4.7 Article

Protein shedding in urothelial bladder cancer: prognostic implications of soluble urinary EGFR and EpCAM

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 112, Issue 6, Pages 1052-1058

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.21

Keywords

EGFR; EpCAM; bladder cancer; urine; prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK
  2. University of Birmingham and the Birmingham
  3. Black Country and West Midlands North
  4. South Comprehensive Local Research Networks
  5. University of Birmingham
  6. Birmingham ECMC
  7. bladder cancer research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Better biomarkers must be found to develop clinically useful urine tests for bladder cancer. Proteomics can be used to identify the proteins released by cancer cell lines and generate candidate markers for developing such tests. Methods: We used shotgun proteomics to identify proteins released into culture media by eight bladder cancer cell lines. These data were compared with protein expression data from the Human Protein Atlas. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) was identified as a candidate biomarker and measured by ELISA in urine from 60 noncancer control subjects and from 436 patients with bladder cancer and long-term clinical follow-up. Results: Bladder cancer cell lines shed soluble EGFR ectodomain. Soluble EGFR is also detectable in urine and is highly elevated in some patients with high-grade bladder cancer. Urinary EGFR is an independent indicator of poor bladder cancer-specific survival with a hazard ratio of 2.89 (95% CI 1.81-4.62, P<0.001). In multivariable models including both urinary EGFR and EpCAM, both biomarkers are predictive of bladder cancer-specific survival and have prognostic value over and above that provided by standard clinical observations. Conclusions: Measuring urinary EGFR and EpCAM may represent a simple and useful approach for fast-tracking the investigation and treatment of patients with the most aggressive bladder cancers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available