David J McConkey1, Woonyoung Choi2. 1. Johns Hopkins Greenberg Bladder Cancer Institute and Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Marburg 149, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. djmcconkey@jhmi.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins Greenberg Bladder Cancer Institute and Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Marburg 149, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent whole genome characterizations of primary human bladder cancers revealed that they can be grouped into "intrinsic" basal and luminal molecular subtypes. Here, we provide an overview of the subtypes and discuss their biological and clinical properties. RECENT FINDINGS: Basal cancers are characterized by advanced stage and metastatic disease at presentation. They tend to be enriched with squamous and small cell/neuroendocrine features and inactivating mutations and deletions of TP53 and RB1. Basal cancers can be divided into "epithelial" and "mesenchymal" (also known as "claudin low") subsets, and a portion of the latter form a "neuroendocrine/neuronal" subset that is associated with particularly poor survival. Luminal cancers are often enriched with papillary histopathological features and activating mutations in FGFR3, and they can also be divided into additional subsets based on differential stromal cell infiltration, relative genomic instability, and high- versus low-level expression of carcinoma in situ (CIS) gene expression signatures. Importantly, the bladder cancer molecular subtypes display differential sensitivities to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade, and preliminary data also suggest that they respond differently to radiation with or without hypoxia modulation. Ongoing studies are investigating the relevance of the molecular subtypes to the bladder cancer histopathological variants and to upper tract urothelial cancer. The bladder cancer molecular subtypes were associated with different prognoses and responses to conventional and targeted therapies in retrospective studies. If validated in prospective studies, molecular subtyping will be integrated into bladder cancer clinical management.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent whole genome characterizations of primary humanbladder cancers revealed that they can be grouped into "intrinsic" basal and luminal molecular subtypes. Here, we provide an overview of the subtypes and discuss their biological and clinical properties. RECENT FINDINGS:Basal cancers are characterized by advanced stage and metastatic disease at presentation. They tend to be enriched with squamous and small cell/neuroendocrine features and inactivating mutations and deletions of TP53 and RB1. Basal cancers can be divided into "epithelial" and "mesenchymal" (also known as "claudin low") subsets, and a portion of the latter form a "neuroendocrine/neuronal" subset that is associated with particularly poor survival. Luminal cancers are often enriched with papillary histopathological features and activating mutations in FGFR3, and they can also be divided into additional subsets based on differential stromal cell infiltration, relative genomic instability, and high- versus low-level expression of carcinoma in situ (CIS) gene expression signatures. Importantly, the bladder cancer molecular subtypes display differential sensitivities to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade, and preliminary data also suggest that they respond differently to radiation with or without hypoxia modulation. Ongoing studies are investigating the relevance of the molecular subtypes to the bladder cancer histopathological variants and to upper tract urothelial cancer. The bladder cancer molecular subtypes were associated with different prognoses and responses to conventional and targeted therapies in retrospective studies. If validated in prospective studies, molecular subtyping will be integrated into bladder cancer clinical management.
Authors: Lars Dyrskjøt; Thomas Thykjaer; Mogens Kruhøffer; Jens Ledet Jensen; Niels Marcussen; Stephen Hamilton-Dutoit; Hans Wolf; Torben F Orntoft Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2002-12-09 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Joshua I Warrick; Matthew Kaag; Jay D Raman; Wilson Chan; Truc Tran; Sudhir Kunchala; Lauren Shuman; David DeGraff; Guoli Chen Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 4.064
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: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Tom Powles; Michiel S van der Heijden; Arjun V Balar; Andrea Necchi; Nancy Dawson; Peter H O'Donnell; Ani Balmanoukian; Yohann Loriot; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Petros Grivas; Richard W Joseph; Matthew D Galsky; Mark T Fleming; Daniel P Petrylak; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Howard A Burris; Daniel Castellano; Christina Canil; Joaquim Bellmunt; Dean Bajorin; Dorothee Nickles; Richard Bourgon; Garrett M Frampton; Na Cui; Sanjeev Mariathasan; Oyewale Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Robert Dreicer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A Gordon Robertson; Jaegil Kim; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Joaquim Bellmunt; Guangwu Guo; Andrew D Cherniack; Toshinori Hinoue; Peter W Laird; Katherine A Hoadley; Rehan Akbani; Mauro A A Castro; Ewan A Gibb; Rupa S Kanchi; Dmitry A Gordenin; Sachet A Shukla; Francisco Sanchez-Vega; Donna E Hansel; Bogdan A Czerniak; Victor E Reuter; Xiaoping Su; Benilton de Sa Carvalho; Vinicius S Chagas; Karen L Mungall; Sara Sadeghi; Chandra Sekhar Pedamallu; Yiling Lu; Leszek J Klimczak; Jiexin Zhang; Caleb Choo; Akinyemi I Ojesina; Susan Bullman; Kristen M Leraas; Tara M Lichtenberg; Catherine J Wu; Nicholaus Schultz; Gad Getz; Matthew Meyerson; Gordon B Mills; David J McConkey; John N Weinstein; David J Kwiatkowski; Seth P Lerner Journal: Cell Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Vipulkumar Dadhania; Miao Zhang; Li Zhang; Jolanta Bondaruk; Tadeusz Majewski; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Charles C Guo; Colin Dinney; David E Cogdell; Shizhen Zhang; Sangkyou Lee; June G Lee; John N Weinstein; Keith Baggerly; David McConkey; Bogdan Czerniak Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Daley S Morera; Sarrah L Hasanali; Daniel Belew; Santu Ghosh; Zachary Klaassen; Andre R Jordan; Jiaojiao Wang; Martha K Terris; Roni J Bollag; Axel S Merseburger; Arnulf Stenzl; Mark S Soloway; Vinata B Lokeshwar Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Todd C Knepper; Meagan Montesion; Jeffery S Russell; Ethan S Sokol; Garrett M Frampton; Vincent A Miller; Lee A Albacker; Howard L McLeod; Zeynep Eroglu; Nikhil I Khushalani; Vernon K Sondak; Jane L Messina; Michael J Schell; James A DeCaprio; Kenneth Y Tsai; Andrew S Brohl Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Laura E Griffin; Sarah E Kohrt; Atul Rathore; Colin D Kay; Magdalena M Grabowska; Andrew P Neilson Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 2.900