Open Access

Validation and clinicopathologic associations of a urine-based bladder cancer biomarker signature

  • Ge Zhang1,
  • Evan Gomes-Giacoia1,
  • Yunfeng Dai2,
  • Adrienne Lawton3,
  • Makito Miyake1,
  • Hideki Furuya6,
  • Steve Goodison1, 4, 5 and
  • Charles J Rosser1, 4, 6Email author
Diagnostic Pathology20149:200

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-014-0200-1

Received: 12 August 2014

Accepted: 8 October 2014

Published: 12 November 2014

Abstract

Background

To validate the expression of a urine-based bladder cancer associated diagnostic signature comprised of 10 targets; ANG, CA9, MMP9, MMP10, SERPINA1, APOE, SDC1, VEGFA, SERPINE1 and IL8 in bladder tumor tissues.

Methods

Immunohistochemical analyses were performed on tumor specimens from 213 bladder cancer patients (transitional cell carcinoma only) and 74 controls. Staining patterns were digitally captured and quantitated (Aperio, Vista, CA), and expression was correlated with tumor stage, tumor grade and outcome measures.

Results

We revealed a positive association of 9 of the 10 proteins (excluding VEGF) in bladder cancer. Relative to control cases, a reduction in SDC1 and overexpression of MMP9, MMP10, SERPINE1, IL8, APOE, SERPINA1, ANG were associated with high stage bladder cancer. Reduced VEGF and increased SERPINA1 were associated with high-grade bladder cancer. Disease-specific survival was significantly reduced in tumors with high expression of SERPINE1 and/or IL8.

Conclusions

These findings confirm that the proteins in a urine-based diagnostic signature are aberrantly expressed in bladder tumor tissues, and support the potential additional utility of selected biomarkers for the clinicopathological evaluation of excised tissue or biopsy material.

Virtual Slides

The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_200

Keywords

Bladder cancer Diagnosis Grade Signature Stage

Background

Cancer of the urinary bladder is the fourth most common malignancy in men and the ninth most common malignancy in women in the United States [1]. Urothelial carcinomas constitute approximately 90% of all bladder cancer (BCa) cases [2]. At presentation, more than 80% of bladder tumors are non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC, i.e., Tis, Ta or T1) and the remaining 20% of bladder tumors are muscle-invasive bladder cancers (MIBC) or metastatic. NMIBC harbors a 5-year survival rate of approximately 94% [3],[4], however, approximately 70% of patients with these lesions develop tumor recurrence within two years of initial diagnosis. The recurrence phenomenon of NMIBC makes it one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide (in America it is second only to colorectal cancer) and is, therefore, a great burden to healthcare systems [1],[5]. Though radiation with concomitant chemotherapy is finding its place in the management of MIBC, radical cystectomy is the mainstay of treatment for these tumors, however, up to 50% of patients experience disease relapse and eventual death despite these aggressive treatment regimens. Thus, the 5-year survival rate for MIBC is approximately 50% [6],[7]. These disappointing outcomes may be explained by our limited understanding of BCa tumorigenesis and progression.

The identification and validation of molecular alterations involved in BCa tumorigenesis may lead to improved diagnostic tools and improved therapeutic planning and patient management. Previously, our group has developed a novel urine-based BCa associated diagnostic signature comprised of 10 targets; angiogenin (ANG), carbonic anhydrase 9 (CA9), matrix metallopeptidase 9 (MMP9), matrix metallopeptidase 10 (MMP10), Alpha-1 Antitrypsin (SERPINA1), Apolipoprotein E (APOE), Syndecan-1 (SDC1), Vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA), Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (SERPINE1) and Interleukin 8 (IL8) [8]-[12]. The utility of the signature has been confirmed in three large studies, one comprised of BCa patients and controls with diverse benign conditions, another comprised of BCa patients and controls collected from multiple sites and analyzed in an independent laboratory, and another comprised of patients on post-treatment tumor surveillance for the monitoring of recurrence [13]-[15]. The multiplex BCa-associated diagnostic signature has performed robustly in all of these scenarios.

In this study, we investigated the expression pattern of the urine-based signature proteins in solid bladder tumor tissue as a means to further substantiate our previously validated urine-based signature for the detection of BCa. Digital immunohistochemistry confirmed the aberrant expression of nine of the ten the biomarkers in bladder tumor tissues and revealed that selected proteins in the set had associations with stage and grade and clinical outcome.

Methods

Patients and clinicopathologic information

The study was performed after approval by MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando Institutional Review Board under a request of waiver of consent on archived pathologic specimens within the Department of Pathology. The study cohort was composed of 213 patients, who underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumor, and 74 patients without a history of BCa or extensive smoking history (control), who underwent bladder biopsy for voiding dysfunction or autopsy at Orlando Health. Thus no patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to tissue collection. These paraffin embedded tissues were collected from Jan 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010. From the medical records, the following information was retrieved: age, race, sex, cancer related death. Data related to adjuvant chemotherapy was not available. Furthermore, histology (transitional cell carcinoma only), tumor grade (2002 WHO classification) and stage (2002 TNM classification) were confirmed by reevaluation of the original pathology slides. Demographic, clinical and pathologic characteristics of the 287 subjects comprising the study cohort are illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1

Demographic, clinical and pathologic characteristics of the 287 subjects comprising the study cohort

Features

Bladder cancer (%) N = 213

Controls (%) N = 74

Age (years)

  

< 65

50 (23.5%)

74 (100.0%)

> 65

150 (70.4%)

0 (0.0%)

Unavailable

13 (6.1%)

 

Sex

  

Female

48 (24.0%)

16 (21.6%)

Male

152 (76.0%)

 

Unavailable

13 (6.1%)

 

Race

  

Caucasian

162 (76.1%) %)

 

Other

30 (14.0%)

 

Unavailable

21 (9.9%)

 

Tumor grade

  

High-grade

175 (82.2%)

 

Low-grade

26 (12.2%)

 

Unavailable

12 (5.6%)

 

Tumor stage

  

Ta

49 (23.0%)

 

Tis (CIS)

20 (9.4%)

 

T1

62 (29.1%)

 

T2

31 (14.6%)

 

>T3, N+ or M+

39 (18.3%)

 

Unavailable

12 (5.6%)

 

Recurrence

  

Yes

70 (32.9%)

 

No

143 (67.1%)

 

Immunohistochemistry

Immunostaining was performed using standard protocols. Paraffin blocks were cut 5 μm sections and placed on a Superfrost Plus Microslide. Sections were deparaffinized followed by antigen retrieval using citric acid buffer (pH 6.0, 95°C for 20 min). Slides were treated with 1% hydrogen peroxide in methanol to block endogenous peroxidase activity. After 20 min blocking in 5% horse serum, slides were incubated overnight at 4°C with the following primary antibodies: anti-SERPINE1 (#HPA050039; rabbit monoclonal, dilution 1:100) from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO); anti-VEGFA (A-20) (#sc-152; rabbit polyclonal, dilution 1:500) and anti-ANG (#sc-74528; mouse monoclonal, dilution 1:10) from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. (Dallas, TX); anti-SDC1 [B-A38] (#ab34164, mouse monoclonal, dilution 1:400), anti-MMP9 [EP1254] (#ab76003, rabbit monoclonal, dilution 1:200), and anti-MMP10 (#ab38930, rabbit polyclonal, dilution 1:2000) from Abcam (Cambridge, MA); anti-CA9 (#23300002, rabbit polyclonal, dilution 1:1000) and anti-SERPINA1 (#NBP1-90309, rabbit polyclonal, dilution 1:2500) from Novus Biologicals (Littleton, CO); anti-APOE [3D12] (#M068-3, mouse monoclonal, dilution 1:200) from MBL Co. (Japan); and anti-IL8 (#AHC0881, rabbit polyclonal, dilution 1:200) from Life Technologies, Inc. (Grand Island, NY). Next, slides were incubated with 2 μg/mL of biotinylated anti-mouse or anti-rabbit IgG secondary antibody (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) for 30 min at room temperature. Subsequently, the sections were stained using Standard Ultra-Sensitive ABC Peroxidase Staining kit (Pierce/Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA) and 3, 3′- diaminobenzidine (DAB; Vector Laboratories), counterstained by hematoxylin, dehydrated, and mounted with a cover slide.

Based on the notable reports from Human Protein Atlas (http://www.proteinatlas.org), lung (SERPINE1 and MMP9), liver (VEGF, ANG, CA9 and SERPINA1), tonsil (SDC1, MMP10 and APOE) and stomach (IL8) were used as a positive control and omitting the primary antibody served as the negative control.

Image analysis

Immunostained slides (n = 287) were scanned into high-resolution images using the Aperio Scanscope Cs (Aperio Technologies, Vista, CA) with a 20x objective as previously described [16],[17]. The images were then visualized in the software Image Scope (Aperio, Vista, CA, USA). Briefly, the location of immunoreactivity was noted. All immunostaining was cytoplasmic except SDC1, which was present in the cellular membrane or cytoplasma, based on grade or stage. All epithelial staining analyzed for this study. The selection of the regions of interest (ROI) on the training slides was initially done by an experienced pathologist (AL) and a technician (GZ) working together. After a training period, the technician, who was blinded to disease status, did the selection of the areas in cases where tumor cell areas were easily identifiable in the section. Using an algorithm developed in Aperio Scanscope Cs, staining intensity of the tissue, as well as the extent (percentage) of staining in cells was measured for each target. Then for statistical purposes, the ranked set of data for each target was divided into four groups with 1st quartile having the lowest staining intensity (0 - 10%) and the 4th quartile having the highest staining intensity (>50%). The quantitative immunochemistry slides were then reviewed and corroborated independently by a pathologist (AL). Whenever a discrepancy between the quantitative and semi-quantitative readings occurred, another investigator (CJR) reviewed and rendered a final score.

Statistical analysis

SAS V9.4 (Cary, NC) was used to perform statistical analyses. The relationship between immunoexpression of the 10 targets and clinicopathological features were tested with a cross tables applying Chi-square or Fisher test, and all tests were 2-tailed. The Kaplan-Meier curves using the log-rank test were used to estimate and compare disease-specific survival. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results and discussion

Demographics of the patients and tumor characteristics

The age of the cancer patients ranged from 30 to 94 years (mean ± SD, 71.8 ± 11.9). Seventy-six percent of the cancer patients were male and 76% of the cancer patients were Caucasian. Seventy patients (33%) had a history of BCa. Twelve percent of patients had tumors larger than 5°Cm, 64% had tumors between 2 and 5°Cm, while 23% had tumors <2°Cm (Table 1). All tumors were confirmed to be transitional cell carcinoma. The tumors were classified as either low-grade (26 [12.2%]) or high-grade (175 [82.2%]) and Tis, Ta, T1 (non-muscle invasive bladder cancer 131 [61.5%]) and T2-T4, N+, M+(muscle invasive bladder cancer 70 [32.9%]). In 12 cases, limited tissues were available for accurate stage and grade assessment.

Immunohistochemical results

Figure 1 shows representative expression status for each of the 10 targets in a high-grade non-muscle invasive tumor. The relationship between immunophenotype for each target and disease status is summarized in Table 2. Expression of 9 of the 10 biomarkers (not VEGF) showed a positive association with cancer. In our study, we found cancer cases expression levels in the 3rd and 4th quartile for MMP9 (66.5% vs. 9.5% of control), MMP10 (60.1% vs. 25.7% of control), SERPINE1 (57.3% vs. 31.9% of control), IL8 (49.5% vs. 41.5% of control), CA9 (57.2% vs. 30.0% of control), APOE (61.7% vs. 18.3% of control), SERPINA1 (59.6% vs. 25.5% of control), SDC1 (66.5% vs. 7.1% of control) and ANG (67.9% vs. 0% of control) to be significantly increased compared to control.
Figure 1

Representative expression status for ANG, CA9, MMP9, MMP10, SERPINA1, APOE, SDC1, VEGFA, serpine1 and IL8 levels in tumor tissue. Insert Representative expression status for ANG, CA9, MMP9, MMP10, SERPINA1, APOE, SDC1, VEGFA, serpine1 and IL-8 levels in benign tissue. All images were captured at 400× magnification.

Table 2

Relationship between immunochemical features and disease status

Target expression

Bladder cancer, %

Benign, %

p-value

Target expression

Bladder cancer, %

Benign, %

p-value

VEGFA

   

APOE

   

1

47 (28.7%)

12 (16.2%)

0.115

1

30 (15.5%)

36 (50.7%)

<0.0001

2

   

2

44 (22.8%)

22 (31.0%)

 

3

   

3

54 (28.0%)

12 (16.9%)

 

4

   

4

65 (33.7%)

1 (1.4%)

 

MMP9

   

SERPINA1

   

1

14 (7.7%)

50 (67.6%)

<0.0001

1

35 (18.8%)

30 (40.5%)

<0.0001

2

47 (25.8%)

17 (23.0%)

 

2

40 (21.5%)

25 (33.8%)

 

3

60 (33.0%)

4 (5.4%)

 

3

49 (26.3%)

16 (21.6%)

 

4

61 (33.5%)

3 (4.1%)

 

4

62 (33.3%)

3 (4.1%)

 

MMP10

   

SDC1

   

1

37 (20.2%)

27 (36.5%)

<0.0001

1

27 (14.6%)

36 (51.4%)

<0.0001

2

36 (19.7%)

28 (37.8%)

 

2

35 (18.9%)

29 (41.4%)

 

3

46 (25.1%)

18 (24.3%)

 

3

60 (32.4%)

4 (5.7%)

 

4

64 (35.0%)

1 (1.4%)

 

4

63 (34.1%)

1 (1.4%)

 

SERPINE1

   

ANG

   

1

47 (25.7%)

16 (22.2%)

<0.0001

1

4 (2.1%)

62 (86.1%)

<0.0001

2

31 (16.9%)

33 (45.8%)

 

2

56 (29.0%)

10 (13.9%)

 

3

46 (25.1%)

18 (25.0%)

 

3

66 (34.2%)

0 (0%)

 

4

59 (32.2%)

5 (6.9%)

 

4

67 (34.7%)

0 (0%)

 

IL8

       

1

56 (28.6%)

10 (24.3%)

<0.0001

    

2

43 (21.9%)

24 (34.3%)

     

3

36 (18.4%)

30 (32.9%)

     

4

61 (31.1%)

6 (8.6%)

     

CA9

       

1

35 (17.9%)

31 (44.3%)

<0.0001

    

2

49 (25.0%)

18 (25.7%)

     

3

48 (24.5%)

18 (25.7%)

     

4

64 (32.7%)

3 (4.3%)

     
The relationship between immunophenotype for each target and tumor grade is summarized in Table 3. We found only high-grade disease expression level in the 3rd and 4th quartile for SERPINA1 (62.4% vs. 45.4% of low-grade) to be significantly increased compared to low-grade disease. Interestingly, we found that VEGFA expression levels in the high-grade disease 3rd and 4th quartile were significantly reduced compared to low-grade disease (40.3% vs. 70.9, respectively, p =0.031). The relationship between immunophenotype for each target and tumor stage is summarized in Table 4. High stage disease correlated with increased expression level (i.e., more 3rd and 4th quartile immunostaining) for MMP9, MMP10, SERPINE1, IL8, APOE, SERPINA1 and ANG. As we have previously reported [18], a shift in cellular location of SDC1 (membrane to cytoplasm) was noted in high stage disease. This change in the location of SDC1 protein, resulted in an inverse association with SDC1 cell membrane expression level.
Table 3

Relationship between immunochemical features and tumor grade

Target expression

Low-grade, %

High-grade, %

p-value

Target expression

Low-grade, %

High-grade, %

p-value

VEGFA

   

APOE

   

1

4 (16.7%)

43 (30.9%)

0.031

1

6 (25.0%)

24 (14.7%)

0.598

2

3 (12.5%)

40 (28.8%)

 

2

5 (20.8%)

39 (23.9%)

 

3

7 (29.2%)

30 (21.6%)

 

3

5 (20.8%)

46 (28.2%)

 

4

10 (41.7%)

26 (18.7%)

 

4

8 (33.3%)

54 (33.1%)

 

MMP9

   

SERPINA1

   

1

3 (12.5%)

10 (6.5%)

0.161

1

2 (9.1%)

32 (20.4%)

0.021

2

9 (37.5%)

36 (23.5%)

 

2

10 (45.5%)

27 (17.2%)

 

3

8 (33.3%)

50 (32.7%)

 

3

5 (22.7%)

43 (27.4%)

 

4

4 (16.7%)

57 (37.3%)

 

4

5 (22.7%)

55 (35.0%)

 

MMP10

   

SDC1

   

1

7 (29.2%)

29 (19.0%)

0.611

1

2 (8.0%)

25 (15.7%)

0.222

2

3 (12.5%)

32 (20.9%)

 

2

3 (12.0%)

31 (19.5%)

 

3

6 (25.0%)

39 (25.5%)

 

3

7 (28.0%)

53 (33.3%)

 

4

8 (33.3%)

53 (34.6%)

 

4

13 (52.0%)

50 (31.4%)

 

SERPINE1

   

ANG

   

1

10 (41.7%)

34 (22.4%)

0.213

1

0 (0%)

4 (2.5%)

0.783

2

4 (16.7%)

27 (17.8%)

 

2

7 (29.2%)

47 (28.8%)

 

3

5 (20.8%)

38 (25.0%)

 

3

7 (29.2%)

56 (34.4%)

 

4

5 (20.8%)

53 (34.9%)

 

4

10 (41.7%)

56 (34.4%)

 

IL8

       

1

9 (37.5%)

43 (26.2%)

0.699

    

2

4 (16.7%)

37 (22.6%)

     

3

4 (16.7%)

32 (19.5%)

     

4

7 (29.2%)

52 (31.7%)

     

CA9

       

1

7 (30.4%)

28 (16.9%)

0.206

    

2

6 (26.1%)

40 (24.1%)

     

3

2 (8.7%)

43 (25.9%)

     

4

8 (34.8%)

55 (33.1%)

     
Table 4

Relationship between immunochemical features and tumor stage

Target expression

Ta

Tis (CIS)

T1

T2

>T3, N+ or M+

p-value

Target expression

Ta

Tis (CIS)

T1

T2

>T3, N+ or M+

p-value

VEGFA

      

APOE

      

1

10 (25.0%)

5 (29.4%)

18 (33.3%)

6 (25.0%)

8 (28.6%)

0.670

1

13 (27.7%)

1 (6.3%)

9 (15.3%)

7 (24.1%)

0 (0%)

0.009

2

6 (15.0%)

5 (29.4%)

17 (31.5%)

6 (25.0%)

9 (32.1%)

 

2

14 (29.8%)

6 (37.5%)

14 (23.7%)

5 (17.2%)

5 (13.9%)

 

3

10 (25.0%)

4 (23.5%)

9 (16.7%)

7 (29.2%)

7 (25.0%)

 

3

10 (21.3%)

5 (31.3%)

13 (22.0%)

6 (20.7%)

17 (47.2%)

 

4

14 (35.0%)

3 (17.6%)

10 (18.5%)

5 (20.8%)

4 (14.3%)

 

4

10 (21.3%)

4 (25.0%)

23 (39.0%)

11 (37.9%)

14 (38.9%)

 

MMP9

      

SERPINA1

      

1

5 (11.6%)

 

4 (7.1%)

4 (13.8%)

 

0.036

1

11 (25.0%)

2 (13.3%)

16 (27.6%)

3 (10.7%)

2 (5.9%)

0.036

2

15 (34.9%)

5 (35.7%)

16 (28.6%)

4 (13.8%)

5 (14.3%)

 

2

10 (22.7%)

2 (13.3%)

12 (20.7%)

9 (32.1%)

4 (11.8%)

 

3

13 (30.2%)

5 (35.7%)

22 (39.3%)

7 (24.1%)

11 (31.4%)

 

3

10 (22.7%)

4 (26.7%)

19 (32.8%)

6 (21.4%)

9 (26.5%)

 

4

10 (23.3%)

4 (28.6%)

14 (25.0%)

14 (48.3%)

19 (54.3%)

 

4

13 (29.5%)

7 (46.7%)

11 (19.0%)

10 (35.7%)

19 (55.9%)

 

MMP10

      

SDC1

      

1

11 (25.6%)

8 (57.1%)

12 (21.8%)

2 (6.9%)

3 (8.3%)

0.036

1

6 (14.3%)

4 (21.1%)

5 (8.5%)

5 (17.2%)

7 (20.0%)

0.021

2

9 (20.9%)

2 (14.3%)

10 (18.2%)

8 (27.6%)

6 (16.7%)

 

2

9 (21.4%)

6 (31.6%)

5 (8.5%)

8 (27.6%)

6 (17.1%)

 

3

10 (23.3%)

3 (21.4%)

12 (21.8%)

9 (31.0%)

11 (30.6%)

 

3

13 (31.0%)

6 (31.6%)

17 (28.8%)

8 (27.6%)

16 (45.7%)

 

4

13 (30.2%)

1 (7.1%)

21 (38.2%)

10 (34.5%)

16 (44.4%)

 

4

14 (33.3%)

3 (15.8%)

32 (54.2%)

8 (27.6%)

6 (17.1%)

 

SERPINE1

      

ANG

      

1

19 (45.2%)

8 (53.3%)

12 (21.4%)

2 (7.1%)

3 (8.6%)

0.0003

1

0 (0%)

1 (5.9%)

0 (0%)

3 (10.3%)

0 (0%)

<0.0001

2

7 (16.7%)

1 (6.7%)

11 (19.6%)

4 (14.3%)

8 (22.9%)

 

2

23 (50.0%)

8 (47.1%)

16 (27.1%)

6 (20.7%)

1 (2.8%)

 

3

9 (21.4%)

5 (33.3%)

15 (26.8%)

5 (17.9%)

9 (25.7%)

 

3

12 (26.1%)

2 (11.8%)

24 (40.7%)

10 (34.5%)

15 (41.7%)

 

4

7 (16.7%)

1 (6.7%)

18 (32.1%)

17 (60.7%)

15 (42.9%)

 

4

11 (23.9%)

6 (35.3%)

19 (32.2%)

10 (34.5%)

20 (55.6%)

 

IL8

             

1

19 (41.3%)

7 (43.8%)

20 (33.3%)

4 (13.8%)

2 (5.4%)

0.001

       

2

12 (26.1%)

3 (18.8%)

16 (26.7%)

4 (13.8%)

6 (16.2%)

        

3

6 (13.0%)

1 (6.3%)

11 (18.3%)

10 (34.5%)

8 (21.6%)

        

4

9 (19.6%)

5 (31.3%)

13 (21.7%)

11 (37.9%)

21 (56.8%)

        

CA9

             

1

12 (26.7%)

4 (23.5%)

10 (16.7%)

7 (24.1%)

2 (5.3%)

0.308

       

2

12 (26.7%)

5 (29.4%)

9 (15.0%)

6 (20.7%)

14 (36.8%)

        

3

9 (20.0%)

3 (17.6%)

17 (28.3%)

6 (20.7%)

10 (26.3%)

        

4

12 (26.7%)

5 (29.4%)

24 (40.0%)

10 (34.5%)

12 (31.6%)

        

Immunophenotype and survival

The follow-up period for the cohort ranged from 1 to 82 months (median 6 months), and the mean survival time was 16 months. Using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with the log-rank test, we found significantly worse disease-specific survival (DSS) when the expression levels of SERPINA1 or IL8 were increased. On multivariate analysis when controlling for stage and grade, biomarker levels did not independently predict DSS (data not shown). For statistical purposes when analyzing KM curves for the combination of SERPINA1 and IL8, quartile 1 and 2 were combined and compared to the combination of quartile 3 and 4. Based on these results, we re-analyzed SERPINA1 and IL8 immunostaining in the following combinations: SERPINA1 1st/2nd quartile with IL8 1st/2nd quartile; SERPINA1 3rd/4th quartile with IL8 1st/2nd; SERPINA1 1st/2nd quartile with IL8 3rd/4th quartile; SERPINA1 3rd/4th quartile with IL8 3rd/4th quartile. When both SERPINA1 and IL8 expression were increased, survival was significantly reduced compared to assessment of SERPINA1 alone or IL8 alone (p =0.0048) (Figure 2).
Figure 2

Univariate analysis of the prognostic impact of SERPINA1 and IL8 co-over-expression on disease-specific survival of bladder cancer patients.

Previously, we have employed proteomic [19],[20] and genomic analyses [21],[22] of urine components to identify accurate and robust molecular signatures for the non-invasive diagnosis of BCa. A candidate 14-biomarker urinary protein signature was subsequently tested in an independent cohort composed of 127 patients (64 BCa) [8]-[12]. That study narrowed the diagnostic signature to 10 biomarkers (IL8, MMP9, MMP10, SERPINA1, VEGFA, ANG, CA9, APOE, SDC1 and SERPINE1), and this was validated in a cohort of 308 patients (102 BCa) with varying benign urologic diagnoses [13]. Furthermore, using an independent test laboratory, we externally validated these results in a multi-institute cohort comprised of 320 patients (183 BCa). The 10-biomarker signature achieved 79%, specificity of 79% (AUROC 0.846) for non-invasive BCa detection in phase II external validation study [14]. Based on these results, the multiplex urine-based signature is the focus of development into a clinical test.

In our previous work, the non-invasively obtained material (urine) was directly subjected to molecular profiling for biomarker discovery. This strategy was chosen to avoid the potential drop-out of biomarkers that can occur when translating from tissue-based discovery studies [23]-[25] to biological fluids for assay development. A number of tissue-based biomarkers have translated to urinalysis [26]-[28], but translation can be affected by secretion rate, enzymatic breakdown or the stability of the protein in the dilute media. Furthermore, urine as a discovery material also has the advantages of being relatively easy to obtain, including the chance for serial sampling, and because of its relatively low complexity compared to solid tissue or blood.

Here, we investigated the expression patterns of our urine-based biomarker panel in excised bladder tumor tissue. Of the 10 biomarkers tested, all but VEGFA had overexpression of the biomarkers compared to control tissues. Additionally, elevated levels of SERPINA1 and reduced levels of VEGFA were associated with high-grade BCa, and elevated levels of MMP9, MMP10, SERINE1, IL8, APOE, SERPINA1 and ANG (and reduced levels of SDC1) were associated with high stage BCa. High expression levels of SERPINA1 and IL8 were associated with a reduction in disease-specific survival, and when both SERPINA1 and IL8 were highly expressed there was a significant reduction in survival (p = 0.0048). Furthermore, many of these biomarkers are cytokines (e.g. IL8 and VEGF) thus ‘bleeding’ of biomarkers into stroma would be expected and was noted. These findings validate the inclusion of the majority of the urine-based biomarkers in a non-invasive BCa diagnostic signature but also suggest that some of the same biomarkers may have utility in prognostic evaluation when monitored in solid tissue and perhaps in urine.

A number of molecular changes have been associated with development and progression of BCa. Such molecular changes include 1) alterations in expression and regulation of the receptor tyrosine kinases, fibroblast growth factor receptor 3, and members of the epidermal growth factor receptor family, 2) upregulation of signaling through RAS and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT pathways, and 3) functional down-regulation of the tumor suppressors, p53, pRb, and p16 through deletion, mutation and/or silencing [29]-[31]. Thus further understanding the molecular mechanisms underpinning the development of aggressive tumor growth in BCa is pivotal to 1) understand tumor biology, 2) effectively diagnosing BCa, 3) exploiting the prognostic capabilities and 4) identifying novel targets for pharmacological intervention.

The biomarkers that compose the diagnostic signature have a varied range of ascribed functions including angiogenesis, breakdown of extracellular matrix, serine protein inhibitor, catalyze the reversible hydration of carbon dioxide, lipoprotein metabolism and cell binding/signaling (Table 5) with the two principal ascribed functions, angiogenesis (IL8, VEGFA and ANG) and breakdown of extracellular matrix (MMP9 and MMP10). In fact, MMP9, MMP10 and SERPINE1 [32]-[34] have also been associated with angiogenesis. Angiogenesis, the development of new blood vessels from existing blood vessels, is essential for normal growth and development of tissues and organs. A balance of pro-angiogenic factors and anti-angiogenic factors tightly controls this process [35]-[37]. However in solid tumors, the balance may favor pro-angiogenic factors and thus the ability to sustain this abnormal growth of tissue [38]. Furthermore in addition to MMP9 and MMP10 degrading extracellular matrix, recent studies have suggested that ANG and SERPINE1 can breakdown the extracellular matrix [39],[40]. Degradation of the extracellular matrix allows cells to become more motile. Thus, working in conjunction with the increase in vasculature to increase the probability that motile-invasive tumor cells may enter the circulation to disseminate to distant organs [41]. The extent of tumor vascularization differs between malignancies, and has been shown to correlate directly with metastatic potential [42].
Table 5

Annotated urine-based bladder cancer associated diagnostic

Full name

Abbreviation

Ascribed function

Location

Interacts with other members of signature

Interleukin 8

IL8

chemoattractant & angiogenesis

Extracellular

MMP9, SDC1

Angiogenin

ANG

angiogenesis

Extracellular, nucleus

None

Vascular endothelial growth factor A

VEGFA

angiogenesis

Extracellular, cytoplasm

None

Matrix metallopeptidase 9

MMP9

breakdown of extracellular matrix

Extracellular

IL8, MMP10

Matrix metallopeptidase 10

MMP10

breakdown of extracellular matrix

Extracellular

MMP9

Serpin peptidase inhibitor

SERPINA1

serine protease inhibitor

Extracellular

None

Serpin peptidase inhibitor

SERPINE1

serine endopeptidase inhibitor

Extracellular, plasma membrane

None

Carbonic anhydrase IX

CA9

catalyze the reversible hydration of carbon dioxide

Plasma membrane

None

Apolipoprotein E

APOE

Lipoprotein catabolism and metabolism

Extracellular, plasma membrane, cytoplasm

None

Syndecan 1

SDC1

cell binding, cell signaling, cytoskeletal organization

Plasma membrane, cytoplasm

IL8

Our study has important limitations. First, although this is a rather large study with specimens from 213 BCa patients being analyzed, when assessing 10 targets we would ideally like to have an even larger cohort. Second, the majority of our tumors assessed were high-grade tumors, which reflects the tertiary nature of our facility. Next due to the limited dataset, we could not evaluate these biomarkers for distinguishing progressive NMIBC from non-progressive NMIBC as well as progressive MIBC from non-progressive MIBC. With this study serving as proof of principle, we are now in the process of designing a larger, prospective study that can assess these factors. Control cohort is not age matched to BCa cohort. This is not surprising since the average age for bladder cancer patient undergoing transurethral bladder resection was 71 years while the average age for controls undergoing bladder biopsy for voiding dysfunction was 39 years. We believe this age discrepancy is of limited clinical significance. Ideally, we would have had corresponding urine to analyze the biomarker signature via ELISA to document elevated urinary as well as tissue biomarkers in this cohort. However we do not think this distracts since we have previously validated the urinary levels of the signature in over 800 clinical samples [12]-[15] studies to directly compare urinary protein levels with immunoreactivity levels.

Clinically, accurate BCa assays may have a clear impact on initial diagnostic performance, and on the long-term clinical management of BCa patients. If reliable urinary diagnostic biomarker assays can reduce the number of invasive and uncomfortable cystoscopies, then improvements in patient compliance and satisfaction will likely follow. Furthermore, the increased diagnostic efficiency and cost-savings from such assays will benefit both the patients and the healthcare systems. The ultimate goal is to be able to detect BCa in a timely manner such that the patient can expect an improved survival as well as improved quality of life.

Conclusions

BCa disease management is hampered by lack of diagnostic or prognostic markers capable of a) predicting disease and b) predicting the likely disease course. Thus, there is an urgent need for identification and characterization of the molecular alterations that underlie lethal disease and that identifies more aggressive tumors early for radical and/or novel therapies. The present work shows that the expression patterns of the biomarkers in our BCa-associated diagnostic signature are largely reflected in solid tumor tissues and specific associations with grade and stage and DSS were revealed. A combination of these immunohistochemical biomarkers may aid in tissue evaluation with respect to diagnosis of malignancy or in predicting the behavior of individual BCa cases, and if confirmed, some of the targets may represent potential therapeutic targets for human urothelial cancer.

Authors’ information

Ge Zhang and Evan Gomes-Giacoia are co-first authors.

Abbreviations

ANG: 

Angiogenin

CA9: 

Carbonic anhydrase 9

MMP9: 

Matrix metallopeptidase 9

MMP10: 

Matrix metallopeptidase 10

SERPINA1: 

Alpha-1 Antitrypsin

APOE: 

Apolipoprotein E

SDC1: 

Syndecan-1

VEGFA: 

Vascular endothelial growth factor A

SERPINE1: 

Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1

IL8: 

Interleukin 8

BCa: 

Bladder cancer

NMIBC: 

Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

MIBC: 

Muscle invasive bladder cancer

DSS: 

Disease specific survival

AUROC: 

Area under receiver operator curve

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work is funded in part by the James and Esther King Biomedical Team Science Project, 1KT-01 (CJR) and NIH/NCI R44CA173921 (SG).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, Cancer Research Institute
(2)
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Florida
(3)
Department of Pathology, Orlando Health
(4)
Nonagen Bioscience Corp
(5)
Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic
(6)
University of Hawaii Cancer Center

References

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012, 62 (1): 10-29. 10.3322/caac.20138.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Aben KK, Kiemeney LA: Epidemiology of bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 1999, 36: 660-672. 10.1159/000020069.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Hall MC, Chang SS, Dalbagni G, Pruthi RS, Seigne JD, Skinner EC, Wolf JS, Schellhammer PF: Guideline for the management of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (stages Ta, T1, and Tis): 2007 update. J Urol. 2007, 178 (6): 2314-2330. 10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.003.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Babjuk M, Oosterlinck W, Sylvester R, Kaasinen E, Böhle A, Palou-Redorta J: EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol. 2008, 54 (2): 303-314. 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.04.051.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Available at: . Accessed June 22, 2013., [http://www.seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2002]
  6. Stenzl A, Cowan NC, De Santis M, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Ribal MJ, Sherif A, Witjes JA: Treatment of muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: update of the EAU guidelines. Eur Urol. 2011, 59 (6): 1009-1018. 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.023. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.023. Epub 2011 Mar 23. ReviewPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Sternberg CN, Donat SM, Bellmunt J, Millikan RE, Stadler W, De Mulder P, Sherif A, von der Maase H, Tsukamoto T, Soloway MS: Chemotherapy for bladder cancer: treatment guidelines for neoadjuvant chemotherapy, bladder preservation, adjuvant chemotherapy, and metastatic cancer. Urology. 2007, 69 (1 Suppl): 62-79. 10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.041. ReviewPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Urquidi V, Goodison S, Rosser CJ: Diagnostic potential of urinary <alpha> 1-antitrypsin and apolipoprotein e in the detection of bladder cancer. J Urol. 2013, S0022-5347 (13): 00051-00057.Google Scholar
  9. Urquidi V, Kim J, Chang M, Dai Y, Rosser CJ, Goodison S: CCL18 in a multiplex urine-based assay for the detection of bladder cancer. PLoS One. 2012, 7 (5): e37797-10.1371/journal.pone.0037797. Epub 2012 May 21PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Urquidi V, Chang M, Dai Y, Kim J, Wolfson ED, Goodison S, Rosser CJ: IL-8 as a urinary biomarker for the detection of bladder cancer. BMC Urol. 2012, 12 (1): 12-10.1186/1471-2490-12-12.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Urquidi V, Goodison S, Kim J, Chang M, Dai Y, Rosser CJ: Vascular endothelial growth factor, carbonic anhydrase 9, and angiogenin as urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer detection. Urology. 2012, 79 (5): 1185.e1-6-10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.016. Epub 2012 Mar 3PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodison S, Chang M, Dai Y, Urquidi V, Rosser CJ: A multi-analyte assay for the non-invasive detection of bladder cancer. PLoS One. 2012, 7 (10): e47469-10.1371/journal.pone.0047469.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosser CJ, Ross S, Chang M, Dai Y, Mengual L, Zhang G, Kim J, Urquidi V, Alcaraz A, Goodison S: Multiplex protein signature for the detection of bladder cancer in voided urine samples. J Urol. 2013, 190 (6): 2257-2262. 10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.011. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.011PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen LM, Chang M, Dai Y, Chai KX, Dyrskot L, Sanchez-Carbayo M, Szarvas T, Zwarthoff EC, Lokeshwar V, Jeronimo C, Parker AS, Ross S, Borre M, Orntoft TF, Jaeger T, Beukers W, Lopez LE, Henrique R, Young PR, Urquidi V, Goodison S, Rosser CJ: External validation of a multiplex urinary protein panel for the detection of bladder cancer in a multicenter cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014, 23 (9): 1804-1812. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0029.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosser CJ, Chang M, Dai Y, Ross S, Mengual L, Alacaraz A, Goodison S: Urinary protein biomarker panel for the detection of recurrent bladder cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014, 23 (7): 1340-1345. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0035.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Oliveira-Costa JP, Zanetti JS, Silveira GG, Soave DF, Oliveira LR, Zorgetto VA, Soares FA, Zucoloto S, Ribeiro-Silva A: Differential expression of HIF-1α in CD44+CD24-/low breast ductal carcinomas. Diagn Pathol. 2011, 6: 73-10.1186/1746-1596-6-73. doi:10.1186/1746-1596-6-73PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Fasanella S, Leonardi E, Cantaloni C, Eccher C, Bazzanella I, Aldovini D, Bragantini E, Morelli L, Cuorvo LV, Ferro A, Gasperetti F, Berlanda G, Dalla Palma P, Barbareschi M: Proliferative activity in human breast cancer: Ki-67 automated evaluation and the influence of different Ki-67 equivalent antibodies. Diagn Pathol. 2011, 6 (Suppl 1): S7-10.1186/1746-1596-6-S1-S7. doi:10.1186/1746-1596-6-S1-S7PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Miyake M, Lawton A, Dai Y, Chang M, Mengual L, Alcaraz A, Goodison S, Rosser CJ: Clinical implications in the shift of syndecan-1 expression from the cell membrane to the cytoplasm in bladder cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014, 14: 86-10.1186/1471-2407-14-86. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-86PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Yang N, Feng S, Shedden K, Xie X, Liu Y, Rosser CJ, Lubman DM, Goodison S: Urinary glycoprotein biomarker discovery for bladder cancer detection using LC/MS-MS and label-free quantification. Clin Cancer Res. 2011, 17 (10): 3349-3359. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-3121.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Kreunin P, Zhao J, Rosser C, Urquidi V, Lubman DM, Goodison S: Bladder cancer associated glycoprotein signatures revealed by urinary proteomic profiling. J Proteome Res. 2007, 6 (7): 2631-2639. 10.1021/pr0700807.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Urquidi V, Goodison S, Cai Y, Sun Y, Rosser CJ: A candidate molecular biomarker panel for the detection of bladder cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012, 21 (12): 2149-2158. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0428.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosser CJ, Liu L, Sun Y, Villicana P, McCullers M, Porvasnik S, Young PR, Parker AS, Goodison S: Bladder cancer-associated gene expression signatures identified by profiling of exfoliated urothelia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009, 18 (2): 444-453. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-1002.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Aleman A, Cebrian V, Alvarez M, Lopez V, Orenes E, Lopez-Serra L, Algaba F, Bellmunt J, López-Beltrán A, Gonzalez-Peramato P, Cordon-Cardo C, García J, del Muro JG, Esteller M, sánchez-Carbayo M: Identification of PMF1 methylation in association with bladder cancer progression. Clin Cancer Res. 2008, 14 (24): 8236-8243. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0778. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0778PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. van Oers JM, Zwarthoff EC, Rehman I, Azzouzi AR, Cussenot O, Meuth M, Hamdy FC, Catto JW: FGFR3 mutations indicate better survival in invasive upper urinary tract and bladder tumours. Eur Urol. 2009, 55 (3): 650-657. 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.013. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.013. Epub 2008 Jun 13PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Dyrskjøt L, Zieger K, Kissow Lildal T, Reinert T, Gruselle O, Coche T, Borre M, Ørntoft TF: Expression of MAGE-A3, NY-ESO-1, LAGE-1 and PRAME in urothelial carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2012, 107 (1): 116-122. 10.1038/bjc.2012.215. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.215. Epub 2012 May 17PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. García-Baquero R, Puerta P, Beltran M, Alvarez M, Sacristan R, Alvarez-Ossorio JL, sánchez-Carbayo M: Methylation of a novel panel of tumor suppressor genes in urine moves forward noninvasive diagnosis and prognosis of bladder cancer: a 2-center prospective study. J Urol. 2013, 190 (2): 723-730. 10.1016/j.juro.2013.01.105. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.01.105. Epub 2013 Feb 26PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Kandimalla R, Masius R, Beukers W, Bangma CH, Orntoft TF, Dyrskjot L, van Leeuwen N, Lingsma H, van Tilborg AA, Zwarthoff EC: A 3-plex methylation assay combined with the FGFR3 mutation assay sensitively detects recurrent bladder cancer in voided urine. Clin Cancer Res. 2013, 19 (17): 4760-4769. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3276.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Reinert T, Borre M, Christiansen A, Hermann GG, Ørntoft TF, Dyrskjøt L: Diagnosis of bladder cancer recurrence based on urinary levels of EOMES, HOXA9, POU4F2, TWIST1, VIM, and ZNF154 hypermethylation. PLoS One. 2012, 7 (10): e46297-10.1371/journal.pone.0046297. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046297. Epub 2012 Oct 3PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams SG, Stein JP: Molecular pathways in bladder cancer. Urol Res. 2004, 32 (6): 373-385. 10.1007/s00240-003-0345-y.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Cordon-Cardo C: Molecular alterations in bladder cancer. Cancer Surv. 1998, 32: 115-131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Cheng L, Davidson DD, Maclennan GT, Williamson SR, Zhang S, Koch MO, Montironi R, Lopez-Beltran A: The origins of urothelial carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010, 10 (6): 865-880. 10.1586/era.10.73. doi:10.1586/era.10.73PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu J, Zhu D, Sonoda S, He S, Spee C, Ryan SJ, Hinton DR: Over-expression of BMP4 inhibits experimental choroidal neovascularization by modulating VEGF and MMP-9. Angiogenesis. 2012, 15 (2): 213-227. 10.1007/s10456-012-9254-4. doi:10.1007/s10456-012-9254-4. Epub 2012 Mar 4PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang G, Miyake M, Lawton A, Goodison S, Rosser CJ: Matrix metalloproteinase-10 promotes tumor progression through regulation of angiogenic and apoptotic pathways in cervical tumors. BMC Cancer. 2014, 14: 310-10.1186/1471-2407-14-310. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-310PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Tashiro Y, Nishida C, Sato-Kusubata K, Ohki-Koizumi M, Ishihara M, Sato A, Gritli I, Komiyama H, Sato Y, Dan T, Miyata T, Okumura K, Tomiki Y, Sakamoto K, Nakauchi H, Heissig B, Hattori K: Inhibition of PAI-1 induces neutrophil-driven neoangiogenesis and promotes tissue regeneration via production of angiocrine factors in mice. Blood. 2012, 119 (26): 6382-6393. 10.1182/blood-2011-12-399659.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Folkman J: Angiogenesis in cancer, vascular, rheumatoid, and other diseases. Nat Med. 1985, 1: 27-31. 10.1038/nm0195-27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Folkman J, Klagsbrun M: Angiogenic factors. Science. 1987, 235: 442-447. 10.1126/science.2432664.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Hanahan D, Folkman J: Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis. Cell. 1996, 86: 353-364. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80108-7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Blood CH, Zetter BR: Tumor interactions with the vasculature: angiogenesis and tumor metastasis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1990, 1032: 89-118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Miyake M, Goodison S, Lawton A, Gomes-Giacoia E, Rosser CJ: Angiogenin promotes tumoral growth and angiogenesis by regulating matrix metallopeptidase-2 expression via the ERK1/2 pathway.Oncogene 2014. doi:10.1038/onc.2014.2. [Epub ahead of print].,Google Scholar
  40. Giacoia EG, Miyake M, Lawton A, Goodison S, Rosser CJ: PAI-1 leads to G1-phase cell-cycle progression through cyclin D3/cdk4/6 upregulation. Mol Cancer Res. 2014, 12 (3): 322-334. 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-13-0543. doi:10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-13-0543. Epub 2014 Jan 24PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Liotta LA, Kleinerman J, Saidel GM: Quantitative relationships of intravascular tumor cells, tumor vessels, and pulmonary metastases following tumor implantation. Cancer Res. 1974, 34: 997-1003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Weidner N, Folkman J, Pozza F, Bevilacqua P, Allred EN, Moore DH, Meli S, Gaspanni G: Tumor angiogenesis: a new significant and independent prognostic indicator in early stage breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992, 84: 1875-1887. 10.1093/jnci/84.24.1875.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zhang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement