Uttam Satyal1, Rahmat K Sikder1, David McConkey2, Elizabeth R Plimack3, Philip H Abbosh1,4. 1. Molecular Therapeutics Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Johns Hopkins Greenberg Bladder Cancer Institute, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. 4. Albert Einstein Medical Center, Department of Urology, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to examine and evaluate similarities and differences in bladder cancer expression subtypes and to understand the clinical implications of the molecular subtyping. RECENT FINDINGS: Four independent classification systems have been described, and there are broad similarities among the subtyping callers. Two major subtypes have been identified, that is, luminal and basal, with underlying subcategories based on various distinct characteristics. Luminal tumors generally bear a better prognosis and increased survival than basal tumors, although there is subtle variation in prognosis among the different subtypes within the luminal and basal classifications. Clinical subtyping is now commercially available, although there are limitations to its generalizability and application. SUMMARY: Expression subtyping is a new method to personalize bladder cancer management. However, there is probably not sufficient evidence to incorporate use into current standards-of-care. Validation cohorts with clinically meaningful outcomes may further establish the clinical relevance of molecular subtyping of bladder cancer. Additionally, genetic alterations in bladder cancer may 'color' the interpretation of individual tumors beyond the expression subtype to truly personalize care for bladder cancer.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to examine and evaluate similarities and differences in bladder cancer expression subtypes and to understand the clinical implications of the molecular subtyping. RECENT FINDINGS: Four independent classification systems have been described, and there are broad similarities among the subtyping callers. Two major subtypes have been identified, that is, luminal and basal, with underlying subcategories based on various distinct characteristics. Luminal tumors generally bear a better prognosis and increased survival than basal tumors, although there is subtle variation in prognosis among the different subtypes within the luminal and basal classifications. Clinical subtyping is now commercially available, although there are limitations to its generalizability and application. SUMMARY: Expression subtyping is a new method to personalize bladder cancer management. However, there is probably not sufficient evidence to incorporate use into current standards-of-care. Validation cohorts with clinically meaningful outcomes may further establish the clinical relevance of molecular subtyping of bladder cancer. Additionally, genetic alterations in bladder cancer may 'color' the interpretation of individual tumors beyond the expression subtype to truly personalize care for bladder cancer.
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: H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Catherine M Tangen; V O Speights; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ralph W deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; David P Wood; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marco Gerlinger; Andrew J Rowan; Stuart Horswell; James Larkin; David Endesfelder; Eva Gronroos; Pierre Martinez; Nicholas Matthews; Aengus Stewart; Charles Swanton; M Math; Patrick Tarpey; Ignacio Varela; Benjamin Phillimore; Sharmin Begum; Neil Q McDonald; Adam Butler; David Jones; Keiran Raine; Calli Latimer; Claudio R Santos; Mahrokh Nohadani; Aron C Eklund; Bradley Spencer-Dene; Graham Clark; Lisa Pickering; Gordon Stamp; Martin Gore; Zoltan Szallasi; Julian Downward; P Andrew Futreal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marco Gerlinger; Stuart Horswell; James Larkin; Andrew J Rowan; Max P Salm; Ignacio Varela; Rosalie Fisher; Nicholas McGranahan; Nicholas Matthews; Claudio R Santos; Pierre Martinez; Benjamin Phillimore; Sharmin Begum; Adam Rabinowitz; Bradley Spencer-Dene; Sakshi Gulati; Paul A Bates; Gordon Stamp; Lisa Pickering; Martin Gore; David L Nicol; Steven Hazell; P Andrew Futreal; Aengus Stewart; Charles Swanton Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2014-02-02 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Aaron A Mehus; Nicholas Bergum; Peter Knutson; Swojani Shrestha; Xu Dong Zhou; Scott H Garrett; Donald A Sens; Mary Ann Sens; Seema Somji Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ekaterina Olkhov-Mitsel; Yanhong Yu; Katherine Lajkosz; Stanley K Liu; Danny Vesprini; Christopher G Sherman; Michelle R Downes Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Antonio Gómez Caamaño; Ana M García Vicente; Pablo Maroto; Alfredo Rodríguez Antolín; Julián Sanz; María Almudena Vera González; Miguel Ángel Climent Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 3.677