Diagnostic value of a comprehensive, urothelial carcinoma-specific next-generation sequencing panel in urine cytology and bladder tumor specimens.
cytology
diagnosis
mutation
next-generation sequencing
urine
urothelial carcinoma
Journal
Cancer cytopathology
ISSN: 1934-6638
Titre abrégé: Cancer Cytopathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101499453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
revised:
06
11
2020
received:
02
04
2020
accepted:
04
01
2021
pubmed:
5
2
2021
medline:
25
2
2022
entrez:
4
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Urine cytology can reliably diagnose high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) but not low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC), and a more sensitive test is needed. Previously, a pilot study highlighted the possible diagnostic utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in identifying both LGUC and HGUC in urine cytology specimens. Twenty-eight urine ThinPrep cytology specimens and preceding or subsequent bladder tumor biopsy/resection specimens obtained within 3 months were included in the study (LGUC, n = 15; HGUC, n = 13). A customized, bladder-specific NGS panel was performed; it covered 69 frequently mutated or altered genes in urothelial carcinoma (UC) that were reported by The Cancer Genome Atlas and the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer. The sequencing results were compared between the urine cytology specimens and the corresponding bladder tumor biopsies/resections. TP53 was the most frequently identified mutation in HGUC cases (11 of 13 [85%]). PIK3CA and KDM6A were the most frequently identified mutations in LGUC: they occurred in 7 of 15 cases (47%) and in 6 of 15 cases (40%), respectively. Additional frequent mutations identified in the panel included ARID1A (n = 5), EP300 (n = 4), LRP1B (n = 3), ERBB2 (n = 2), STAG2 (n = 2), FGFR3 (n = 3), MLL (n = 2), MLL3 (n = 2), CREBBP1 (n = 1), RB1 (n = 1), and FAT4 (n = 1). Overall, the concordance between the cytology and surgical specimens was 75%. The sensitivity and specificity for identifying mutations in urine cytology specimens were 84% and 100%, respectively. A bladder-specific NGS panel increases the sensitivity and specificity of urine cytology's diagnostic utility in both low- and high-grade tumors and may serve as a noninvasive surveillance method in the follow-up of patients with UC harboring known mutations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Urine cytology can reliably diagnose high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) but not low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC), and a more sensitive test is needed. Previously, a pilot study highlighted the possible diagnostic utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in identifying both LGUC and HGUC in urine cytology specimens.
METHODS
Twenty-eight urine ThinPrep cytology specimens and preceding or subsequent bladder tumor biopsy/resection specimens obtained within 3 months were included in the study (LGUC, n = 15; HGUC, n = 13). A customized, bladder-specific NGS panel was performed; it covered 69 frequently mutated or altered genes in urothelial carcinoma (UC) that were reported by The Cancer Genome Atlas and the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer.
RESULTS
The sequencing results were compared between the urine cytology specimens and the corresponding bladder tumor biopsies/resections. TP53 was the most frequently identified mutation in HGUC cases (11 of 13 [85%]). PIK3CA and KDM6A were the most frequently identified mutations in LGUC: they occurred in 7 of 15 cases (47%) and in 6 of 15 cases (40%), respectively. Additional frequent mutations identified in the panel included ARID1A (n = 5), EP300 (n = 4), LRP1B (n = 3), ERBB2 (n = 2), STAG2 (n = 2), FGFR3 (n = 3), MLL (n = 2), MLL3 (n = 2), CREBBP1 (n = 1), RB1 (n = 1), and FAT4 (n = 1). Overall, the concordance between the cytology and surgical specimens was 75%. The sensitivity and specificity for identifying mutations in urine cytology specimens were 84% and 100%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
A bladder-specific NGS panel increases the sensitivity and specificity of urine cytology's diagnostic utility in both low- and high-grade tumors and may serve as a noninvasive surveillance method in the follow-up of patients with UC harboring known mutations.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
537-547Informations de copyright
© 2021 American Cancer Society.
Références
Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and meta-analyses. Urology. 2003;61:109-118; discussion 118.
Kassouf W, Traboulsi SL, Schmitz-Drager B, et al. Follow-up in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer-International Bladder Cancer Network recommendations. Urol Oncol. 2016;34:460-468.
Mishriki SF, Aboumarzouk O, Vint R, Grimsley SJ, Lam T, Somani B. Routine urine cytology has no role in hematuria investigations. J Urol. 2013;189:1255-1258.
Roy M, Kaushal S, Jain D, Seth A, Iyer VK, Mathur SR. An institutional experience with the Paris system: a paradigm shift from ambiguous terminology to more objective criteria for reporting urine cytology. Cytopathology. 2017;28:509-515.
Yafi FA, Brimo F, Auger M, Aprikian A, Tanguay S, Kassouf W. Is the performance of urinary cytology as high as reported historically? A contemporary analysis in the detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:27.e1-6.
Xing J, Reynolds JP. Diagnostic advances in urine cytology. Surg Pathol Clin. 2018;11:601-610.
Comploj E, Trenti E, Palermo S, Pycha A, Mian C. Urinary cytology in bladder cancer: why is it still relevant? Urologia. 2015;82:203-205.
Barkan GA, Wojcik EM, Nayar R, et al. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology: the quest to develop a standardized terminology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2016;5:177-188.
Rosenthal DL, Kurtycz DFI, Wojcik EM, eds. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Springer; 2016.
McIntire PJ, Khan R, Hussain H, Pambuccian SE, Wojcik EM, Barkan GA. Negative predictive value and sensitivity of urine cytology prior to implementation of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127:125-131.
Lavery HJ, Zaharieva B, McFaddin A, Heerema N, Pohar KS. A prospective comparison of UroVysion FISH and urine cytology in bladder cancer detection. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:247.
Denice Smith G, Sangle NA, Wilson A, et al. A retrospective review of UroVysion FISH interpretations over 8.6 years: a major shift in the patient test population. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013;41:437-447.
Caraway NP, Khanna A, Fernandez RL, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for detecting urothelial carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study. Cancer Cytopathol. 2010;118:259-268.
Chou R, Gore JL, Buckley D, et al. Urinary biomarkers for diagnosis of bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:922-931.
Parker J, Spiess PE. Current and emerging bladder cancer urinary biomarkers. ScientificWorldJournal. 2011;11:1103-1112.
Onal B, Han U, Yilmaz S, Koybasioglu F, Altug U. The use of urinary nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) as a diagnostic adjunct to urine cytology for monitoring of recurrent bladder cancer-institutional experience and review. Diagn Cytopathol. 2015;43:307-314.
McConkey DJ, Lee S, Choi W, et al. Molecular genetics of bladder cancer: emerging mechanisms of tumor initiation and progression. Urol Oncol. 2010;28:429-440.
Glaser AP, Fantini D, Shilatifard A, Schaeffer EM, Meeks JJ. The evolving genomic landscape of urothelial carcinoma. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14:215-229.
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of urothelial bladder carcinoma. Nature. 2014;507:315-322.
Rodriguez-Vida A, Lerner SP, Bellmunt J. The Cancer Genome Atlas Project in bladder cancer. Cancer Treat Res. 2018;175:259-271.
Sun T, Hutchinson L, Tomaszewicz K, et al. A comparative study on the diagnostic value of next generation sequencing in urine cytology and bladder tumor specimens. Mod Pathol. 2017;30(suppl 2):119A.
Forbes SA, Beare D, Boutselakis H, et al. COSMIC: somatic cancer genetics at high-resolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D777-D783.
Smolensky D, Rathore K, Cekanova M. Molecular targets in urothelial cancer: detection, treatment, and animal models of bladder cancer. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2016;10:3305-3322.
Kurtoglu M, Davarpanah NN, Qin R, Powles T, Rosenberg JE, Apolo AB. Elevating the horizon: emerging molecular and genomic targets in the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015;13:410-420.
Liu Q, Cornejo KM, Cheng L, et al. Next-generation sequencing to detect deletion of RB1 and ERBB4 genes in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: a potential role in distinguishing chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma. Am J Pathol. 2018;188:846-852.
Kamionek M, Ahmadi Moghaddam P, Sakhdari A, et al. Mutually exclusive extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway mutations are present in different stages of multi-focal pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis supporting clonal nature of the disease. Histopathology. 2016;69:499-509.
McConkey DJ, Choi W. Molecular subtypes of bladder cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2018;20:77.
Solomon JP, Hansel DE. The emerging molecular landscape of urothelial carcinoma. Surg Pathol Clin. 2016;9:391-404.
Kompier LC, van Tilborg AA, Zwarthoff EC. Bladder cancer: novel molecular characteristics, diagnostic, and therapeutic implications. Urol Oncol. 2010;28:91-96.
Downes MR, Weening B, van Rhijn BW, Have CL, Treurniet KM, van der Kwast TH. Analysis of papillary urothelial carcinomas of the bladder with grade heterogeneity: supportive evidence for an early role of CDKN2A deletions in the FGFR3 pathway. Histopathology. 2017;70:281-289.
Liu ST, Hui G, Mathis C, Chamie K, Pantuck AJ, Drakaki A. The current status and future role of the phosphoinositide 3 kinase/AKT signaling pathway in urothelial cancer: an old pathway in the new immunotherapy era. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16:e269-e276.
Platt FM, Hurst CD, Taylor CF, Gregory WM, Harnden P, Knowles MA. Spectrum of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathway gene alterations in bladder cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:6008-6017.
Lopez-Knowles E, Hernandez S, Malats N, et al. PIK3CA mutations are an early genetic alteration associated with FGFR3 mutations in superficial papillary bladder tumors. Cancer Res. 2006;66:7401-7404.
Serizawa RR, Ralfkiaer U, Steven K, et al. Integrated genetic and epigenetic analysis of bladder cancer reveals an additive diagnostic value of FGFR3 mutations and hypermethylation events. Int J Cancer. 2011;129:78-87.
Kompier LC, Lurkin I, van der Aa MN, van Rhijn BW, van der Kwast TH, Zwarthoff EC. FGFR3, HRAS, KRAS, NRAS and PIK3CA mutations in bladder cancer and their potential as biomarkers for surveillance and therapy. PLoS One. 2010;5:e13821.
Duenas M, Martinez-Fernandez M, Garcia-Escudero R, et al. PIK3CA gene alterations in bladder cancer are frequent and associate with reduced recurrence in non-muscle invasive tumors. Mol Carcinog. 2015;54:566-576.
Ward DG, Baxter L, Gordon NS, et al. Multiplex PCR and next generation sequencing for the non-invasive detection of bladder cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0149756.
Juanpere N, Agell L, Lorenzo M, et al. Mutations in FGFR3 and PIK3CA, singly or combined with RAS and AKT1, are associated with AKT but not with MAPK pathway activation in urothelial bladder cancer. Hum Pathol. 2012;43:1573-1582.
Jebar AH, Hurst CD, Tomlinson DC, Johnston C, Taylor CF, Knowles MA. FGFR3 and Ras gene mutations are mutually exclusive genetic events in urothelial cell carcinoma. Oncogene. 2005;24:5218-5225.
Critelli R, Fasanelli F, Oderda M, et al. Detection of multiple mutations in urinary exfoliated cells from male bladder cancer patients at diagnosis and during follow-up. Oncotarget. 2016;7:67435-67448.
van Rhijn BW, Lurkin I, Chopin DK, et al. Combined microsatellite and FGFR3 mutation analysis enables a highly sensitive detection of urothelial cell carcinoma in voided urine. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:257-263.
Zhang ZT, Pak J, Huang HY, et al. Role of Ha-ras activation in superficial papillary pathway of urothelial tumor formation. Oncogene. 2001;20:1973-1980.
Wu JN, Roberts CW. ARID1A mutations in cancer: another epigenetic tumor suppressor? Cancer Discov. 2013;3:35-43.
Gui Y, Guo G, Huang Y, et al. Frequent mutations of chromatin remodeling genes in transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Nat Genet. 2011;43:875-878.
Kim PH, Cha EK, Sfakianos JP, et al. Genomic predictors of survival in patients with high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol. 2015;67:198-201.
Balbas-Martinez C, Rodriguez-Pinilla M, Casanova A, et al. ARID1A alterations are associated with FGFR3-wild type, poor-prognosis, urothelial bladder tumors. PLoS One. 2013;8:e62483.
Duex JE, Swain KE, Dancik GM, et al. Functional impact of chromatin remodeling gene mutations and predictive signature for therapeutic response in bladder cancer. Mol Cancer Res. 2018;16:69-77.
Avogbe PH, Manel A, Vian E, et al. Urinary TERT promoter mutations as non-invasive biomarkers for the comprehensive detection of urothelial cancer. EBioMedicine. 2019;44:431-438.
Rosser CJ, Chang M, Dai Y, et al. Urinary protein biomarker panel for the detection of recurrent bladder cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:1340-1345.
Rosser CJ, Dai Y, Miyake M, Zhang G, Goodison S. Simultaneous multi-analyte urinary protein assay for bladder cancer detection. BMC Biotechnol. 2014;14:24.
Shimizu Y, Furuya H, Bryant Greenwood P, et al. A multiplex immunoassay for the non-invasive detection of bladder cancer. J Transl Med. 2016;14:31.
Goodison S, Ogawa O, Matsui Y, et al. A multiplex urinary immunoassay for bladder cancer detection: analysis of a Japanese cohort. J Transl Med. 2016;14:287.
Frantzi M, Latosinska A, Mischak H. Proteomics in drug development: the dawn of a new era? Proteomics Clin Appl. 2019;13:e1800087.
van Rhijn BW, Lurkin I, Kirkels WJ, van der Kwast TH, Zwarthoff EC. Microsatellite analysis-DNA test in urine competes with cystoscopy in follow-up of superficial bladder carcinoma: a phase II trial. Cancer. 2001;92:768-775.
Mao L, Lee DJ, Tockman MS, Erozan YS, Askin F, Sidransky D. Microsatellite alterations as clonal markers for the detection of human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;91:9871-9875.
Mao L, Schoenberg MP, Scicchitano M, et al. Molecular detection of primary bladder cancer by microsatellite analysis. Science. 1996;271:659-662.
Steiner G, Schoenberg MP, Linn JF, Mao L, Sidransky D. Detection of bladder cancer recurrence by microsatellite analysis of urine. Nat Med. 1997;3:621-624.
Mourah S, Cussenot O, Vimont V, et al. Assessment of microsatellite instability in urine in the detection of transitional-cell carcinoma of the bladder. Int J Cancer. 1998;79:629-633.
Schneider A, Borgnat S, Lang H, et al. Evaluation of microsatellite analysis in urine sediment for diagnosis of bladder cancer. Cancer Res. 2000;60:4617-4622.
Zhang J, Fan Z, Gao Y, et al. Detecting bladder cancer in the Chinese by microsatellite analysis: ethnic and etiologic considerations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:45-50.
Larsson PC, Beheshti B, Sampson HA, Jewett MA, Shipman R. Allelic deletion fingerprinting of urine cell sediments in bladder cancer. Mol Diagn. 2001;6:181-188.
Guo RQ, Xiong GY, Yang KW, et al. Detection of urothelial carcinoma, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, bladder carcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma with gross hematuria using selected urine-DNA methylation biomarkers: a prospective, single-center study. Urol Oncol. 2018;36:342.e15-342.e23.
Zuiverloon TC, van der Aa MN, van der Kwast TH, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 mutation analysis on voided urine for surveillance of patients with low-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:3011-3018.