Satoshi Katayama1,2, Victor M Schuettfort1,3, Benjamin Pradere1, Keiichiro Mori1,4, Hadi Mostafaei1,5, Fahad Quhal1,6, Reza Sari Motlagh1,7, Ekaterina Laukhtina1,8, Nico C Grossmann1,9, Abdulmajeed Aydh1,10, Pawel Rajwa1,11, Frederik König1,3, Pierre I Karakiewicz12, Martin Haydter13, Marco Moschini1,14, Mohammad Abufaraj1,15, Yair Lotan16, Richard K Lee17, Quoc-Dien Trinh18, Eva Compérat19, Jeremy Teoh20, Yasutomo Nasu2, Shahrokh F Shariat21,22,23,24,25,26,27. 1. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan. 3. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. 6. Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. 7. Men's Health and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 8. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. 9. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 10. Department of Urology, King Faisal Medical City, Abha, Saudi Arabia. 11. Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, 41-800, Zabrze, Poland. 12. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. 13. Department of Urology, Landesklinikum Wiener Neustadt, Vienna, Austria. 14. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132, Milano, Italy. 15. Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. 16. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. 17. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 18. Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. 19. Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 20. Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 21. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 22. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 23. Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 24. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 25. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 26. Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 27. Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The HGF/MET pathway is involved in cell motility, angiogenesis, proliferation, and cancer invasion. We assessed the clinical utility of plasma HGF level as a prognostic biomarker in patients with MIBC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 565 patients with MIBC who underwent radical cystectomy. Logistic regression and Cox regression models were used, and predictive accuracies were estimated using the area under the curve and concordance index. To estimate the clinical utility of HGF, DCA and MCID were applied. RESULTS: Plasma HGF level was significantly higher in patients with advanced pathologic stage and LN metastasis (p = 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). Higher HGF levels were associated with an increased risk of harboring LN metastasis and non-organ-confined disease (OR1.21, 95%CI 1.12-1.32, p < 0.001, and OR1.35, 95%CI 1.23-1.48, p < 0.001, respectively) on multivariable analyses; the addition of HGF improved the predictive accuracies of a standard preoperative model (+ 7%, p < 0.001 and + 8%, p < 0.001, respectively). According to the DCA and MCID, half of the patients had a net benefit by including HGF, but the absolute magnitude remained limited. In pre- and postoperative predictive models, a higher HGF level was significant prognosticator of worse RFS, OS, and CSS; in the preoperative model, the addition of HGF improved accuracies by 6% and 5% for RFS and CSS, respectively. CONCLUSION: Preoperative HGF identified MIBC patients who harbored features of clinically and biologically aggressive disease. Plasma HGF could serve, as part of a panel, as a biomarker to aid in preoperative treatment planning regarding intensity of treatment in patients with clinical MIBC.
PURPOSE: The HGF/MET pathway is involved in cell motility, angiogenesis, proliferation, and cancer invasion. We assessed the clinical utility of plasma HGF level as a prognostic biomarker in patients with MIBC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 565 patients with MIBC who underwent radical cystectomy. Logistic regression and Cox regression models were used, and predictive accuracies were estimated using the area under the curve and concordance index. To estimate the clinical utility of HGF, DCA and MCID were applied. RESULTS: Plasma HGF level was significantly higher in patients with advanced pathologic stage and LN metastasis (p = 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). Higher HGF levels were associated with an increased risk of harboring LN metastasis and non-organ-confined disease (OR1.21, 95%CI 1.12-1.32, p < 0.001, and OR1.35, 95%CI 1.23-1.48, p < 0.001, respectively) on multivariable analyses; the addition of HGF improved the predictive accuracies of a standard preoperative model (+ 7%, p < 0.001 and + 8%, p < 0.001, respectively). According to the DCA and MCID, half of the patients had a net benefit by including HGF, but the absolute magnitude remained limited. In pre- and postoperative predictive models, a higher HGF level was significant prognosticator of worse RFS, OS, and CSS; in the preoperative model, the addition of HGF improved accuracies by 6% and 5% for RFS and CSS, respectively. CONCLUSION: Preoperative HGF identified MIBC patients who harbored features of clinically and biologically aggressive disease. Plasma HGF could serve, as part of a panel, as a biomarker to aid in preoperative treatment planning regarding intensity of treatment in patients with clinical MIBC.
Authors: Robert S Svatek; Shahrokh F Shariat; Robert E Lasky; Eila C Skinner; Giacomo Novara; Seth P Lerner; Yves Fradet; Patrick J Bastian; Wassim Kassouf; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Hans-Martin Fritsche; Stefan C Müller; Jonathan I Izawa; Vincenzo Ficarra; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Mark P Schoenberg; Arlene O Siefker-Radtke; Randall E Millikan; Colin P N Dinney Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Luis A Kluth; Peter C Black; Bernard H Bochner; James Catto; Seth P Lerner; Arnulf Stenzl; Richard Sylvester; Andrew J Vickers; Evanguelos Xylinas; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Huy Gia Vuong; An Thi Nhat Ho; Ahmed M A Altibi; Tadao Nakazawa; Ryohei Katoh; Tetsuo Kondo Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Daher C Chade; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Raheela Ashfaq; Hendrik Isbarn; Yves Fradet; Patrick J Bastian; Matthew E Nielsen; Umberto Capitanio; Claudio Jeldres; Francesco Montorsi; Seth P Lerner; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Richard J Cote; Yair Lotan Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: E Xylinas; B D Robinson; L A Kluth; B G Volkmer; R Hautmann; R Küfer; M Zerbib; E Kwon; R H Thompson; S A Boorjian; S F Shariat Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 4.424