Are primary tumors suitable for biomarker-guided treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer?
Mathijs P. Scholtes,Geert J. L. H. van Leenders,Debbie G. J. Robbrecht,Joost L. Boormans,Tahlita C. M. Zuiverloon
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-24-112
2024-08-31
Translational Andrology and Urology
Abstract:Mathijs P. Scholtes 1 , Geert J. L. H. van Leenders 2 , Debbie G. J. Robbrecht 3 , Joost L. Boormans 1 , Tahlita C. M. Zuiverloon 1 1 Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 2 Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 3 Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Comment on: Cox A, Klümper N, Stein J, et al . Molecular Urothelial Tumor Cell Subtypes Remain Stable During Metastatic Evolution. Eur Urol 2024;85:328-32. Keywords: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC); metastatic evolution; molecular subtypes; biomarkers Submitted Mar 01, 2024. Accepted for publication Jun 26, 2024. Published online Aug 26, 2024. doi: 10.21037/tau-24-112 In recent years, the therapeutic armamentarium for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) has expanded with the emergence of novel therapies like immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs), and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Although FGFR inhibitors are reserved for patients with FGFR altered urothelial carcinoma (UC), accurate predictive biomarkers for these new drugs that correlate to individual patient responses, are lacking. Biomarker-guided response prediction on primary tumor samples is appealing due to the availability of archived tumor material typically present at the diagnosis of mUC. Additionally, the bladder is easy to access to obtain tumor biopsies necessary for biomarker assessment, whereas fine needle aspiration or biopsy from distant metastatic sites can be technically challenging. However, primary bladder tumors might not be representative of metastatic lesions, as the stability of UC phenotypes during progression to metastatic disease remains elusive. This poses an important limitation that needs to be addressed before the implementation of biomarker-guided treatment strategies. Biomarkers predictive of response may be present in primary bladder tumors but absent in metastatic lesions, potentially leading to ineffective treatment. The other way around is also possible, as a result of acquired disease features over time. We therefore appreciated reading the study "Molecular Urothelial Tumor Cell Subtypes Remain Stable During Metastatic Evolution" and want to commend the authors for their valuable findings (1). Cox et al. performed immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based molecular subtyping on 138 primary UC and matched mUC samples, and discovered luminal, basal, and neuroendocrine molecular subtypes to remain relatively stable during metastatic evolution (94% concordance between matched pairs). In contrast, transcriptome-based muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) consensus subtyping on a subset of matched primary (N=20) and metastatic (N=20) samples proved to be highly variable (45% concordance). Prior genetic studies comparing primary and matched mUC samples, showed early evolutionary branching of metastatic tumor clones, with limited mutations shared between the metastatic lesions and the bulk of the primary tumor (2,3). Noteworthy, potentially actionable gene mutations [ FGFR3 , phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha( PIK3CA ), TSC complex subunit 1( TSC1 ), Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2( ERBB2 )] have been reported to be discordant in up to 23% of primary and metastatic tumor pairs (4). Intratumoral heterogeneity and sampling bias contribute to this genetic discordance, exemplified by the enrichment of FGFR3 mutations in superficial areas of transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) samples compared to more invasive regions of the tumor (5). Taken together, evidence suggest that primary tumor samples might not be representative of metastatic lesions. High phenotypic concordance at the protein level observed by Cox et al. , however, demonstrated at least partial phenotypic stability during tumor evolution and metastatic dissemination, despite patients undergoing different systemic treatments between sequential samples. The observed similarity between primary tumors and metastatic lesions warrants scientists not to exclude primary tumors from efforts investigating novel biomarkers. Bulk RNA sequencing-based consensus cluster (CC) molecular subtypes provide a snapshot of the tumor-microenvironment (TME), and might not be optimal for characterizing metastatic lesions of UC (6,7). Briefly, MIBC consensus subtypes (8) were designed for the classification of primary tumors and lean heavily on stromal content (e.g., luminal infiltrated, stroma-rich). -Abstract Truncated-
urology & nephrology,andrology