Preliminary evaluation of urinary soluble Met as a Biomarker for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder

Journal of Translational Medicine

Donald P Bottaro⁶  Peter A Pinto⁶  W Marston Linehan⁶  Joanna Shih⁴  George J Netto¹  Robert H Getzenberg²  Jonathan Coleman⁶  Piyush K Agarwal⁶  Haley Simpson⁶  Alessio Giubellino⁶  Benjamin Cohen⁶  Gagani Athauda⁶  Fabiola Cecchi⁶  Andrea B Apolo³  Robert L Grubb⁵  Maximiliano Sorbellini⁶  Brian K McNeil⁶ 

[1] Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA;Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA;Medical Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA;Biometric Research Branch, Division of Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA;Division of Urology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA;Urologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bldg 10, Hatfield Clinical Research Center, Rm 2 W-3952 10 Center Drive MSC 1210, 20892-1210, Bethesda, MD, USA

关键词: Urine;    Met;    HGF receptor;    Biomarker;    Bladder cancer;    Urothelial carcinoma;   

Others  :  1147526
DOI  :  10.1186/1479-5876-12-199

 received in 2014-01-23, accepted in 2014-05-30,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Among genitourinary malignancies, bladder cancer (BCa) ranks second in both prevalence and cause of death. Biomarkers of BCa for diagnosis, prognosis and disease surveillance could potentially help prevent progression, improve survival rates and reduce health care costs. Among several oncogenic signaling pathways implicated in BCa progression is that of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and its cell surface receptor, Met, now targeted by 25 experimental anti-cancer agents in human clinical trials. The involvement of this pathway in several cancers is likely to preclude the use of urinary soluble Met (sMet), which has been correlated with malignancy, for initial BCa screening. However, its potential utility as an aid to disease surveillance and to identify patients likely to benefit from HGF/Met-targeted therapies provide the rationale for this preliminary retrospective study comparing sMet levels between benign conditions and primary BCa, and in BCa cases, between different disease stages.

Methods

Normally voided urine samples were collected from patients with BCa (Total: 183; pTa: 55, pTis: 62, pT1: 24, pT2: 42) and without BCa (Total: 83) on tissue-procurement protocols at three institutions and sMet was measured and normalized to urinary creatinine. Normalized sMet values grouped by pathologic stage were compared using non-parametric tests for correlation and significant difference. ROC analyses were used to derive classification models for patients with or without BCa and patients with or without muscle-invasive BCa (MIBCa or NMIBCa).

Results

Urinary sMet levels accurately distinguished patients with BCa from those without (p < 0.0001, area under the curve (AUC): 0.7008) with limited sensitivity (61%) and moderate specificity (76%), and patients with MIBCa (n = 42) from those with NMIBCa (n = 141; p < 0.0001, AUC: 0.8002) with moderate sensitivity and specificity (76% and 77%, respectively) and low false negative rate (8%).

Conclusions

Urinary sMet levels distinguish patients with BCa from those without, and patients with or without MIBCa, suggesting the potential utility of urinary sMet as a BCa biomarker for surveillance following initial treatment. Further studies are warranted to determine its potential value for prognosis in advanced disease, predicting treatment response, or identifying patients likely to benefit from Met-targeted therapies.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 McNeil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012, 62(1):10-29.
• [2]Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cote R, Groshen S, Feng AC, Boyd S, Skinner E, Bochner B, Thangathurai D, Mikhail M, Raghavan D, Skinner DG: Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1,054 patients. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19(3):666-675.
• [3]von der Maase H, Sengelov L, Roberts JT, Sengeløv L, Conte PF, Dogliotti L, Oliver T, Moore MJ, Zimmermann A, Arning M: 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 2005, 23(21):4602-4608.
• [4]Botteman MF, Pashos CL, Redaelli A, Laskin B, Hauser R: The health economics of bladder cancer: a comprehensive review of the published literature. Pharmacoecon 2003, 21(18):1315-1330.
• [5]Cecchi F, Rabe DC, Bottaro DP: Targeting the HGF/Met signaling pathway in cancer therapy. Expert Opin Ther Targets 2012, 16(6):553-72.
• [6]Yamamoto N, Mammadova G, Song RX, Fukami Y, Sato K: Tyrosine phosphorylation of p145met mediated by EGFR and Src is required for serum-independent survival of human bladder carcinoma cells. J Cell Sci 2006, 119(Pt 22):4623-33.
• [7]Tamatani T, Hattori K, Iyer A, Tamatani K, Oyasu R: Hepatocyte growth factor is an invasion/migration factor of rat urothelial carcinoma cells in vitro. Carcinogenesis 1999, 20(6):957-62.
• [8]Inui M, Nishi N, Yasumoto A, Takenaka I, Miyanaka H, Matsumoto K, Nakamura T, Wada F: Enhanced gene expression of transforming growth factor-alpha and c-met in rat urinary bladder cancer. Urol Res 1996, 24(1):55-60.
• [9]Sanchez-Carbayo M, Socci ND, Lozano JJ, Haab BB, Cordon-Cardo C: Profiling bladder cancer using targeted antibody arrays. Am J Pathol 2006, 168(1):93-103.
• [10]Cheng HL, Trink B, Tzai TS, Liu HS, Chan SH, Ho CL, Sidransky D, Chow NH: Overexpression of c-met as a prognostic indicator for transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a comparison with p53 nuclear accumulation. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20(6):1544-1550.
• [11]Miyata Y, Sagara Y, Kanda S, Hayashi T, Kanetake H: Phosphorylated hepatocyte growth factor receptor/c-Met is associated with tumor growth and prognosis in patients with bladder cancer: correlation with matrix metalloproteinase-2 and −7 and E-cadherin. Hum Pathol 2009, 40(4):496-504.
• [12]Athauda G, Giubellino A, Coleman JA, Horak C, Steeg PS, Lee MJ, Trepel J, Wimberly J, Sun J, Coxon A, Burgess TL, Bottaro DP: c-Met ectodomain shedding rate correlates with malignant potential. Clin Cancer Res 2006, 12(14 Pt 1):4154-62.
• [13]Hall MC, Chang SS, Dalbagni G, Pruthi RS, Seigne JD, Skinner EC, Wolf JS Jr, Schellhammer PF: Guideline for the management of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (stages Ta, T1, and Tis): 2007 update. J Urol 2007, 178(6):2314-30.
• [14]Scher H, Bahnson R, Cohen S, Eisenberger M, Herr H, Kozlowski J, Lange P, Montie J, Pollack A, Raghaven D, Richie J, Shipley W: NCCN urothelial cancer practice guidelines. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Oncology 1998, 12(7A):225-71.
• [15]Hall RR, Parmar MK, Richards AB, Smith PH: Proposal for changes in cystoscopic follow up of patients with bladder cancer and adjuvant intravesical chemotherapy. BMJ 1994, 308(6923):257-260.
• [16]Abogunrin F, O’Kane HF, Ruddock MW, Stevenson M, Reid CN, O’Sullivan JM, Anderson NH, O’Rourke D, Duggan B, Lamont JV, Boyd RE, Hamilton P, Nambirajan T, Williamson KE: The impact of biomarkers in multivariate algorithms for bladder cancer diagnosis in patients with hematuria. Cancer 2012, 118(10):2641-2650.
• [17]Strope SA, Ye Z, Hollingsworth JM, Hollenbeck BK: Patterns of care for early stage bladder cancer. Cancer 2010, 116(11):2604-2611.
• [18]Hollingsworth JM, Zhang Y, Krein SL, Ye Z, Hollenbeck BK: Understanding the variation in treatment intensity among patients with early stage bladder cancer. Cancer 2010, 116(15):3587-3594.
• [19]Wallace DM, Bryan RT, Dunn JA, Begum G, Bathers S: Delay and survival in bladder cancer. BJU Int 2002, 89(9):868-878.
• [20]Mowatt G, Zhu S, Kilonzo M, Boachie C, Fraser C, Griffiths TR, N’Dow J, Nabi G, Cook J, Vale L: Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of photodynamic diagnosis and urine biomarkers (FISH, ImmunoCyt, NMP22) and cytology for the detection and follow-up of bladder cancer. Health Technol Assess 2010, 14(4):1-331. iii-iv
• [21]Tetu B: Diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma from urine. Mod Pathol 2009, 22(Suppl 2):S53-59.
• [22]Margel D, Pevsner-Fischer M, Baniel J, Yossepowitch O, Cohen IR: Stress proteins and cytokines are urinary biomarkers for diagnosis and staging of bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2011, 59(1):113-119.
• [23]Van Rhijn BW, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH: Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2005, 47(6):736-48.
• [24]Comperat E, Roupret M, Chartier-Kastler E, Bitker MO, Richard F, Camparo P, Capron F, Cussenot O: Prognostic value of MET, RON and histoprognostic factors for urothelial carcinoma in the upper urinary tract. J Urol 2008, 179(3):868-72.
• [25]Apolo AB, Lee YH, Cecchi F, Agarwal PK, Parnes HL, Khadar K, Summerell A, Gulley JL, Compton K, Figg WD, Dahut WL, Bottaro DP: Preclinical and correlative studies of cabozantinib (XL184) in urothelial cancer (UC). J Clin Oncol 2013, 31(6):314.
• [26]Cecchi F, Rabe DC, Bottaro DP: Targeting the HGF/Met Signaling Pathway in Cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46(7):1260-70.
• [27]Zhu M, Tang R, Doshi S, Oliner KS, Kathman S, Gisleskog PO, Dubey S, Jiang Y, Donehower RC, Iveson T, Loh E: Exposure-response (E-R) analysis of rilotumumab (R, AMG 102) plus epirubicin/cisplatin/capecitabine (ECX) in patients (pts) with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or esophagogastric junction (G/EGJ) cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30:2535.
• [28]Spigel DR, Edelman MJ, Mok T, O’Byrne KJ, Paz-Ares L, Yu W, Rittweger K, Thurm HC, on behalf of the MetLUNG Phase III Study Group: The MetLUNG study: A randomized, double-blind, phase III study of onartuzumab (MetMAb) plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with advanced, MET-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 2012, 30:TPS7616.