Home > News > Pathways Forward in Candidate Selection for Systemic Therapy in Invasive Urothelial Cancer of the Bladder
Bladder Cancer, Genitourinary Cancers
Read Time: 3 mins

Pathways Forward in Candidate Selection for Systemic Therapy in Invasive Urothelial Cancer of the Bladder

Published Online: May 9th 2016 Oncology & Hematology Review, 2016;12(1):49–50 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17925/OHR.2016.12.01.49
Authors: Debasish Sundi, David McConkey, Colin PN Dinney
Quick Links:
Abstract
Article
Article Information
Abstract:
Overview

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to radical cystectomy improves overall survival for patients with invasive bladder cancer, compared to patients undergoing radical cystectomy alone. However, only a subset of patients benefit from NAC. This editorial highlights recent and emerging developments that aim to identify optimal NAC candidates.

Keywords

Bladder cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, prognosis, predictive variables, genomics

Article:

Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) is a highly prevalent and lethal disease, with an estimated annual global incidence and mortality of 430,000 and 165,000, respectively.1The vast majority of mortality from UCB is due to invasive cancers (invading the muscularis propria and beyond, ≥T2) and advanced disease stages (lymph node or distant metastases, N1-3 and M1). The historic gold standard curative treatment for locally invasive (T2–T3bN0M0) and locally advanced (T2–T4a, N1–3) is radical cystectomy (RC).2Randomized prospective trials have shown that there is a survival benefit when cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is administered prior to RC (compared to RC alone).3,4However, the absolute survival benefit with NAC is small in magnitude (6–14% over five years) because only select patients respond to NAC.

Taking into consideration significant toxicities that can result from systemic chemotherapy, an important challenge for oncologists treating UCB is to select patients who will actually benefit from NAC. Here, we will review contemporary patient selection strategies and emerging discoveries that may establish new strategies to select patients for NAC.

The principal behind NAC’s survival benefit is that it may treat micrometastatic cancer lesions prior to clinical detection, thereby complementing RC as a cancer-eradication modality. This notion is supported by subset analysis that demonstrates increased NACassociated survival benefit with higher stage cancers,3though other analyses show no stage-dependent effect of NAC response.5There are no Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified predictive tests that can identify patients most likely to derive benefit from NAC, as assessed by either pathologic downstaging (from clinical stage ≥T2 to pathologic stage ≤T1) or survival advantage. Therefore, oncologists must rely on clinical variables that are proxies for high-risk disease. Based on natural history studies of metastasis and cancer specific mortality from independent cohorts, high-risk invasive bladder cancers can be defined by clinical stage T3b–T4a, radiologic evidence of hydroureteronephrosis (a proxy for advanced stage), and/or histologic evidence (via transurethral bladder tumor biopsy) of lymphovascular invasion or variant histology (micropapillary or neuroendocrine features).6A different clinical algorithm suggests that, among patients who receive NAC, patients who are younger (≤60 years) with lower stage disease (T2) have improved response in terms of pathologic downstaging and cancer specific mortality, though direct quantification of NAC benefit was not performed in these studies because NAC and non-NAC cohorts were not compared.7,8

Advances in genomics have offered new insights that may aid patient selection based on specific gene expression profiles. The model system for this comes from instrinsic subtypes of breast cancer identified by Perou et al.,9 which are both prognostic and predictive for specific treatments. We and others have identified intrinsic subtypes of invasive bladder cancer that, similarly, appear to be both prognostic and predictive.10–14For example, basal (The Cancer Genome Atlas [TCGA] Clusters III-IV) bladder cancers demonstrate aggressive clinical behavior,12,13 and a subset of luminal bladder cancers (p53-like, TCGA Cluster II) appear to be resistant to NAC when response is assessed by pathologic downstaging.12,14Furthermore, multiple investigators performing whole genome or targeted sequencing have found an association of mutations in DNA repair genes with sensitivity to NAC (both in pathologic downstaging and survival analyses).15–17Excision repair cross-complementation group 2 (ERCC2), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), fanconi anemia, complementation group C (FANCC), and retinoblastoma tumor-suppressor (RB1) in particular were identified as correlates of NAC-response. Pathway analyses in lossof- function experimental models may reveal unique mediators that may be leveraged to improve outcomes with NAC.

Finally, intrinsic subtypes based on current genomic analyses may also pave the way for patient selection in the newest frontier of systemic treatments: immunotherapy via checkpoint blockade. In particular, a subset of basal bladder cancers (claudin-low, TCGA cluster IV) appear to be highly immune infiltrated, yet express high levels of checkpoint molecules and other immunosuppressive biomarkers, which suggests therapeutic potential for checkpoint blockade in these patients.18Recent data from a phase II trial of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) also suggests that in the p53-like (TCGA Cluster II) subtype, there is a higher relative response to immunotherapy, which may be a viable strategy in this patient cohort that appears to be cisplatin-resistant.19Results of the CO-eXpression ExtrapolatioN (COXEN) trial (NCT02177695) will also be informative for both validation and discovery, as this trial will correlate gene expression profiles and DNA mutations with pathologic responses, survival, and multiple NAC regimens in prospective fashion.20

In summary, the gold standard treatment algorithm for invasive bladder cancer was re-defined by the paradigm of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Level I evidence demonstrates a survival benefit with NAC, but precise patient selection will be key to improving outcomes and minimizing toxicity. Recent investigations and emerging data suggest that intrinsic subtypes of invasive bladder cancer based on genomic profiling will form the basis of useful predictive clinical tools to choose systemic chemo- and immune-therapies.

Article Information:
Disclosure

Debasish Sundi, David McConkey, and Colin PN Dinney have nothing to declare in relation to this article. This article is a short opinion piece and has not been submitted to external peer reviewers.

Correspondence

Colin PN Dinney, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Urology, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, CBP 7.3236, Unit 1373, Houston, TX 77030. E: cdinney@mdanderson.org

Open Access

This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, adaptation and reproduction provided the original author(s) and source are given appropriate credit.

Received

2016-04-11T00:00:00

References

1. Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, et al., Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010, Lancet, 2012;380:2095–128.
2. Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cote R, et al., Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1,054 patients, J Clin Oncol, 2001;19:666–75.
3. Grossman HB, Natale RB, Tangen CM, et al., Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus cystectomy compared with cystectomy alone for locally advanced bladder cancer, N Engl J Med, 2003;349:859–866.
4. International Collaboration of Trialists, 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, 2011;29:2171–2177.
5. Advanced Bladder Cancer (ABC) Meta-analysis Collaboration, Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer: Update of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data, Eur Urol, 2005;48:202–206.
6. Culp SH, Dickstein RJ, Grossman HB, et al., Refining patient selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical cystectomy, J Urol, 2014;191:40–7.
7. Gandhi NM, Baras A, Munari E, et al., Gemcitabine and cisplatin neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: Predicting response and assessing outcomes, Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig, 2015;33:204.e1–204.e7.
8. Baras AS, Gandhi N, Munari E, Faraj S, Shultz L, Identification and validation of protein biomarkers of response to neoadjuvant platinum chemotherapy in muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma, PLoS One, 2015:1–11.
9. Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al., Molecular portraits of human breast tumours, Nature, 2000;406:747–52.
10. Sjodahl G, Lauss M, Kristina L, et al., A molecular taxonomy for urothelial carcinoma, Clin Cancer Res, 2012;18:3377–3387.
11. Damrauer JS, Hoadley KA, Chism DD, et al., Intrinsic subtypes of high-grade bladder cancer reflect the hallmarks of breast cancer biology, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2014;111:3110–5.
12. Choi W, Porten S, Kim S, et al., Identification of distinct basal and luminal subtypes of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with different sensitivities to frontline chemotherapy, Cancer Cell, 2014;25:152-65.
13. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Network, Comprehensive molecular characterization of urothelial bladder carcinoma, Nature, 2014;507:315–22.
14. Mcconkey DJ, Choi W, Shen Y, et al., A prognostic gene expression signature in the molecular classification of chemotheapy naive urothelial cancer is predictive of clinical outcomes from neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A Phase 2 trial of dose-dense methotrexate, Eur Urol, 2015:1–8.
15. Van Allen E, KW M, Kim P, et al., Somatic Phase I ERCC2 pharmacologic mutations study correlate of with necitumumab cisplatin sensitivity in muscle-invasive a fully human IgG1 monoclonal urothelial carcinoma antibody, Cancer Discov, 2014;4:1140–53.
16. Plimack ER, Dunbrack RL, Brennan TA, et al., Defects in DNA repair genes predict response to neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, Eur Urol, 2015:1–9.
17. Groenendijk FH, Jong J De, Fransen EE, et al., ERBB2 mutations characterize a subgroup of muscle-invasive bladder cancers with excellent response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Eur Urol, 2016;69:384–388.
18. Kardos J, Chai S, Mose LE, et al., Claudin-low bladder tumors are immune infiltrated and actively immune suppressed, JCI Insights, 2016;1:1–17.
19. Rosenberg JE, Hoff J, Powles T, et al., Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial, Lancet, 2016;Online first.
20. Dinney CP, Hansel D, Mcconkey D, et al., Novel neoadjuvant therapy paradigms for bladder cancer: Results from the National Cancer Center Institute Forum, Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig, 2014;32:1108–15.

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Genitourinary Cancers
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72