Xuezheng Sun1, Katherine A Hoadley2,3, William Y Kim2,3,4,5, Helena Furberg6, Andrew F Olshan7,2, Melissa A Troester7,2. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Suite 32, CVS Plaza, 137 East Franklin Street, CB#8050, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. amysun@email.unc.edu. 2. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Suite 32, CVS Plaza, 137 East Franklin Street, CB#8050, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) has been characterized using whole-genome mRNA expression data, showing distinct molecular and clinicopathological characteristics by subtypes. However, associations between risk factors and molecular subtypes have not been reported. METHODS: Four previously published schemes were used to categorize molecular subtypes in 372 MIBC patients from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Data on gene expression (RNA-seq), demographic, and clinicopathological characteristics were retrieved through TCGA data portal. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate the associations of subtypes by different schemes with age at diagnosis, obesity, and smoking. RESULTS: While some quantitative variation was evident, distinct molecular subtype schemes showed considerable consistency in the association with the risk factors. Generally, compared to patients with luminal-like tumors, patients with basal-like subtypes were more likely to be older (OR75 + yrs vs. <60 years range = 1.32-2.89), obese (ORobese vs. normal range = 1.30-3.05), and to start smoking at early age (OR<18 years vs. 25+ years range = 1.11-4.57). CONCLUSIONS: Different molecular subtypes of MIBC may have distinct risk profiles. Large population-based studies with detailed information on bladder cancer risk factors are needed to further define etiologic heterogeneity for bladder cancer.
BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) has been characterized using whole-genome mRNA expression data, showing distinct molecular and clinicopathological characteristics by subtypes. However, associations between risk factors and molecular subtypes have not been reported. METHODS: Four previously published schemes were used to categorize molecular subtypes in 372 MIBCpatients from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Data on gene expression (RNA-seq), demographic, and clinicopathological characteristics were retrieved through TCGA data portal. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate the associations of subtypes by different schemes with age at diagnosis, obesity, and smoking. RESULTS: While some quantitative variation was evident, distinct molecular subtype schemes showed considerable consistency in the association with the risk factors. Generally, compared to patients with luminal-like tumors, patients with basal-like subtypes were more likely to be older (OR75 + yrs vs. <60 years range = 1.32-2.89), obese (ORobese vs. normal range = 1.30-3.05), and to start smoking at early age (OR<18 years vs. 25+ years range = 1.11-4.57). CONCLUSIONS: Different molecular subtypes of MIBC may have distinct risk profiles. Large population-based studies with detailed information on bladder cancer risk factors are needed to further define etiologic heterogeneity for bladder cancer.
Authors: Matthew E Nielsen; Angela B Smith; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Seth Tyree; William Y Kim; Matthew I Milowsky; Raj S Pruthi; Robert C Millikan Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: William F Anderson; Philip S Rosenberg; Aleix Prat; Charles M Perou; Mark E Sherman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Neal D Freedman; Debra T Silverman; Albert R Hollenbeck; Arthur Schatzkin; Christian C Abnet Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jordan Kardos; Shengjie Chai; Lisle E Mose; Sara R Selitsky; Bhavani Krishnan; Ryoichi Saito; Michael D Iglesia; Matthew I Milowsky; Joel S Parker; William Y Kim; Benjamin G Vincent Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2016-03-17
Authors: Jianjun Zhang; Junya Fujimoto; Jianhua Zhang; David C Wedge; Xingzhi Song; Jiexin Zhang; Sahil Seth; Chi-Wan Chow; Yu Cao; Curtis Gumbs; Kathryn A Gold; Neda Kalhor; Latasha Little; Harshad Mahadeshwar; Cesar Moran; Alexei Protopopov; Huandong Sun; Jiabin Tang; Xifeng Wu; Yuanqing Ye; William N William; J Jack Lee; John V Heymach; Waun Ki Hong; Stephen Swisher; Ignacio I Wistuba; P Andrew Futreal Journal: Science Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: André L A Barbosa; Sita H H M Vermeulen; Katja K Aben; Anne J Grotenhuis; Alina Vrieling; Lambertus A Kiemeney Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeffrey S Damrauer; Kyle R Roell; Markia A Smith; Melissa A Troester; Eugene J Pietzak; Xuezheng Sun; Erin L Kirk; Katherine A Hoadley; Halei C Benefield; Gopakumar Iyer; David B Solit; Matthew I Milowsky; William Y Kim; Matthew E Nielsen; Sara E Wobker; Guido Dalbagni; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Andrew F Olshan; Bernard H Bochner; Helena Furberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 13.801