 0.39 | 0.13 | 1.70 | 1.77E-03 |
| HOXA13 | Australasia | 0.27 | 0.11 | 1.67 | 1.92E-03 |
| CXCR2 | Australasia | 0.06 | 0.01 | 1.22 | 2.28E-03 |
| CTSE | Barcelona | 0.28 | 0.15 | 1.74 | 5.99E-03 |
| SEMA3D | Florida | 0.76 | 0.47 | 3.07 | 8.70E-03 |
| KLF9 | Barcelona | 0.25 | 0.08 | 1.17 | 8.97E-03 |
| VEGFA | Florida | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.49 | 1.17E-02 |
| TERT | Barcelona | 0.96 | 0.71 | 3.46 | 1.74E-02 |
| MMP10 | Florida | 0.24 | 0.15 | 1.49 | 3.66E-02 |
| IGFBP5 | Australasia | 0.18 | 0.10 | 1.13 | 4.61E-02 |
| CCNE2 | Florida | 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.75 | 6.10E-02 |
| ANG | Florida | 0.96 | 0.98 | −7.81 | 7.04E-02 |
| SYNGR1 | Florida | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.79 | 1.04E-01 |
| CXCL1 | [ | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.49 | 1.42E-01 |
| AHNAK2 | Barcelona | 0.37 | 0.15 | −0.61 | 2.26E-01 |
| IL8 | [ | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 2.32E-01 |
| APOE | [ | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.40 | 2.52E-01 |
| AGT | Florida | 0.61 | 0.37 | −0.59 | 4.33E-01 |
| PRAME | [ | 0.70 | 0.52 | 0.81 | 5.56E-01 |
| PLAU | [ | 0.03 | 0.03 | −0.06 | 8.72E-01 |
| MXRA8 | Florida | 0.66 | 0.35 | 0.00 | 9.94E-01 |
Biomarkers are ranked by Tobit model P-value. Because of censoring, the Tobit model estimate represents the difference between cases and controls in the un-observed latent variable. The percent of cases and controls censored is provided.
Targets that were censored in >50% of cases.
Multivariate logistic models using genes from 4 different panels
| Gene | Multivariate Lasso Odds Ratios | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australasia | Barcelona | Florida | Combined | |
| SNAI2 | 1.193 | 1.190 | ||
| IGF2 | 1.168 | 1.291 | ||
| CA9 | 1.110 | 1.165 | ||
| MDK | 1.247 | 1.312 | ||
| MMP12 | 1.117 | 1.079 | ||
| CRH | --- | --- | ||
| KRT20 | 1.048 | 1.072 | ||
| PPP1R14D | --- | --- | ||
| RAB1A | 1.306 | 1.090 | ||
| TMEM45A | 1.025 | --- | ||
| MMP1 | 1.049 | 1.113 | ||
| SERPINE1 | 1.022 | --- | ||
| BIRC5 | 0.995 | 0.837 | ||
| MMP9 | 1.128 | 1.211 | ||
| DMBT1 | --- | --- | ||
| DSC2 | --- | 0.955 | ||
| ERBB2 | 1.215 | --- | ||
| ANXA10 | --- | 0.982 | ||
| CCL18 | 0.959 | 0.990 | ||
| CDK1 | 1.027 | 1.055 | ||
| HOXA13 | --- | --- | ||
| CXCR2 | 1.117 | --- | --- | |
| CTSE | --- | 0.991 | ||
| SEMA3D | 0.928 | 0.888 | ||
| KLF9 | 1.050 | 1.130 | ||
| VEGFA | --- | --- | ||
| MMP10 | 0.997 | 0.937 | ||
| IGFBP5 | --- | --- | ||
Australasian panel [9], Barcelona panel [7], Florida panel [5], and the combination of all biomarkers (Combined). The Lasso method was used to shrink model coefficients; the corresponding odds ratios are provided.
Figure 1ROC curve illustrating the diagnostic accuracy of 4 gene set classifiers for predicting presence of bladder cancer
Curves are presented for the Australasian panel [9], Barcelona panel [7], Florida panel [5] and the combination of all biomarkers.