Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26230923›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Identification and Validation of Protein Biomarkers of Response to Neoadjuvant Platinum Chemotherapy in Muscle Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma.

Alexander S Baras, Nilay Gandhi, Enrico Munari, Sheila Faraj, Luciana Shultz, Luigi Marchionni, Mark Schoenberg, Noah Hahn, Mohammad Obaidul Hoque, Mohammad Hoque and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Discordant molecular subtype classification in the basal-squamous subtype of bladder tumors and matched lymph-node metastases.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Alexander S BarasDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Nilay GandhiDepartment of Urology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Enrico MunariDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Sheila FarajDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Luciana ShultzDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Luigi MarchionniDepartment of Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Mark SchoenbergDepartment of Urology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, United States of America.
Noah HahnDepartment of Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Mohammad Obaidul Hoque
Mohammad HoqueDepartment of Otolaryngology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
David BermanDepartment of Pathology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Trinity J BivalacquaDepartment of Urology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
George NettoDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 5-year cancer specific survival (CSS) for patients with muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (MIBC) treated with cystectomy alone is approximately 50%. Platinum based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) plus cystectomy results in a marginal 5-10% increase in 5-year CSS in MIBC. Interestingly, responders to NAC (<ypT2) have a 5-year CSS of 90% which is in stark contrast to the 30-40% CSS for those whose MIBC is resistance to NAC. While the implementation of NAC for MIBC is increasing, it is still not widely utilized due to concerns related to delay of cystectomy, potential side-effects, and inability to predict effectiveness. Recently suggested molecular signatures of chemoresponsiveness, which could prove useful in this setting, would be of considerable utility but are yet to be translated into clinical practice.

methodsmRNA expression data from a prior report on a NAC-treated MIBC cohort were re-analyzed in conjunction with the antibody database of the Human Protein Atlas (HPA) to identify candidate protein based biomarkers detectable by immunohistochemistry (IHC). These candidate biomarkers were subsequently tested in tissue microarrays derived from an independent cohort of NAC naive MIBC biopsy specimens from whom the patients were treated with neoadjuvant gemcitabine cisplatin NAC and subsequent cystectomy. The clinical parameters that have been previously associated with NAC response were also examined in our cohort.

resultsOur analyses of the available mRNA gene expression data in a discovery cohort (n = 33) and the HPA resulted in 8 candidate protein biomarkers. The combination of GDPD3 and SPRED1 resulted in a multivariate classification tree that was significantly associated with NAC response status (Goodman-Kruskal γ = 0.85 p<0.0001) in our independent NAC treated MIBC cohort. This model was independent of the clinical factors of age and clinical tumor stage, which have been previously associated with NAC response by our group. The combination of both these protein biomarkers detected by IHC in biopsy specimens along with the relevant clinical parameters resulted in a prediction model able to significantly stratify the likelihood of NAC resistance in our cohort (n = 37) into two well separated halves: low-26% n = 19 and high-89% n = 18, Fisher's exact p = 0.0002).

conclusionWe illustrate the feasibility of translating a gene expression signature of NAC response from a discovery cohort into immunohistochemical markers readily applicable to MIBC biopsy specimens in our independent cohort. The results from this study are being characterized in additional validation cohorts. Additionally, we anticipate that emerging somatic mutations in MIBC will also be important for NAC response prediction. The relationship of the findings in this study to the current understanding of variant histologic subtypes of MIBC along with the evolving molecular subtypes of MIBC as it relates to NAC response remains to be fully characterized.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticBiomarkers, TumorCisplatinDeoxycytidineDrug Resistance, NeoplasmFemaleGemcitabineGene Expression ProfilingHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle NeoplasmsAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticBiomarkers, TumorCisplatinDeoxycytidineGemcitabineRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID26230923
PMCPMC4521868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.