| Literature DB >> 30210644 |
Chengtao Han1,2, Lourdes Mengual3, Bin Kang4,5, Juan José Lozano6, Xiaoqun Yang7, Cuizhu Zhang1,2, Antonio Alcaraz3, Ji Liang4,5, Dingwei Ye1,2.
Abstract
Background: Current standard methods used to detect and monitor bladder cancer (BC) are invasive or have low sensitivity. We have previously reported in an international European study four non-invasive tests for BC diagnosis based on the gene expression patterns of urine. Objective: to validate the tests in an independent Asian cohort. Design, setting and participants: Prospective blinded study in which consecutive voided urine samples from BC patients and controls (n=520) were collected in the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from 2014-2016. Gene expression values were quantified using TaqMan Arrays. The same cut-off as previously reported for discrimination between tumours and controls was used in this validation study. Results and limitations: Finally, a total of 257 tumour and 132 control urine samples were analysed. We found a high accuracy for the four gene classifiers in this independent Asian set, the classifiers composed of 5 and 10 genes achieved the best sensitivity (80.54% and 81.32%, respectively) maintaining a high specificity (91.67% and 85.61%, respectively). Sensitivity of 5-gene (GS_D5) and 10-gene (GS_D10) expression classifiers in recurrent BC cases (78 and 79%, respectively) is comparable to that of primary BC cases (82%). Cytology and NMP22 identified 67% and 40%, respectively, of tumours that have been diagnosed with our tests. In addition, influence of each studied gene was analyzed and showed similar gene rank between Chinese and Caucasian population. Conclusions: Our study proves that our non-invasive diagnostic BC tests can be reproduced in independent cohorts and in an external laboratory. All the four gene classifiers have shown equal or superior performance to the current gold standard in the present and previously reported validation studies. Consequently, they may be taken for consideration as molecular tests applicable to clinical practice in the management of BC. Patient summary: Our gene classifiers achieve sensitivities up to 90% in HR NMIBC and MIBC patients, while this achievement is comparatively lower in LR NMIBC ones.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarkers; Bladder cancer; Chinese; Gene classifiers; Gene expression; Non-invasive
Year: 2018 PMID: 30210644 PMCID: PMC6134826 DOI: 10.7150/jca.24506
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1Flow diagram of participants satisfying the criteria for inclusion. Technical failure: samples that yielded insufficient RNA and samples that did not meet the GUSB RNA quality control; see material and methods. In-patients: patients samples collected in FUSCC; Out-patients: samples collected in Shanghai 8th people hospital.
Clinical and histopathological variables for the patients and controls included in the study.
| Variable | Tumor (N=257) | Control (N=132) |
|---|---|---|
| 211 (82.1) | 105 (79.5) | |
| 46 (17.9) | 27 (20.5) | |
| 62.1 | 63.6 | |
| 24-89 | 29-90 | |
| 72 | ||
| 146 | ||
| 39 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 73 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 27 | ||
| 11 |
Figure 2Diagnostic performance of 4 gene expression classifiers in the Chinese validation cohort. A) ROC curves and overall diagnostic performances of the 4 diagnostic gene expression classifiers in the Chinese cohort. B) SN of 4 gene expression classifiers in BC risk groups. Abbreviation: AUC, area under curve. PPV, positive predictive value. NPV, negative predictive value
Figure 3Diagnostic performance of 4 the gene expression classifiers in primary and recurrent BC. A) SN of 4 gene expression classifiers in primary and recurrent BC. B) SN of the 10-gene expression classifier (GS_D10) between primary and recurrent cases in BC risk groups. Numbers in the boxes indicate the patient numbers for each group.
Sensitivity comparison of 4 gene classifiers and cytology
| Grade | Overall | LR | HR | MIBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 154/257 | 42 | 89 | 23 | |
| 55% | 19% | 67% | 74% | |
| 78% | 57% | 87% | 83% | |
| 81% | 60% | 90% | 87% | |
| 82% | 60% | 91% | 87% | |
| 79% | 57% | 88% | 83% |
Figure 4Performance comparison of the 4 gene expression classifiers with cytology and NMP22 results. Comparison of the 5-gene classifier (GS_D5) results with cytology (A) and NMP22 results (B). C) Influence on BC diagnosis of each studied gene in the Chinese validation set. D) Comparison of influence top-ranked genes between Caucasian and Chinese populations.
Sensitivity comparison of 4 gene classifiers and NMP22 tests
| Overall | LR | HR | MIBC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 109/257 | 29 | 60 | 19 | |
| 38% | 21% | 45% | 40% | |
| 76% | 48% | 88% | 80% | |
| 78% | 55% | 86% | 87% | |
| 74% | 45% | 86% | 80% | |
| 76% | 52% | 85% | 87% |