Advertisement

Molecular Medicine

, Volume 17, Issue 5–6, pp 478–485 | Cite as

A Four-Gene Signature Predicts Disease Progression in Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

  • Wun-Jae Kim
  • Seon-Kyu Kim
  • Pildu Jeong
  • Seok-Joong Yun
  • In-Chang Cho
  • Isaac Yi Kim
  • Sung-Kwon Moon
  • Hong-Duck Um
  • Yung Hyun Choi
Research Article

Abstract

There are no reliable criteria to handle disease progression of muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), which strongly influences patient survival. Therefore, an accurate predicting method to identify progressive MIBC patients is greatly needed. The aim of this study was to identify a genetic signature associated with disease progression in MIBC. To address this issue, we analyzed three independent cohorts (a training set, test set 1 and test set 2) comprising a total of 128 MIBC patients. Microarray gene expression profiling, including gene network analysis, was performed in the training set to identify a gene expression signature associated with disease progression. The prognostic value of the signature was validated in test set 1 and test set 2 by microarray and real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), respectively. The determination of gene expression patterns by microarray data analysis identified 1,320 genes associated with disease progression. Gene network analysis of the 1,320 genes suggested that IL1B, S100A8, S100A9 and EGFR were important mediators of MIBC progression. We validated this putative four-gene signature in two independent cohorts (log-rank test, P < 0.05 each, respectively) and estimated the predictive value of the signature by multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio (HR), 6.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.58-24.61; P= 0.009). Finally, signature-based stratification demonstrated that the four-gene signature was an independent predictor of MIBC progression. In conclusion, a molecular signature defined by four genes represents a promising diagnostic tool for the identification of MIBC patients at high risk of progression.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2010–0001729).

Supplementary material

10020_2011_1705478_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.4 mb)
A Four-Gene Signature Predicts Disease Progression in Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. (2005) Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J. Clin. 55:74–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jemal A, et al. (2009) Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J. Clin. 59:225–49.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Messing EM. (2007) Urothelial tumors of the bladder. In: Wein AJ (editor-in-chief), Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA (eds.) Campbell-Walsh Urology. Volume 4. 9th edition. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 2426–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kocak H, Oner-Iyidogan Y, Kocak T, Oner P. (2004) Determination of diagnostic and prognostic values of urinary interleukin-8, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and leukocyte arylsulfatase-A activity in patients with bladder cancer. Clin. Biochem. 37:673–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wiklund ED, et al. (2010) Coordinated epigenetic repression of the miR-200 family and miR-205 in invasive bladder cancer. Int. J. Cancer. 128:1327–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leliveld AM, Doornweerd BH, Bastiaannet E, Schaapveld M, de Jong IJ. (2010) Treatment and outcome in muscle invasive bladder cancer: a population-based survey. World J. Urol. 28:439–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanchez-Carbayo M, Socci ND, Lozano J, Saint F, Cordon-Cardo C. (2006) Defining molecular profiles of poor outcome in patients with invasive bladder cancer using oligonucleotide microarrays. J. Clin. Oncol. 24:778–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schiffer E, et al. (2009) Prediction of muscle-invasive bladder cancer using urinary proteomics. Clin. Cancer Res. 15:4935–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee JS, et al. (2004) Classification and prediction of survival in hepatocellular carcinoma by gene expression profiling. Hepatology. 40:667–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alizadeh AA, et al. (2000) Distinct types of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma identified by gene expression profiling. Nature. 403:503–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van de Vijver MJ, et al. (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347:1999–2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee JS, et al. (2010) Expression signature of E2F1 and its associated genes predict superficial to invasive progression of bladder tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 28:2660–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim YJ, et al. (2010) Gene signatures for the prediction of response to Bacillus Calmette-Guerin immunotherapy in primary pT1 bladder cancers. Clin. Cancer Res. 16:2131–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Babjuk M, et al. (2008) EAU guidelines on nonmuscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur. Urol. 54:303–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisen MB, Spellman PT, Brown PO, Botstein D. (1998) Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95:14863–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen HY, et al. (2007) A five-gene signature and clinical outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 356:11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim WJ, et al. (2010) Predictive value of progression-related gene classifier in primary non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Mol. Cancer 9:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lossos IS, et al. (2004) Prediction of survival in diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma based on the expression of six genes. N. Engl. J. Med. 350:1828–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beer DG, et al. (2002) Gene-expression profiles predict survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Nat. Med. 8:816–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skrzypski M, et al. (2008) Three-gene expression signature predicts survival in early-stage squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Clin. Cancer Res. 14:4794–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paik S, et al. (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351:2817–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stenzl A, et al. (2009) The updated EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur. Urol. 55:815–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shariat SF, et al. (2006) Nomograms provide improved accuracy for predicting survival after radical cystectomy. Clin. Cancer Res. 12:6663–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prieto C, Risueno A, Fontanillo C, De las Rivas J. (2008) Human gene coexpression landscape: confident network derived from tissue transcriptomic profiles. PLoS One. 3:e3911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Apte RN, et al. (2006) The involvement of IL-1 in tumorigenesis, tumor invasiveness, metastasis and tumor-host interactions. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 25:387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yano S, et al. (2003) Multifunctional interleukin-1beta promotes metastasis of human lung cancer cells in SCID mice via enhanced expression of adhesion-, invasion- and angiogenesis-related molecules. Cancer Sci. 94:244–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hermani A, De Servi B, Medunjanin S, Tessier PA, Mayer D. (2006) S100A8 and S100A9 activate MAP kinase and NF-kappaB signaling pathways and trigger translocation of RAGE in human prostate cancer cells. Exp. Cell Res. 312:184–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hermani A, et al. (2005) Calcium-binding proteins S100A8 and S100A9 as novel diagnostic markers in human prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 11:5146–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stulik J, et al. (1999) Protein abundance alterations in matched sets of macroscopically normal colon mucosa and colorectal carcinoma. Electrophoresis. 20:3638–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stulik J, et al. (1999) The analysis of S100A9 and S100A8 expression in matched sets of macroscopically normal colon mucosa and colorectal carcinoma: the S100A9 and S100A8 positive cells underlie and invade tumor mass. Electrophoresis. 20:1047–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yong HY, Moon A. (2007) Roles of calcium-binding proteins, S100A8 and S100A9, in invasive phenotype of human gastric cancer cells. Arch. Pharm. Res. 30:75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yao R, et al. (2007) Expression of S100 protein family members in the pathogenesis of bladder tumors. Anticancer Res. 27:3051–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tolson JP, et al. (2006) Differential detection of S100A8 in transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder by pair wise tissue proteomic and immuno-histochemical analysis. Proteomics. 6:697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yao R, et al. 2007) The S100 proteins for screening and prognostic grading of bladder cancer. Histol. Histopathol. 22:1025–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cross SS, Hamdy FC, Deloulme JC, Rehman I. (2005) Expression of S100 proteins in normal human tissues and common cancers using tissue microarrays: S100A6, S100A8, S100A9 and S100A11 are all overexpressed in common cancers. Histopathology. 46:256–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rafii S, Lyden D. (2006) S100 chemokines mediate bookmarking of premetastatic niches. Nat. Cell Biol. 8:1321–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Salama I, Malone PS, Mihaimeed F, Jones JL. (2008) A review of the S100 proteins in cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 34:357–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nicholson RI, Gee JM, Harper ME. (2001) EGFR and cancer prognosis. Eur. J. Cancer. 37 Suppl 4:S9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cohen SM, Goel A, Phillips J, Ennis RD, Gross-bard ML. (2006) The role of perioperative chemotherapy in the treatment of urothelial cancer. Oncologist. 11:630–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sylvester R, Sternberg C. (2000) The role of adjuvant combination chemotherapy after cystectomy in locally advanced bladder cancer: what we do not know and why. Ann. Oncol. 11:851–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    von der Maase H, et al. (2005) Long-term survival results of a randomized trial comparing gemcitabine plus cisplatin, with methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cisplatin in patients with bladder cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23:4602–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sternberg CN. (2007) Perioperative chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer to enhance survival and/or as a strategy for bladder preservation. Semin. Oncol. 34:122–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stadler WM, et al. (2002) Long-term survival in phase II trials of gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced transitional cell cancer. Urol. Oncol. 7:153–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wun-Jae Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Seon-Kyu Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pildu Jeong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Seok-Joong Yun
    • 1
    • 2
  • In-Chang Cho
    • 3
  • Isaac Yi Kim
    • 4
  • Sung-Kwon Moon
    • 5
  • Hong-Duck Um
    • 6
  • Yung Hyun Choi
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of UrologyChungbuk National University College of MedicineHeungduk-ku, Cheongju, ChungbukSouth Korea
  2. 2.BK21 Chungbuk Biomedical Science Center, School of MedicineChungbuk National UniversityCheongju, ChungbukSouth Korea
  3. 3.Center for Prostate CancerNational Cancer CenterGoyang-siSouth Korea
  4. 4.Section of Urologic OncologyCancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolNew BrunswickUSA
  5. 5.Department of Food and BiotechnologyChungju National UniversityChungju, ChungbukSouth Korea
  6. 6.Laboratories of Radiation Tumor PhysiologyKorea Institute of Radiological and Medical SciencesSeoulSouth Korea
  7. 7.Department of BiochemistryDongeui University College of Oriental MedicineBusanSouth Korea
  8. 8.Department of Biomaterial Control (BK21 Program)Dongeui University Graduate SchoolBusanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations