The role of biomarkers in bladder preservation management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer
Patients with localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) can choose to undergo either neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy or radiation therapy-based bladder preservation treatment modality with subsequent close cystoscopic surveillance with salvage cystectomy reserved for patients with evidence of local disease recurrence. At the present time, the decision regarding bladder-directed local therapy for MIBC is based on physicians’ and patients’ preferences, and does not take into account tumor biology. Predictive biomarkers, once validated, could offer a more patient-centered and biology-driven selection of bladder-directed therapies.
We provide a narrative review of clinical data pertaining to the biomarkers in bladder preservation management of MIBC.
There are currently no validated and clinically used biological markers used for stratification of radical bladder treatment and selection of bladder-preserving therapies. This article summarizes biomarkers that could have a potential clinical utility—PD-L1, molecular subtypes, Ki-67, MRE-11 and markers of hypoxia—and offers a hypothetical pathway model for a marker-driven precision management of medically operable patients with a newly diagnosed MIBC.
When selecting the optimal cancer treatment, both patient and tumor factors need to be considered. Once validated, biological markers will help clinicians tailor the management of MIBC to individual patients.
KeywordsBladder cancer Muscle-invasive bladder cancer Radiation oncology Biomarkers Bladder preservation Precision oncology
TM Project development, Manuscript writing and editing. AC Project development, Manuscript writing and editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
T Mitin and A Choudhury have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Human and animals rights
This publication did not involve research involving human participants and/or animals and no informed consent was required.
- 2.Huddart R, Birtle A, Lewis R, Bahl A, Falconer A, Maynard L, et al (2012) Results of the SPARE feasibility study: selective bladder preservation against radical excision in muscle invasive T2/T3 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder (CRUK/07/011). American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 54th Annual Meeting; Boston, Massachusetts. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys S119Google Scholar
- 8.Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM (1995) Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 333(22):1456–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Giacalone NJ, Shipley WU, Clayman RH, Niemierko A, Drumm M, Heney NM et al (2017) Long-term outcomes after bladder-preserving tri-modality therapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an updated analysis of the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Eur Urol 71(6):952–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Shipley WU, Winter KA, Kaufman DS, Lee WR, Heney NM, Tester WR et al (1998) Phase III trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with invasive bladder cancer treated with selective bladder preservation by combined radiation therapy and chemotherapy: initial results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 89-03. J Clin Oncol 16(11):3576–3583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.International Collaboration of Trialists on behalf of the Medical Research Council Advanced Bladder Cancer Working Party tEOfR, Treatment of Cancer Genito-Urinary Tract Cancer Group tABCSG, the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Finnbladder, Norwegian Bladder Cancer Study Group, Group CUEdTO (2011) 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 29(16):2171–2177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Sridhar SS, Bashir S, Chung P, Zlotta AR, Fleshner NE, Bristow R, et al (2016) Are we systemically under treating cisplatin-eligible patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are undergoing bladder preservation by chemoradiotherapy? 2016 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium 2016; San Francisco, California: J Clin OncolGoogle Scholar
- 23.Hoskin PJ editor (2018) Use of molecular markers in bladder-preservation therapy. 2018 GU ASCO; 2018 February 9, 2018; San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- 28.Laurberg JR, Brems-Eskildsen AS, Nordentoft I, Fristrup N, Schepeler T, Ulhoi BP et al (2012) Expression of TIP60 (tat-interactive protein) and MRE11 (meiotic recombination 11 homolog) predict treatment-specific outcome of localised invasive bladder cancer. BJU Int 110(11):1228–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Koukourakis MI, Kakouratos C, Kalamida D, Bampali Z, Mavropoulou S, Sivridis E et al (2016) Hypoxia-inducible proteins HIF1alpha and lactate dehydrogenase LDH5, key markers of anaerobic metabolism, relate with stem cell markers and poor post-radiotherapy outcome in bladder cancer. Int J Radiat Biol 92(7):353–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Choudhury A, West CM, Porta N, Hall E, Denley H, Hendron C et al (2017) The predictive and prognostic value of tumour necrosis in muscle invasive bladder cancer patients receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in the BC2001 trial (CRUK/01/004). Brit J Cancer 116:649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar