Eugene J Pietzak1, Emily C Zabor2, Aditya Bagrodia3, Joshua Armenia4, Wenhuo Hu4, Ahmet Zehir4, Samuel Funt5, Francois Audenet3, David Barron6, Noelia Maamouri3, Qiang Li3, Min Yuen Teo5, Maria E Arcila4, Michael F Berger4, Nikolaus Schultz4, Guido Dalbagni3, Harry W Herr3, Dean F Bajorin5, Jonathan E Rosenberg5, Hikmat Al-Ahmadie7, Bernard H Bochner3, David B Solit8, Gopa Iyer8. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: pietzake@MSKCC.org. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 8. Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). It is unknown whether this treatment strategy is appropriate for patients who progress to MIBC after treatment for prior noninvasive disease (secondary MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether clinical and genomic differences exist between primary and secondary MIBC treated with NAC and RC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinicopathologic outcomes were compared between 245 patients with clinical T2-4aN0M0-stage primary MIBC and 43 with secondary MIBC treated with NAC and RC at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 2001 to 2015. Genomic differences were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 385 prechemotherapy specimens sequenced by whole-exome or targeted exon capture by the Cancer Genome Atlas or at MSKCC. Findings were confirmed in an independent validation cohort of 94 MIBC patients undergoing prospective targeted exon sequencing at MSKCC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Pathologic response rates, recurrence-free survival (RFS), bladder cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were measured. Differences in somatic genomic alteration rates were compared using Fisher's exact test and the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients with secondary MIBC had lower pathologic response rates following NAC than those with primary MIBC (univariable: 26% vs 45%, multivariable: odds ratio=0.4 [95% confidence interval=0.18-0.84] p=0.02) and significantly worse RFS, CSS, and OS. Patients with secondary MIBC treated with NAC had worse CSS compared with cystectomy alone (p=0.002). In a separate genomic analysis, we detected significantly more likely deleterious somatic ERCC2 missense mutations in primary MIBC tumors in both the discovery (10.9% [36/330] vs 1.8% [1/55], p=0.04) and the validation (15.7% [12/70] vs 0% [0/24], p=0.03) cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with secondary MIBC treated with NAC had worse clinical outcomes than similarly treated patients with primary MIBC. ERCC2 mutations predicted to result in increased cisplatin sensitivity were enriched in primary versus secondary MIBC. Prospective validation is still needed, but given the lack of clinical benefit with cisplatin-based NAC in patients with secondary MIBC, upfront RC or enrollment in clinical trials should be considered. PATIENT SUMMARY: A retrospective cohort study of patients with "primary" and "secondary" muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) treated with chemotherapy before surgical removal of the bladder identified lower response rates and shorter survival in patients with secondary MIBC. Tumor genetic sequencing of separate discovery and validation cohorts revealed that chemotherapy-sensitizing DNA damage repair gene mutations occur predominantly in primary MIBC tumors and may underlie the greater sensitivity of primary MIBC to chemotherapy. Prospective validation is still needed, but patients with secondary MIBC may derive greater benefit from upfront surgery or enrollment in clinical trials rather than from standard chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). It is unknown whether this treatment strategy is appropriate for patients who progress to MIBC after treatment for prior noninvasive disease (secondary MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether clinical and genomic differences exist between primary and secondary MIBC treated with NAC and RC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinicopathologic outcomes were compared between 245 patients with clinical T2-4aN0M0-stage primary MIBC and 43 with secondary MIBC treated with NAC and RC at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 2001 to 2015. Genomic differences were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 385 prechemotherapy specimens sequenced by whole-exome or targeted exon capture by the Cancer Genome Atlas or at MSKCC. Findings were confirmed in an independent validation cohort of 94 MIBC patients undergoing prospective targeted exon sequencing at MSKCC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Pathologic response rates, recurrence-free survival (RFS), bladder cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were measured. Differences in somatic genomic alteration rates were compared using Fisher's exact test and the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients with secondary MIBC had lower pathologic response rates following NAC than those with primary MIBC (univariable: 26% vs 45%, multivariable: odds ratio=0.4 [95% confidence interval=0.18-0.84] p=0.02) and significantly worse RFS, CSS, and OS. Patients with secondary MIBC treated with NAC had worse CSS compared with cystectomy alone (p=0.002). In a separate genomic analysis, we detected significantly more likely deleterious somatic ERCC2 missense mutations in primary MIBC tumors in both the discovery (10.9% [36/330] vs 1.8% [1/55], p=0.04) and the validation (15.7% [12/70] vs 0% [0/24], p=0.03) cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with secondary MIBC treated with NAC had worse clinical outcomes than similarly treated patients with primary MIBC. ERCC2 mutations predicted to result in increased cisplatin sensitivity were enriched in primary versus secondary MIBC. Prospective validation is still needed, but given the lack of clinical benefit with cisplatin-based NAC in patients with secondary MIBC, upfront RC or enrollment in clinical trials should be considered. PATIENT SUMMARY: A retrospective cohort study of patients with "primary" and "secondary" muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) treated with chemotherapy before surgical removal of the bladder identified lower response rates and shorter survival in patients with secondary MIBC. Tumor genetic sequencing of separate discovery and validation cohorts revealed that chemotherapy-sensitizing DNA damage repair gene mutations occur predominantly in primary MIBC tumors and may underlie the greater sensitivity of primary MIBC to chemotherapy. Prospective validation is still needed, but patients with secondary MIBC may derive greater benefit from upfront surgery or enrollment in clinical trials rather than from standard chemotherapy.
Authors: Floris H Groenendijk; Jeroen de Jong; Elisabeth E Fransen van de Putte; Magali Michaut; Andreas Schlicker; Dennis Peters; Arno Velds; Marja Nieuwland; Michel M van den Heuvel; Ron M Kerkhoven; Lodewijk F Wessels; Annegien Broeks; Bas W G van Rhijn; René Bernards; Michiel S van der Heijden Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Neil B Desai; Sasinya N Scott; Emily C Zabor; Eugene K Cha; Joseph Hreiki; John P Sfakianos; Ricardo Ramirez; Aditya Bagrodia; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Dean F Bajorin; Michael F Berger; Bernard H Bochner; Michael J Zelefsky; Marisa A Kollmeier; Irina Ostrovnaya; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; David B Solit; Gopa Iyer Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Woonyoung Choi; Sima Porten; Seungchan Kim; Daniel Willis; Elizabeth R Plimack; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Beat Roth; Tiewei Cheng; Mai Tran; I-Ling Lee; Jonathan Melquist; Jolanta Bondaruk; Tadeusz Majewski; Shizhen Zhang; Shanna Pretzsch; Keith Baggerly; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Bogdan Czerniak; Colin P N Dinney; David J McConkey Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Jeffrey S Damrauer; Katherine A Hoadley; David D Chism; Cheng Fan; Christopher J Tiganelli; Sara E Wobker; Jen Jen Yeh; Matthew I Milowsky; Gopa Iyer; Joel S Parker; William Y Kim Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 11.205
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: Guru Sonpavde; Bryan H Goldman; V O Speights; Seth P Lerner; David P Wood; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ronald B Natale; H Barton Grossman; E David Crawford Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Zsofia K Stadler; Francesca Battaglin; Sumit Middha; Jaclyn F Hechtman; Christina Tran; Andrea Cercek; Rona Yaeger; Neil H Segal; Anna M Varghese; Diane L Reidy-Lagunes; Nancy E Kemeny; Erin E Salo-Mullen; Asad Ashraf; Martin R Weiser; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Mark E Robson; Kenneth Offit; Maria E Arcila; Michael F Berger; Jinru Shia; David B Solit; Leonard B Saltz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew I Milowsky; R Bryan Rumble; Christopher M Booth; Timothy Gilligan; Libni J Eapen; Ralph J Hauke; Pat Boumansour; Cheryl T Lee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Liu; Elizabeth R Plimack; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Levi A Garraway; Joaquim Bellmunt; Eliezer Van Allen; Jonathan E Rosenberg Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Filippo Pederzoli; Marco Bandini; Alberto Briganti; Elizabeth R Plimack; Günter Niegisch; Evan Y Yu; Aristotelis Bamias; Neeraj Agarwal; Srikala S Sridhar; Cora N Sternberg; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Christine Théodore; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Lauren C Harshman; Joaquim Bellmunt; Matthew D Galsky; Andrea Gallina; Andrea Salonia; Francesco Montorsi; Andrea Necchi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Rafee Talukder; Dimitrios Makrakis; Leonidas N Diamantopoulos; Lucia Carril-Ajuria; Daniel Castellano; Ivan De Kouchkovsky; Vadim S Koshkin; Joseph J Park; Ajjai Alva; Mehmet A Bilen; Tyler F Stewart; Rana R McKay; Victor S Santos; Neeraj Agarwal; Jayanshu Jain; Yousef Zakharia; Rafael Morales-Barrera; Michael E Devitt; Michael Grant; Mark P Lythgoe; David J Pinato; Ariel Nelson; Christopher J Hoimes; Evan Shreck; Benjamin A Gartrell; Alex Sankin; Abhishek Tripathi; Roubini Zakopoulou; Aristotelis Bamias; Jure Murgic; Ana Fröbe; Alejo Rodriguez-Vida; Alexandra Drakaki; Sandy Liu; Vivek Kumar; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Monika Joshi; Pedro Isaacsson Velho; Lucia Alonso Buznego; Ignacio Duran; Marcus Moses; Pedro Barata; Guru Sonpavde; Evan Y Yu; Jonathan L Wright; Petros Grivas; Ali Raza Khaki Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Albert Font; Montserrat Domenech; Oscar Buisan; Hector Lopez; Andrea González; Olatz Etxaniz; Marta Matas; Xavier Elias; Maica Gomez; Mariona Figols; Judith Horneros; Juan Carlos Pardo; Lucia Notario; Vicenç Ruiz de Porras; Ignacio Perez; Joan Areal; Anna Esteve Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Chana Weinstock; Matthew D Galsky; Elaine Chang; Andrea B Apolo; Rick Bangs; Stephanie Chisolm; Vinay Duddalwar; Jason A Efstathiou; Kirsten B Goldberg; Donna E Hansel; Ashish M Kamat; Paul G Kluetz; Seth P Lerner; Elizabeth Plimack; Tatiana Prowell; Harpreet Singh; Daniel Suzman; Evan Y Yu; Hui Zhang; Julia A Beaver; Richard Pazdur Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Mario Pones; David D'Andrea; Keiichiro Mori; Mohammad Abufraj; Marco Moschini; Eva Comperat; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 6.639