| Literature DB >> 31077629 |
Douglas G Ward1, Naheema S Gordon1, Rebecca H Boucher1, Sarah J Pirrie1, Laura Baxter2, Sascha Ott2, Lee Silcock3, Celina M Whalley1, Joanne D Stockton1, Andrew D Beggs1, Mike Griffiths4, Ben Abbotts1, Hanieh Ijakipour1, Fathimath N Latheef1, Robert A Robinson1, Andrew J White1, Nicholas D James1, Maurice P Zeegers5, K K Cheng6, Richard T Bryan1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a focused panel of somatic mutations (SMs) present in the majority of urothelial bladder cancers (UBCs), to investigate the diagnostic and prognostic utility of this panel, and to compare the identification of SMs in urinary cell-pellet (cp)DNA and cell-free (cf)DNA as part of the development of a non-invasive clinical assay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A panel of SMs was validated by targeted deep-sequencing of tumour DNA from 956 patients with UBC. In addition, amplicon and capture-based targeted sequencing measured mutant allele frequencies (MAFs) of SMs in 314 urine cpDNAs and 153 urine cfDNAs. The association of SMs with grade, stage, and clinical outcomes was investigated by univariate and multivariate Cox models. Concordance between SMs detected in tumour tissue and cpDNA and cfDNA was assessed.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990DNAzzm321990; #BladderCancer; #blcsm; detection; diagnosis; mutations; prognosis; urine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31077629 PMCID: PMC6772022 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14808
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BJU Int ISSN: 1464-4096 Impact factor: 5.588
Figure 1Summary of the biospecimens analysed by amplicon sequencing. SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms. *Used in the experiments reported by Russo et al. Bladder Cancer 2018; 4: 41–48.
Patient and tumour characteristics.
| Variable | Tumours ( | Urine cpDNA ( | Urine cfDNA ( | Capture‐based analyses of cpDNA and cfDNA ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years, median (range) | 71 (26–95) | 72 (26–91) | 73 (26–88) | 74 (44–89) |
|
| ||||
| Male | 748 (78.2) | 247 (78.7) | 126 (82.4) | 32 (71.1) |
| Female | 208 (21.8) | 67 (21.3) | 27 (17.6) | 13 (28.9) |
| Grade 1 (G1) | 174 (18.2) | 53 (16.9) | 26 (16.9) | 12 (26.7) |
| Grade 2 (G2) | 290 (30.3) | 100 (31.8) | 42 (27.5) | 14 (31.1) |
| Grade 3 (G3) | 478 (50.0) | 153 (48.7) | 80 (52.3) | 19 (42.2) |
| Unknown (U) | 14 (1.5) | 8 (2.5) | 5 (3.3) | 0 |
| CIS [G1/G2/G3/U] | 3 [0/0/3/0] (0.3) | 3 [0/0/3/0] (1.0) | 3 [0/0/3/0] (2.0) | 0 |
| pTa [G1/G2/G3/U] | 466 [169/224/71/2] (48.7) | 143 [52/73/17/1] (45.5) | 64 [25/30/9/0] (41.8) | 26 [12/11/3/0] (57.8) |
| pT1 [G1/G2/G3/U] | 263 [5/58/194/6] (27.5) | 89 [1/24/60/4] (28.3) | 42 [1/11/28/2] (27.5) | 9 [0/2/7/0] (20.0) |
| ≥pT2 [G1/G2/G3/U] | 224 [0/9/209/6] (23.4) | 79 [0/3/73/3] (25.2) | 44 [0/1/40/3] (28.7) | 10 [0/1/9/0] (22.2) |
CIS, carcinoma in situ; pT, pathological T stage.
Mutation frequencies across grades and stages of bladder cancer.
| Gene | G1pTa( | G2pTa( | G3pTa ( | G2pT1 ( | G3pT1 ( | ≥pT2( | Other( | Total( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 63.9 | 74.6 | 69.0 | 81.0 | 79.9 | 87.1 | 75.0 | 76.7 |
|
| 71.6 | 72.8 | 42.3 | 51.7 | 27.3 | 12.9 | 25.0 | 45.0 |
|
| 37.9 | 38.8 | 29.6 | 32.8 | 21.6 | 30.4 | 31.3 | 32 |
|
| 4.7 | 9.4 | 23.9 | 15.5 | 41.8 | 53.6 | 37.5 | 27.4 |
|
| 10.1 | 12.9 | 23.9 | 12.1 | 21.1 | 10.3 | 18.8 | 14.3 |
|
| 9.5 | 6.3 | 4.2 | 10.3 | 8.2 | 6.3 | 12.5 | 7.4 |
|
| 3.6 | 4.9 | 9.9 | 5.2 | 12.9 | 4.9 | 12.5 | 6.8 |
|
| 7.7 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 3.4 | 6.2 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 4.7 |
|
| 1.8 | 4.9 | 5.6 | 8.6 | 7.2 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 4.7 |
|
| 5.3 | 0.4 | 4.2 | 10.3 | 6.7 | 4.5 | 12.5 | 4.6 |
|
| 0.6 | 3.1 | 8.5 | 1.7 | 7.2 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 4.1 |
|
| 5.3 | 0.9 | 4.2 | 10.3 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 12.5 | 3.9 |
|
| 1.2 | 4.9 | 4.2 | 8.6 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 3.1 |
|
| 8.3 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 2.8 |
|
| 1.8 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 5.2 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 6.3 | 2.7 |
|
| 1.8 | 1.8 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 2.4 |
|
| 0.0 | 1.3 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 3.6 | 6.3 | 2.1 |
|
| 0.0 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 2.7 | 6.3 | 1.9 |
|
| 1.2 | 0.4 | 4.2 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 6.3 | 1.4 |
|
| 0.0 | 1.3 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 6.3 | 1.4 |
|
| 0.0 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 1.4 |
|
| 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 6.3 | 1.0 |
|
| 1.2 | 0.9 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.9 |
| Any gene | 93.5 | 95.5 | 94.4 | 98.3 | 96.9 | 97.8 | 93.8 | 96.0 |
Results are presented as the percentage of tumours in each category with a mutation in each (or any) gene. The ‘other’ category includes three cases of solitary Tis, five cases of G1pT1, and eight NMIBCs where grade was not recorded. G1, Grade 1; G2, Grade 2; G3, Grade 3.
Figure 2Genes in which tumour mutation frequency demonstrated significant differences between NMIBC risk groups and/or MIBC. ,, have been combined as . pink, wild type; magenta, mutated. LR, low‐risk NMIBC; IR, intermediate‐risk NMIBC; HR, high‐risk NMIBC.
Figure 3The effect of the six commonest mutated genes on disease‐specific survival across the entire cohort of 956 patients (wild = wild type).
Figure 4SMs with a significant influence on time to recurrence in NMIBC (wild = wild type).
Figure 5Correlation between paired urine cfDNA and cpDNA yields.
Figure 6Detection of SMs in urine cfDNA and cpDNA. The graph shows the allele frequencies of mutations identified in tumours when measured in matched cfDNAs and cpDNAs by amplicon sequencing (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.70, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = 0.86).
Figure 7Percentage of tumours with mutations in individual genes and detection of these mutations in urinary cpDNA and cfDNA by amplicon sequencing. (a) shows the six commonest mutations (HRAS, KRAS and NRAS have been combined as RAS) and (b) shows the remaining 15. In this subset of 153 trios of tumour tissue DNA, cpDNA and cfDNA, no CDKN2A mutations were identified.
Figure 8Capture‐based urine DNA analysis. (a) shows the correlation between MAFs in urinary DNA determined by capture‐based and amplicon‐based methods (filled triangles, cfDNA; hollow circles, cpDNA; Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.95, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = 0.91). (b) shows the correlation between MAFs in cfDNA and cpDNA determined by the capture‐based method in paired samples from 45 patients (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.79, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = 0.76).