Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  366 476 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 366 476 Next Page
Page Background

Platinum Priority – Editorial

Referring to the article published on pp. 354–365 of this issue

Seeking the Molecular Truth in Bladder Cancer:

Biology = Genome

T

(Transcriptome)

2

Peter C. Black

*

Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

The greatest single advance in our understanding of bladder

cancer in the past 5 yr has been the description of molecular

subtypes. The first major contribution came from the Lund

group in 2012

[1] ,

and was followed by almost simulta-

neous publication of three subtyping systems by three

different groups in 2014

[2–4]

. Some 3 yr later, in 2017, we

are grappling with two principal challenges: how to utilize

this molecular framework for further scientific discovery,

and how to define the clinical utility of subtyping. The lack

of a consensus subtyping system confounds both chal-

lenges.

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has become the

foundation for molecular analysis of bladder cancer. Almost

every manuscript on bladder cancer can refer back to the

TCGA for validation of a novel concept, a critical pathway, or

a gene of interest. The natural application of this

comprehensive molecular characterization of bladder

cancer is to develop a paradigm of precision oncology

based on markers of response to therapy and the

identification of novel targets of therapy, recognizing that

the only therapy uniformly delivered to patients in the

TCGA cohort was radical cystectomy. Nonetheless, this data

set is key to our understanding of the disease, and findings

derived from it can be applied to independent cohorts

receiving specific therapies.

Molecular subtyping of bladder cancer is based primarily

on RNA expression, yet most forays into precision oncology

in bladder cancer, as in most cancers, are based on genomic

alterations. An integrative analysis of molecular subtypes

and genomic alterations is critical to advance our insight

into bladder cancer pathogenesis. In this issue of

European

Urology

, the scientists who developed the different methods

of molecular subtyping have joined forces to review the key

genomic alterations in bladder cancer in the context of RNA-

based subtypes in the TCGA cohort

[5]

.

A strength of this analysis is not only cooperation among

the top experts in this field but also their use of all the

subtyping methods. In the absence of a consensus of

molecular subtypes, the TCGA clusters have been used in

some scenarios as representative, but there is currently no

reason to prioritize this method over the other methods.

TCGA clustering has been applied in two immunotherapy

trials to date, with disparate results

[6,7]

. Unfortunately,

neither trial described the subtyping methodology ade-

quately, and the transcriptomic data have not been made

publicly available. This particular clinical application of

subtyping therefore remains uninterpretable to the scien-

tific community, and a comparison to other subytping

methods is not possible.

The analysis by Choi et al

[5]

builds on previous studies

and shows that the dichotomous University of North

Carolina (UNC) classification into basal and luminal is most

easily recapitulated across subtyping methods, and the

molecular differences are greatest between these two

subtypes. However, the UNC group subsequently intro-

duced the claudin-low subtype

[8] ,

which

[4_TD$DIFF]

is not included in

the analysis by Choi et al. Surprisingly, a correlation with

the four TCGA clusters is also not reported.

As a result, the analysis focuses mostly on the MD

Anderson

[2]

and Lund

[1]

classifications. Although the

differences between basal and luminal tumors are again

seen clearly here, the degree of correlation of genomic

alterations to the additional subtypes in each model is quite

variable. The p53-like subtype in the MD Anderson

E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 3 6 6 – 3 6 7

available at

www.scienced irect.com

journal homepage:

www.europeanurology.com

DOI of original article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.010

.

* Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada. Tel.

+1 604 8754301

;

Fax: +1 604 8755604.

E-mail address:

pblack@mail.ubc.ca . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.006

0302-2838/

#

2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.