Ann Taber1, Youngrok Park2, Alana Lelo2, Frederik Prip1, Jerry Xiao2, Deborah L Berry3, Krysta Chaldekas3, Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen4, George Philips3, Jung-Sik Kim3, Brent T Harris5, Lars Dyrskjøt6, Todd Waldman7. 1. Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 2. Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; Tumor Biology Training Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. 4. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark. 5. Departments of Pathology and Neurology , Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. 6. Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: lars@clin.au.dk. 7. Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. Electronic address: waldmant@georgetown.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Improvements to bladder cancer risk stratification guidelines are needed to better tailor post-operative surveillance and adjuvant therapy to individual patients. We previously identified STAG2 as a commonly mutated tumor suppressor gene in bladder cancer and an independent predictor of progression in NMIBC. Here we test the value of combining STAG2 immunostaining with other risk stratification biomarkers in NMIBC, and as an individual biomarker in MIBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: STAG2 immunohistochemistry was performed on a progressor-enriched cohort of tumors from 297 patients with NMIBC, and on tumors from 406 patients with MIBC from Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the log rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: STAG2-negative low-grade NMIBC tumors were 2.5 times less likely to progress to muscle invasion than STAG2-positive low-grade NMIBC tumors (Log-rank test, P = 0.008). In a composite group of patients with AUA intermediate and high-risk NMIBC tumors, STAG2-negative tumors were less likely to progress (Log-rank test, P = 0.02). In contrast to NMIBC, we show that STAG2 is not useful as a prognostic biomarker in MIBC. CONCLUSIONS: STAG2 immunostaining can be used to subdivide low-grade NMIBC tumors into two groups with substantially different risks of disease progression. Furthermore, STAG2 immunostaining may be useful to enhance NMIBC risk stratification guidelines, though larger cohorts are needed to solidify this conclusion in individual risk groups. STAG2 is not useful as a biomarker in MIBC. Further study of the use of STAG2 immunostaining as a biomarker for predicting the clinical behavior in NMIBC is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Improvements to bladder cancer risk stratification guidelines are needed to better tailor post-operative surveillance and adjuvant therapy to individual patients. We previously identified STAG2 as a commonly mutated tumor suppressor gene in bladder cancer and an independent predictor of progression in NMIBC. Here we test the value of combining STAG2 immunostaining with other risk stratification biomarkers in NMIBC, and as an individual biomarker in MIBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: STAG2 immunohistochemistry was performed on a progressor-enriched cohort of tumors from 297 patients with NMIBC, and on tumors from 406 patients with MIBC from Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the log rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: STAG2-negative low-grade NMIBC tumors were 2.5 times less likely to progress to muscle invasion than STAG2-positive low-grade NMIBC tumors (Log-rank test, P = 0.008). In a composite group of patients with AUA intermediate and high-risk NMIBC tumors, STAG2-negative tumors were less likely to progress (Log-rank test, P = 0.02). In contrast to NMIBC, we show that STAG2 is not useful as a prognostic biomarker in MIBC. CONCLUSIONS: STAG2 immunostaining can be used to subdivide low-grade NMIBC tumors into two groups with substantially different risks of disease progression. Furthermore, STAG2 immunostaining may be useful to enhance NMIBC risk stratification guidelines, though larger cohorts are needed to solidify this conclusion in individual risk groups. STAG2 is not useful as a biomarker in MIBC. Further study of the use of STAG2 immunostaining as a biomarker for predicting the clinical behavior in NMIBC is warranted.
Authors: Bas W G van Rhijn; Theo H van der Kwast; Liyang Liu; Neil E Fleshner; Peter J Bostrom; André N Vis; Sultan S Alkhateeb; Chris H Bangma; Michael A S Jewett; Ellen C Zwarthoff; Alexandre R Zlotta; Bharati Bapat Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: I Tosoni; U Wagner; G Sauter; M Egloff; H Knönagel; G Alund; F Bannwart; M J Mihatsch; T C Gasser; R Maurer Journal: BJU Int Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: C Billerey; D Chopin; M H Aubriot-Lorton; D Ricol; S Gil Diez de Medina; B Van Rhijn; M P Bralet; M A Lefrere-Belda; J B Lahaye; C C Abbou; J Bonaventure; E S Zafrani; T van der Kwast; J P Thiery; F Radvanyi Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: J Kononen; L Bubendorf; A Kallioniemi; M Bärlund; P Schraml; S Leighton; J Torhorst; M J Mihatsch; G Sauter; O P Kallioniemi Journal: Nat Med Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Cristina Balbás-Martínez; Ana Sagrera; Enrique Carrillo-de-Santa-Pau; Julie Earl; Mirari Márquez; Miguel Vazquez; Eleonora Lapi; Francesc Castro-Giner; Sergi Beltran; Mònica Bayés; Alfredo Carrato; Juan C Cigudosa; Orlando Domínguez; Marta Gut; Jesús Herranz; Núria Juanpere; Manolis Kogevinas; Xavier Langa; Elena López-Knowles; José A Lorente; Josep Lloreta; David G Pisano; Laia Richart; Daniel Rico; Rocío N Salgado; Adonina Tardón; Stephen Chanock; Simon Heath; Alfonso Valencia; Ana Losada; Ivo Gut; Núria Malats; Francisco X Real Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-10-13 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: David A Solomon; Jung-Sik Kim; Jolanta Bondaruk; Shahrokh F Shariat; Zeng-Feng Wang; Abdel G Elkahloun; Tomoko Ozawa; Julia Gerard; Dazhong Zhuang; Shizhen Zhang; Neema Navai; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Joanna J Phillips; Brian D Robinson; Mark A Rubin; Björn Volkmer; Richard Hautmann; Rainer Küfer; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; George Netto; Dan Theodorescu; C David James; Bogdan Czerniak; Markku Miettinen; Todd Waldman Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-10-13 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Ann Taber; Emil Christensen; Philippe Lamy; Iver Nordentoft; Frederik Prip; Sia Viborg Lindskrog; Karin Birkenkamp-Demtröder; Trine Line Hauge Okholm; Michael Knudsen; Jakob Skou Pedersen; Torben Steiniche; Mads Agerbæk; Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen; Lars Dyrskjøt Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Naheema S Gordon; Nada Humayun-Zakaria; Anshita Goel; Ben Abbotts; Maurice P Zeegers; K K Cheng; Nicholas D James; Roland Arnold; Richard T Bryan; Douglas G Ward Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-03-04
Authors: Abdelhalim Boukaba; Jian Liu; Carl Ward; Qiongfang Wu; Alexei Arnaoutov; Jierong Liang; Elena M Pugacheva; Mary Dasso; Victor Lobanenkov; Miguel Esteban; Alexander V Strunnikov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 12.779