M C Hupe1, G Gakis2, R Seiler3. 1. Klinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Deutschland. mariechristine.hupe@uksh.de. 2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Oberdürrbacher Straße 6, 97080, Würzburg, Deutschland. 3. Departement für Urologie, Inselspital Bern, 3010, Bern, Schweiz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Molecular tumor boards (MTB) are becoming more common. There are several molecular alterations in urothelial cancer a molecular tumor board can potentially rely on. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to specify molecular alterations and their correlations with different clinical endpoints and to highlight potential questions addressed to a MTB for urothelial cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Descriptive review of the literature based on PubMed. RESULTS: The landscape of molecular alterations in urothelial cancer is heterogeneous. Thus, recent biomarker research has been focusing on biomarker panels and classifiers instead of single biomarkers. Recently, molecular subtypes of urothelial cancer have been identified and correlated with different clinical endpoints. Furthermore, circulating tumor cells and tumor DNA are under investigation as potential biomarkers. In addition to treatment response and prognosis, molecular markers are also needed to improve clinical staging prior to radical cystectomy or for proper patient selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Erdafitinib is the first targeted therapy (fibroblast growth factor receptor [FGFR] alteration) in urothelial cancer that was recently approved (in the USA). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of external validation, none of the identified biomarkers is currently established in clinical routine. In addition, there is no single driver mutation in urothelial cancer that facilitates the development of biomarkers and targeted therapies.
BACKGROUND:Molecular tumor boards (MTB) are becoming more common. There are several molecular alterations in urothelial cancer a molecular tumor board can potentially rely on. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to specify molecular alterations and their correlations with different clinical endpoints and to highlight potential questions addressed to a MTB for urothelial cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Descriptive review of the literature based on PubMed. RESULTS: The landscape of molecular alterations in urothelial cancer is heterogeneous. Thus, recent biomarker research has been focusing on biomarker panels and classifiers instead of single biomarkers. Recently, molecular subtypes of urothelial cancer have been identified and correlated with different clinical endpoints. Furthermore, circulating tumor cells and tumor DNA are under investigation as potential biomarkers. In addition to treatment response and prognosis, molecular markers are also needed to improve clinical staging prior to radical cystectomy or for proper patient selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Erdafitinib is the first targeted therapy (fibroblast growth factor receptor [FGFR] alteration) in urothelial cancer that was recently approved (in the USA). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of external validation, none of the identified biomarkers is currently established in clinical routine. In addition, there is no single driver mutation in urothelial cancer that facilitates the development of biomarkers and targeted therapies.
Authors: Jens-Peter Volkmer; Debashis Sahoo; Robert K Chin; Philip Levy Ho; Chad Tang; Antonina V Kurtova; Stephen B Willingham; Senthil K Pazhanisamy; Humberto Contreras-Trujillo; Theresa A Storm; Yair Lotan; Andrew H Beck; Benjamin I Chung; Ash A Alizadeh; Guilherme Godoy; Seth P Lerner; Matt van de Rijn; Linda D Shortliffe; Irving L Weissman; Keith S Chan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Michael Rink; Felix K Chun; Roland Dahlem; Armin Soave; Sarah Minner; Jens Hansen; Malgorzata Stoupiec; Cornelia Coith; Luis A Kluth; Sascha A Ahyai; Martin G Friedrich; Shahrokh F Shariat; Margit Fisch; Klaus Pantel; Sabine Riethdorf Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J P Stein; G Lieskovsky; R Cote; S Groshen; A C Feng; S Boyd; E Skinner; B Bochner; D Thangathurai; M Mikhail; D Raghavan; D G Skinner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Steven Christopher Smith; Alexander Spyridon Baras; Garrett Dancik; Yuanbin Ru; Kuan-Fu Ding; Christopher A Moskaluk; Yves Fradet; Jan Lehmann; Michael Stöckle; Arndt Hartmann; Jae K Lee; Dan Theodorescu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Gopa Iyer; Manickam Janakiraman; Oscar Lin; Adriana Heguy; Satish K Tickoo; Samson W Fine; Anuradha Gopalan; Ying-bei Chen; Arjun Balar; Jamie Riches; Bernard Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; Dean F Bajorin; Victor E Reuter; Matthew I Milowsky; David B Solit Journal: J Pathol Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Stephen H Culp; Rian J Dickstein; H Barton Grossman; Shanna M Pretzsch; Sima Porten; Siamak Daneshmand; Jie Cai; Susan Groshen; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Randall E Millikan; Bogdan Czerniak; Neema Navai; Matthew F Wszolek; Ashish M Kamat; Colin P N Dinney Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 7.450