Integrated Phenotypic/Genotypic Analysis of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma Subtypes: Identification of Prognostic Markers, Cancer-related Pathways, and Implications for Therapy

• Published in: European urology focus 2018-09, Vol.4 (5), p.740-748
• Main Authors: Saleeb, Rola M, Plant, Pamela, Tawedrous, Eriny, Krizova, Adriana, Brimo, Fadi, Evans, Andrew J, Wala, Samantha Jane, Bartlett, John, Ding, Qiang, Boles, Dina, Rotando, Fabio, Farag, Mina, Yousef, George M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cancer subtypes; Gene expression; miRNA; Papillary renal cell carcinoma; Targeted molecular therapy; Urology
• ISSN: 2405-4569; 2405-4569
• DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.09.002

Abstract Background Two histologic subtypes are recognized for papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Studies have shown that the subtypes differ in characteristic genetic alterations and clinical behavior. Clinically, the subtypes are managed similarly. Objectives To analyze the biological differences between the two PRCC histological subtypes, in order to further guide their clinical management. Design, setting, and participants PRCC cohort consisting of 317 patients from the Cancer Genome Atlas database and our institution. Patients were stratified according to histologic criteria as type 1, type 2, or not otherwise specified (NOS). Gene and miRNA expression data for the cohort were examined via unsupervised and supervised clustering. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Significant molecular signatures for each subtype were used to unravel the implicated molecular pathways via bioinformatics analysis. Survival was compared between the subtypes. Newly discovered biomarkers were used to further stratify survival of patients in the NOS category. Results and limitations Tumor genotyping revealed two distinct PRCC subtypes. The top molecular pathways enriched in PRCC1 were WNT, Hedgehog, and Notch signaling ( p = 0.001–0.01); highlighting an embryonic developmental theme to the pathogenesis of this subtype. PRCC2 showed enrichment in the mTOR, VEGF ( p = 7.49E−09) and HIF ( p = 7.63E−05) signaling pathways. Overall survival and disease-free survival significantly differed between the types. ABCC2 expression was identified as a significant prognostic biomarker for the NOS group in univariate (log rank p < 0.0001; hazard ratio [HR] >11.63) and multivariate analysis ( p = 0.003; HR >2.12). ABCC2 expression and its effect on survival should be further validated at the protein level. Conclusions The classical PRCC types 1 and 2 have two distinct genotypes. We unraveled pathways that indicate that the two types could potentially respond differently to current therapies. We also identified biomarkers that stratify tumors within the PRCC NOS category into prognostic subgroups. Our findings highlight the need for molecular markers to accurately subtype PRCC and guide clinical management. Patient summary The two types of papillary renal cancer are treated similarly. We show that the two types have a different genetic makeup, and hence they should be considered two different tumors. There is a different biology underlying each tumor type that can potentially