| Literature DB >> 34934968 |
Maria Skydt Lindgren1,2,3,4, Philippe Lamy3, Sia Viborg Lindskrog3,4, Emil Christensen3,4, Iver Nordentoft3, Karin Birkenkamp-Demtröder3,4, Benedicte Parm Ulhøi5, Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen1,2,4, Lars Dyrskjøt3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, no biomarkers of response to mitomycin C have been identified in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients. Predictive biomarkers could improve the treatment outcome and eliminate adverse events from unnecessary treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarkers; Bladder cancer; Chemoablation; Chemoresection; Intravesical instillations; Mitomycin C; Non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer; Predictive biomarkers; Urothelial carcinoma
Year: 2021 PMID: 34934968 PMCID: PMC8655384 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.09.018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci ISSN: 2666-1683
Fig. 1Clinical characteristics of analysed patients. (A) Tumour timeline. Chemo-naïve samples are tumours removed prior to study inclusion. For illustrative purposes, the dashed line is divided by two for ID 48. (B) Flowchart for exome sequencing analysis. (C) Recurrence-free survival (RFS) estimates by treatment response to chemoresection. FFPE = formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded block; NR = nonresponding patients; RFS = recurrence-free survival; WES = whole exome sequencing.
Fig. 2Clinical characteristics and genomic alterations associated with response to chemoresection. (A) Oncoplot showing the most frequently mutated genes, known to be associated with bladder cancer in the 47 chemo-naïve tumour samples. Genes listed in bold have a statistically significant association with treatment response. The top panels are annotated by mutation load, which is impact stratified according to SnpEff and mutational signatures. The bottom panel is annotated by clinical and histopathological characteristics, treatment response, recurrence during 12 mo of follow-up, and the number of DDR-related genes with protein damaging mutations. (B and C) Boxplots showing the total number of SNVs and indels by treatment response. (D) Boxplot showing the APOBEC signature contribution by treatment response. DDR = DNA damage response; indel = insertion or deletion; NA = not applicable; SBS = single-base substitution; SNV = single-nucleotide variant.
Fig. 3Independent validation: (A–G) Kaplan-Meier plots showing the recurrence-free survival estimates in the UROMOL cohort by gene mutation status for patients treated both with and without MMC. (H) RNA-based immune score by FGFR3 mutation status in the UROMOL cohort. MMC = mitomycin C; RFS = recurrence-free survival; WT = wild type.
Fig. 4Clonal evolution following MMC treatment. (A and C) Scatter plots of allele frequencies of mutations in chemo-naïve and postchemo samples for ID 35 and ID 41. (B and D) Tumour evolution trees inferred by SNVs and indels for ID 35 and ID 41. The vertical line shows the proportion of shared mutations between chemo-naïve and postchemo samples. The proportions of private mutations are shown in the branches. The total number of mutations is listed at the bottom of each tree. Indel = insertion or deletion; MMC = mitomycin C; SNV = single-nucleotide variant.