Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31145100›Full record

ArticleJCI insight2019

Genomic distinctions between metastatic lower and upper tract urothelial carcinoma revealed through rapid autopsy.

Brian R Winters, Navonil De Sarkar, Sonali Arora, Hamid Bolouri, Sujata Jana, Funda Vakar-Lopez, Heather H Cheng, Michael T Schweizer, Evan Y Yu, Petros Grivas and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCI insight, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Adjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract].Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Brian R WintersDepartment of Urology and.
Navonil De SarkarDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sonali AroraDivision of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Hamid BolouriDivision of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sujata JanaDivision of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Funda Vakar-LopezDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Heather H ChengDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Michael T SchweizerDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Evan Y YuDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Petros GrivasDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
John K LeeDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Lori KollathDepartment of Urology and.
Sarah K HoltDepartment of Urology and.
Lisa McFerrinDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Gavin HaDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Peter S NelsonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Robert B MontgomeryDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jonathan L WrightDepartment of Urology and.
Hung-Ming LamDepartment of Urology and.
Andrew C HsiehDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Funding

Translational Bioimaging Core Shared ResourceP30CA015704 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Marian Esvelt · 1985 to 2026
$296.4M
Hormone signaling and translation control in advanced prostate cancerR37CA230617 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI HSIEH, ANDREW CALEB · 2019 to 2025
$3.1M
Defining the role of eIF4F in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancerK08CA175154 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HSIEH, ANDREW CALEB · 2013 to 2017
$890k
FHCRC High-Performance Computing ClusterS10OD020069 · OD · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI KOOPERBERG, CHARLES L · 2015 to 2015
$600k
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA175154NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015704NCI NIH HHS R37 CA230617NIH HHS S10 OD020069
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about the genomic differences between metastatic urothelial carcinoma (LTUC) and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). We compare genomic features of primary and metastatic UTUC and LTUC tumors in a cohort of patients with end stage disease.

methodsWe performed whole exome sequencing on matched primary and metastatic tumor samples (N=37) from 7 patients with metastatic UC collected via rapid autopsy. Inter- and intra-patient mutational burden, mutational signatures, predicted deleterious mutations, and somatic copy alterations (sCNV) were analyzed.

resultsWe investigated 3 patients with UTUC (3 primary samples, 13 metastases) and 4 patients with LTUC (4 primary samples, 17 metastases). We found that sSNV burden was higher in metastatic LTUC compared to UTUC. Moreover, the APOBEC mutational signature was pervasive in metastatic LTUC and less so in UTUC. Despite a lower overall sSNV burden, UTUC displayed greater inter- and intra-individual genomic distances at the copy number level between primary and metastatic tumors than LTUC. Our data also indicate that metastatic UTUC lesions can arise from small clonal populations present in the primary cancer. Importantly, putative druggable mutations were found across patients with the majority shared across all metastases within a patient.

conclusionsMetastatic UTUC demonstrated a lower overall mutational burden but greater structural variability compared to LTUC. Our findings suggest that metastatic UTUC displays a greater spectrum of copy number divergence from LTUC. Importantly, we identified druggable lesions shared across metastatic samples, which demonstrate a level of targetable homogeneity within individual patients.

Indexed as

GenomicsAgedAutopsyCarcinoma, Transitional CellExome SequencingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMutationSequence AnalysisUrologic NeoplasmsCancerOncologyUrology

Identifiers

PMID31145100
PMCPMC6629128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.