| Literature DB >> 35804953 |
Xinzi Hu1,2, Guangzhi Li1,2, Song Wu1,2.
Abstract
Bladder cancer (BCa) is one of the most common and expensive urinary system malignancies for its high recurrence and progression rate. In recent years, immense amounts of studies have been carried out to bring a more comprehensive cognition and numerous promising clinic approaches for BCa therapy. The development of innovative enhanced cystoscopy techniques (optical techniques, imaging systems) and tumor biomarkers-based non-invasive urine screening (DNA methylation-based urine test) would dramatically improve the accuracy of tumor detection, reducing the risk of recurrence and progression of BCa. Moreover, intravesical instillation and systemic therapeutic strategies (cocktail therapy, immunotherapy, vaccine therapy, targeted therapy) also provide plentiful measures to break the predicament of BCa. Several exploratory clinical studies, including novel surgical approaches, pharmaceutical compositions, and bladder preservation techniques, emerged continually, which are supposed to be promising candidates for BCa clinical treatment. Here, recent advances and prospects of diagnosis, intravesical or systemic treatment, and novel drug delivery systems for BCa therapy are reviewed in this paper.Entities:
Keywords: bladder cancer; diagnosis; intravesical or systemic therapy; liquid biopsy; non-invasive urine screening
Year: 2022 PMID: 35804953 PMCID: PMC9265007 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14133181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1Schematic illustration of the mechanism of PDD. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [13], Copyright (2021) Sasaki et al.
Figure 2AI model based on blue light cystoscopy for BCa diagnosis. (A) Overview of image acquisition and image processing using blue light cystoscopy. (B) Schematic diagram of the CNN fine-tuning considered for identifying BCa. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [43], Copyright (2021) Nairveen Ali et al.
Figure 3Current available (yellow boxes) and potential devices (color bordered boxes) for urinary BCa diagnosis. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [49], Copyright (2020) Kit Man Chan et al.
FDA-approved biomarkers and urine protein markers.
| FDA-Approved Biomarkers | Markers | Method | Sensitivity/%(95% CI) | Specificity/%(95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NMP22 BC | Nuclear mitotic apparatus protein | ELISA | 69 (62–75) | 77 (70–83) |
| NMP22 BladderChek | Nuclear mitotic apparatus protein | Point-of-care test | 58 (52–59) | 88 (87–89) |
| BTA Stat | Complement factor H-related protein | ELISA | 65 (57–82) | 74 (68–93) |
| BTA TRAK | Complement factor H-related protein | Point-of-care test | 64 (66–77) | 77 (5–75) |
| UroVysion | Alt in chromosomes 3, 7, 17, and 9p21 | FISH | 72 (69–87) | 83 (89–96) |
| uCyt+/ImmunoCyt | Carcinoembryonic antigen, | Fluorescent immunohistoche- | 73 (68–77) | 66 (63–69) |
FDA = Food and Drug Administration; NMP = Nuclear matrix protein; UBC = Urinary Bladder Cancer; MCM5 = Microchromosome maintenance protein 5; ELISA = Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; FISH = Fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Urinary biomarkers assays for BCa.
| Urinary Biomarker Tests/Biomarkers | Markers | Method | Sensitivity/ | Specificity/ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CYFRA21-1 | Cytokeratin 19 (cytoskeletal protein) | ELISA | 82 (0.70–0.90) | 87 (0.84–0.90) |
| UBC | Cytokeratin 8 and 18 (cytoskeletal proteins) | ELISA | 59 (0.55–0.62) | 76 (0.72–0.80) |
| Survivin | A member of inhibitors of apoptosis gene family | Bio-dot test | 79 (0.73–0.84) | 87 (0.79–0.92) |
| BLCA-1 | Nuclear matrix protein | ELISA | 80 | 87 |
| BLCA-4 | Nuclear matrix protein | ELISA | 93 (0.90–0.95) | 97 (0.95–0.98) |
| ADXBLADDER | Microchromosome maintenance protein 5(MCM5) | ELISA | 44.9 (36.1–54) | 71.1 (68.5–73.5) |
| URO17 | Keratin 17(cytoskeletal proteins ) | Immunocytoche- | 100 | 96 |
| Microsatellite analysis | DNA mutation | PCR | 58–92 | 73–100 |
| TRAP | Telomerase | 90 | 88 | |
| Quanticyt | Cell nucleus | quantitative | 59 | 79 |
| HA-HAase | 91 | 70 | ||
| EIF5A2, AIB1 and NMP22 model | 92 | 92 | ||
| Cxbladder | mRNAs (IGFBP5, HOHA13, MDK, CDK1) | 91 (0.85–0.95) | 61 (0.21–0.90) | |
| Xpert bladder cancer | 72 (0.63–0.80) | 76 (0.72–0.81) | ||
| Uromonitor | 93 (0.79–0.98) | 79 (0.62–0.90) | ||
| Oncuria™ | 93 | 93 |
ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; FISH = fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Figure 4Study design and workflow of utMeMA. (SYSMH = Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital; TCGA = the Cancer Genome Atlas; BCa = bladder cancer; FDR = false discovery rate; LASSO = the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; RF = random forest). Reproduced with permission from Ref. [72], Copyright (2020) American Society for Clinical Investigation.
DNA methylation assays and biomarkers for BCa detection.
| Tests | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bladder EpiCheck | 74 (95% CI: 57–85) | 84 (95% CI: 80–88) | 48 (95% CI: 42–54) | 94 (95% CI: 90–97) |
| UroMark | 98 | 97 | 97 | |
| utMeMA | 90 | 83.1 | >85 | >85 |
| Bladder CARE | 93.5 | 92.6 | 87.8 | 96.2 |
| The GynTect® | 60 | 96.7 |
PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; CI = confidence interval.
Non-exhaustive overview of urinary genetic biomarkers and extracellular vesicles biomarkers for BCa [48,82,83].
| Genetic Biomarkers/Markers | Types | |
|---|---|---|
| TERT | DNA mutational analysis | |
| FGFR3 | DNA mutational analysis | |
| Chromosomes | Microsatellite analysis | |
| CDK1, HOXA13, MDK, IGFBP5 | Multigene panels | |
| Lactate, β-hydroxypyruvate, palmitoyl sphingomyelin, phosphocholine, arachidonate, BCAAs, adenosine, succinate | Metabolite biomarkers | |
|
|
|
|
| Uroplakin-1 | Transitional epithelial cells | Diagnosis |
| Uroplakin-2 | Transitional epithelial cells | Diagnosis |
| TACSTD2 | Protein | Diagnosis |
| EDIL-3 | Protein | Diagnosis |
| Periostin | Protein | Prognosis |
| CD10, CD36, CD44, 5T4, CD147(basigin), CD73(NT5E), integrinβ1, integrinα6, Mucin-1(MUC1) | Protein | Diagnosis |
| Alpha-1-antitrypsin, histone H2B1K | Protein | Diagnosis |
| Resistin, GTPase NRas, EPS8L1, mucin 4, EPS8L2, retinoic acid-induced protein 3, ɑ subunit of GsGTP, binding protein, EH-domain-containing protein 4 | Protein | Diagnosis |
| MAGEB4, NMP-22 | mRNA, Protein | Diagnosis |
| FOLR1, TTP1 | Protein | Diagnosis |
| TACSTD2 | Protein | Diagnosis |
| miR-375, miR-146a | miRNA | Prognosis |
| miR-4454, miR-205-5p, miR-200c-3p, miR-200b-3p, miR-21-5p, miR-29b-3p, miR-720 /3007a | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| miR-200a-3p; miR-99a-5p; miR-141-3p; miR-205-5p | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| miR-15a-5p, miR-31-5p, miR-21, miR-155-5p, miR-132-3p | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| miR-940, miR-191, miR-93, miR-200c, miR-15a, miR-30a-3p, miR-503-5p, Mirlet7b | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| miR-66-3b | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| miR-146-5p, miR-138-5p, miR-144-5p | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| miR-145-5p, miR-23b | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| miR-133b | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| miR-375-3p | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| miR-29c | miRNA | Diagnosis |
| HOTAIR, HOX-AS-2, MALAT1 OCT4, SOX2 | mRNA, lncRNA | Diagnosis |
| UCA1-201, UCA1-203, MALAT1, LINC00355 | lncRNA | Diagnosis |
| SNHG16, Linc-UBC1 | Diagnosis | |
| PCAT-1 | Diagnosis | |
| H19 | Diagnosis | |
| LASS2, GALNT1, FOXO3, ARHGEF3 | mRNA | Diagnosis |
| MDM2, ERBB2, CCND, CCNE1, CDKN2A, PTEN, RB1 | DNA | Diagnosis |
TERT = telomerase reverse transcriptase; FGFR3 = fibroblast growth factor receptor; miRNA = micro RNA; IncRNA = long noncoding RNA; TWIST1 = Twist-related protein 1, OSR1 = Protein odd-skipped-related 1, SIM2 = Single-minded homolog 2, OTX1 = Homeobox protein OTX1, MEIS1 = Homeobox protein Meis1, ONECUT2 = One cut domain family member 2.
Figure 5Novel treatment options as bladder preservation regimens for BCa.
The results of immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
| Types | Agents | OS/ | HR | CI | CRR | ORR | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| anti-PD-1 ICI | pembrolizumab | 10.3 m (14.1 m) | 0.73 | 0.59–0.91% | [ | ||
| anti-PD-1 ICI | pembrolizumab | 0.4 | [ | ||||
| anti-PD-L1 ICI | atezolizumab | 10.1 m | 7.03–17.0 m | [ | |||
| 27% | 17.0–36.0% | ||||||
| anti-PD-L1 ICI | avelumab | 71.3% (1y) | 0.69 | 0.56–0.86 | [ | ||
| anti-PD-L1 ICI | durvalumab | 17.6–47.1% | 31.0% | [ | |||
| anti-CTLA-4 ICI | nivolumab/nivolumab + ipilimumab | 25.6%/26.9% | [ | ||||
| anti-CTLA-4 ICI | tremelimumab | 7.2–36.4 | 6.3% | 18.8% | [ | ||
| 4-1BB antibodies | urelumab + utomilumab | 26.1% | [ | ||||
| IL-15 analogue | N-803 | 65.2 m (5.4y) | [ | ||||
| IL-2 agonist | NKTR-214 | 18.9% | 59.5% | [ | |||
| oncolytic viruses | CG0070 | 63.6–81.8% | [ | ||||
| 32%–62% | 47% (6 m) | [ | |||||
| oncolytic viruses | nadofaragene | 53.4% (3 m) | [ | ||||
| FGFR inhibitors | erdafitinib | 3.0% | 40.0% | [ | |||
| 30–49% | 40.0% | [ | |||||
| anti-VEGF + GC | bevacizumab | 14.3–14.5 m (76.3 m) | 0.87 | 0.72–1.05 | [ | ||
| anti-VEGF | ramucirumab | 18.8–30.3% | 24.5% | [ | |||
| antibody-drug conjugates | enfortumab vedotin | 35.1–53.2% | 44.0% | [ | |||
| 12.88 | 0.7 | 0.56–0.89 | [ | ||||
| antibody-drug conjugates + | enfortumab vedotin + pembrolizumab | 14.0% | 62.01% | [ | |||
| antibody-drug conjugates | sacituzumab govitecan | 5.4 m | 3.5–7.2 m | [ | |||
| 10.9 m | 9.0–13.8 m | ||||||
OS = overall survival; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; CRR = complete response rate; ORR = objective response rate; ICI = immune checkpoint inhibitor; m = month; y = year; IL-15 = interleukin-15; GC = gemcitabine + cisplatin.