Advertisement

The role of biomarkers in bladder preservation management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer

  • Timur Mitin
  • Ananya Choudhury
Topic Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Patients with localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) can choose to undergo either neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy or radiation therapy-based bladder preservation treatment modality with subsequent close cystoscopic surveillance with salvage cystectomy reserved for patients with evidence of local disease recurrence. At the present time, the decision regarding bladder-directed local therapy for MIBC is based on physicians’ and patients’ preferences, and does not take into account tumor biology. Predictive biomarkers, once validated, could offer a more patient-centered and biology-driven selection of bladder-directed therapies.

Methods

We provide a narrative review of clinical data pertaining to the biomarkers in bladder preservation management of MIBC.

Results

There are currently no validated and clinically used biological markers used for stratification of radical bladder treatment and selection of bladder-preserving therapies. This article summarizes biomarkers that could have a potential clinical utility—PD-L1, molecular subtypes, Ki-67, MRE-11 and markers of hypoxia—and offers a hypothetical pathway model for a marker-driven precision management of medically operable patients with a newly diagnosed MIBC.

Conclusion

When selecting the optimal cancer treatment, both patient and tumor factors need to be considered. Once validated, biological markers will help clinicians tailor the management of MIBC to individual patients.

Keywords

Bladder cancer Muscle-invasive bladder cancer Radiation oncology Biomarkers Bladder preservation Precision oncology 

Notes

Author’s contribution

TM Project development, Manuscript writing and editing. AC Project development, Manuscript writing and editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

T Mitin and A Choudhury have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and animals rights

This publication did not involve research involving human participants and/or animals and no informed consent was required.

References

  1. 1.
    D’Costa JJ, Goldsmith JC, Wilson JS, Bryan RT, Ward DG (2016) A systematic review of the diagnostic and prognostic value of urinary protein biomarkers in urothelial bladder cancer. Bladder Cancer 2(3):301–317CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huddart R, Birtle A, Lewis R, Bahl A, Falconer A, Maynard L, et al (2012) Results of the SPARE feasibility study: selective bladder preservation against radical excision in muscle invasive T2/T3 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder (CRUK/07/011). American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 54th Annual Meeting; Boston, Massachusetts. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys S119Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huddart RA, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A (2010) Life and death of spare (selective bladder preservation against radical excision): reflections on why the spare trial closed. BJU Int 106(6):753–755CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gofrit ON, Nof R, Meirovitz A, Pode D, Frank S, Katz R et al (2015) Radical cystectomy vs. chemoradiation in T2-4aN0M0 bladder cancer: a case-control study. Urol Oncol 33(1):19e1–19e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kulkarni GS, Hermanns T, Wei Y, Bhindi B, Satkunasivam R, Athanasopoulos P et al (2017) propensity score analysis of radical cystectomy versus bladder-sparing trimodal therapy in the setting of a multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic. J Clin Oncol 35(20):2299–2305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arcangeli G, Strigari L, Arcangeli S (2015) Radical cystectomy versus organ-sparing trimodality treatment in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review of clinical trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 95(3):387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray PJ, Fedewa SA, Shipley WU, Efstathiou JA, Lin CC, Zietman AL et al (2013) Use of potentially curative therapies for muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the United States: results from the National Cancer Data Base. Eur Urol 63(5):823–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM (1995) Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 333(22):1456–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shipley WU, Kaufman DS, Tester WJ, Pilepich MV, Sandler HM (2003) Overview of bladder cancer trials in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Cancer 97(8 Suppl):2115–2119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giacalone NJ, Shipley WU, Clayman RH, Niemierko A, Drumm M, Heney NM et al (2017) Long-term outcomes after bladder-preserving tri-modality therapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an updated analysis of the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Eur Urol 71(6):952–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    James ND, Hussain SA, Hall E, Jenkins P, Tremlett J, Rawlings C et al (2012) Radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 366(16):1477–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoskin PJ, Rojas AM, Saunders MI, Bentzen SM, Motohashi KJ, Investigators B (2009) Carbogen and nicotinamide in locally advanced bladder cancer: early results of a phase-III randomized trial. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 91(1):120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joseph N, Choudhury A (2016) Adjuvant chemotherapy is more suitable than neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer patients treated with radical chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96(3):614–616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shipley WU, Winter KA, Kaufman DS, Lee WR, Heney NM, Tester WR et al (1998) Phase III trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with invasive bladder cancer treated with selective bladder preservation by combined radiation therapy and chemotherapy: initial results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 89-03. J Clin Oncol 16(11):3576–3583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    International Collaboration of Trialists on behalf of the Medical Research Council Advanced Bladder Cancer Working Party tEOfR, Treatment of Cancer Genito-Urinary Tract Cancer Group tABCSG, the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Finnbladder, Norwegian Bladder Cancer Study Group, Group CUEdTO (2011) International phase III trial assessing neoadjuvant cisplatin, methotrexate, and vinblastine chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: long-term results of the BA06 30894 trial. J Clin Oncol 29(16):2171–2177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hussain SA, Hall E, Porta N, Crundwell M, Jenkins P, Rawlings CL et al (2017) Outcome of BC2001 patients (CRUK/01/004) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to randomization to chemo-radiotherapy (cRT) versus radiotherapy (RT). J Clin Oncol 35(6_suppl):298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sridhar SS, Bashir S, Chung P, Zlotta AR, Fleshner NE, Bristow R, et al (2016) Are we systemically under treating cisplatin-eligible patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are undergoing bladder preservation by chemoradiotherapy? 2016 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium 2016; San Francisco, California: J Clin OncolGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petrelli F, Coinu A, Cabiddu M, Ghilardi M, Vavassori I, Barni S (2014) Correlation of pathologic complete response with survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in bladder cancer treated with cystectomy: a meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65(2):350–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu CT, Chen WC, Chang YH, Lin WY, Chen MF (2016) The role of PD-L1 in the radiation response and clinical outcome for bladder cancer. Sci Rep 6:19740CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joseph N, Dovedi SJ, Thompson C, Lyons J, Kennedy J, Elliott T et al (2016) Pre-treatment lymphocytopaenia is an adverse prognostic biomarker in muscle-invasive and advanced bladder cancer. Ann Oncol 27(2):294–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Choi W, Porten S, Kim S, Willis D, Plimack ER, Hoffman-Censits J et al (2014) Identification of distinct basal and luminal subtypes of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with different sensitivities to frontline chemotherapy. Cancer Cell 25(2):152–165CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seiler R, Ashab HAD, Erho N, van Rhijn BWG, Winters B, Douglas J et al (2017) Impact of molecular subtypes in muscle-invasive bladder cancer on predicting response and survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Urol 72(4):544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoskin PJ editor (2018) Use of molecular markers in bladder-preservation therapy. 2018 GU ASCO; 2018 February 9, 2018; San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Margulis V, Shariat SF, Ashfaq R, Sagalowsky AI, Lotan Y (2006) Ki-67 is an independent predictor of bladder cancer outcome in patients treated with radical cystectomy for organ-confined disease. Clin Cancer Res 12(24):7369–7373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Suwa Y, Takano Y, Iki M, Asakura T, Noguchi S, Masuda M (1997) Prognostic significance of Ki-67 expression in transitional cell bladder carcinoma after radical cystectomy. Pathol Res Pract 193(8):551–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Margulis V, Lotan Y, Karakiewicz PI, Fradet Y, Ashfaq R, Capitanio U et al (2009) Multi-institutional validation of the predictive value of Ki-67 labeling index in patients with urinary bladder cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(2):114–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tanabe K, Yoshida S, Koga F, Inoue M, Kobayashi S, Ishioka J et al (2015) High Ki-67 expression predicts favorable survival in muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients treated with chemoradiation-based bladder-sparing protocol. Clin Genitourin Cancer 13(4):e243–e251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laurberg JR, Brems-Eskildsen AS, Nordentoft I, Fristrup N, Schepeler T, Ulhoi BP et al (2012) Expression of TIP60 (tat-interactive protein) and MRE11 (meiotic recombination 11 homolog) predict treatment-specific outcome of localised invasive bladder cancer. BJU Int 110(11):1228–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Choudhury A, Nelson LD, Teo MT, Chilka S, Bhattarai S, Johnston CF et al (2010) MRE11 expression is predictive of cause-specific survival following radical radiotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cancer Res 70(18):7017–7026CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Teo MT, Dyrskjot L, Nsengimana J, Buchwald C, Snowden H, Morgan J et al (2014) Next-generation sequencing identifies germline MRE11A variants as markers of radiotherapy outcomes in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Ann Oncol 25(4):877–883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Magliocco AM, Moughan J, Simko J, Efstathiou JA, Gray PJ, Hagan MP et al (2017) The impact of MRE11 in nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio on outcomes in muscle invasive bladder cancer an analysis of NRG/RTOG 8802, 8903, 9506, 9706, 9906, and 0233. J Clin Oncol 35(6_suppl):343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eustace A, Irlam JJ, Taylor J, Denley H, Agrawal S, Choudhury A et al (2013) Necrosis predicts benefit from hypoxia-modifying therapy in patients with high risk bladder cancer enrolled in a phase III randomised trial. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 108(1):40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hoskin PJ, Sibtain A, Daley FM, Wilson GD (2003) GLUT1 and CAIX as intrinsic markers of hypoxia in bladder cancer: relationship with vascularity and proliferation as predictors of outcome of ARCON. Brit J Cancer 89(7):1290–1297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koukourakis MI, Kakouratos C, Kalamida D, Bampali Z, Mavropoulou S, Sivridis E et al (2016) Hypoxia-inducible proteins HIF1alpha and lactate dehydrogenase LDH5, key markers of anaerobic metabolism, relate with stem cell markers and poor post-radiotherapy outcome in bladder cancer. Int J Radiat Biol 92(7):353–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hunter BA, Eustace A, Irlam JJ, Valentine HR, Denley H, Oguejiofor KK et al (2014) Expression of hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha predicts benefit from hypoxia modification in invasive bladder cancer. Brit J Cancer 111(3):437–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yang L, Taylor J, Eustace A, Irlam JJ, Denley H, Hoskin PJ et al (2017) A gene signature for selecting benefit from hypoxia modification of radiotherapy for high-risk bladder cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 23(16):4761–4768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Choudhury A, West CM, Porta N, Hall E, Denley H, Hendron C et al (2017) The predictive and prognostic value of tumour necrosis in muscle invasive bladder cancer patients receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in the BC2001 trial (CRUK/01/004). Brit J Cancer 116:649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bhatt DL, Mehta C (2016) Adaptive designs for clinical trials. N Engl J Med 375(1):65–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chang S, Bochner BH, Chou R, Dreicer R, Kamat AM, Lerner SP et al (2017) Treatment of non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer: AUA/ASCO/ASTRO/SUO guideline. J Urol 198:552CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kaplan R (2015) The FOCUS4 design for biomarker stratified trials. Chin Clin Oncol 4(3):35PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation Medicine, Knight Cancer InstituteOregon Health and Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Clinical OncologyThe Christie NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
  3. 3.Division of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and HealthUniversity of Manchester Academic Health Science CentreManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations