Wei Ning
Pengkang Chang1- 1Department of Urology, Urologic Surgery Center, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China
- 2Department of Urology of Jiangbei Campus, The First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University (The 958th Hospital of Chinese People’s Liberation Army), Chongqing, China
Bladder cancer kills nearly 170,000 people worldwide each year. Over the past 4 decades, the systematic treatment of metastatic and locally advanced bladder cancer has mainly consisted of platinum-based chemotherapy. In the last 10 years, the development of next-generation sequencing have led to rapid characterization of whole-genome sequencing of bladder cancer, which gives us a better understanding of the pathogenesis of bladder cancer. Based on indications of high mutation burden, and microsatellite instability-high/deficient mismatch repair, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been studied in metastatic and locally advanced bladder cancer as well as bladder-sparing, and shows a good response in these specific indications. Besides, clinically significant expressed molecular targets are used to develop cancer targeted drugs, such as fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors and antibody-drug coupling agents. The exploration of molecular characteristics and subtypes of bladder cancer and the development of new drugs and treatment strategy have also stimulated more clinical studies of bladder cancer. Here, we review advances in the treatment of bladder cancer and clinical practice of next-generation sequencing, highlight important advances in immunotherapy for bladder cancer, preliminarily summarize molecular features of bladder cancer for clinical practice, and came up with direction for future treatment development.
1 Introduction
1.1 Epidemiological investigation
Bladder cancer (BC) is a common malignancy worldwide, with approximately 500,000 new cases and more than 170,000 deaths annually (1). It is one of the three most common tumors of the urinary and reproductive system and is the ninth most common neoplasm and the thirteenth leading cause of cancer death in the world. Men are 3–4 times more likely to develop BC than women (2, 3). The aging of the global population and changes in lifestyle and environment are also affecting incidence and mortality of BC. Increasing risk factors for BC include smoking, infections from schistosomiasis and parasites, occupational exposure to aromatic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, especially with the increasing number of female smokers, the incidence of BC in women has also been increased (4, 5).
1.2 Histopathological classification
Based on the depth of tumor invasion, BC is divided into non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) (6). Approximately 70% BC patients are NMIBC in clinical, however, high-risk patients with NMIBC have a 50% chance of developing MIBC (7). MIBC has a higher disease-specific mortality (DSM) and a lower 5-year overall survival (OS) (8). BC is also divided into urothelial carcinoma (UC) and non-urothelial carcinoma histologically, more than 90% of cases are UC. Among UC, 10%-55% of patients have varying degrees of histopathological variations and coexist with common urothelial cells in different proportions, including squamous differentiation, adenomatous differentiation, micropapillary, sarcomatoid, nested, plasmacytoid, clear cell-like, lymphoepithelial-like, and adipocytoid. At present the treatment of UC with histopathological variations is the same as that of UC, but efficacy and prognosis is poor, further exploration of treatment strategy for UC with histopathological variations is still needed (9–11).
1.3 Traditional treatment model
MIBC accounts for nearly 20% of newly diagnosed cases of BC. Despite promising radical cystectomy (RC) plus pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), more than half of patients ultimately develop distant metastasis due to disseminated micrometastases. Besides, ileal urinary diversions and ureterocutaneostomy may affect the quality of life (QoL), urinary and sexual function, body image, and mental, social, and emotional health of patients (12, 13). For metastatic MIBC patients, over the past 4 decades, the systematic therapy mainly focused on platinum-based chemotherapy (14). But the benefit from platinum-based chemotherapy is relatively modest, with the 5-6% OS benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy after 10 year and no benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (15). Moreover, approximately 50% of patients with metastatic MIBC are ineligible for platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy because of impairment of renal function (16). Because of the limited OS benefit and significant renal toxicity, platinum-based chemotherapy is underutilized in the present clinical practice (17). Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop new therapeutic strategies and comprehensive systematic therapies to preserve the bladder and reduce the recurrence rates and improve life quality of this population.
2 Trimodality therapy remains a first-line program to preserving the bladder
The exploration of bladder-sparing treatments for patients with MIBC has increased in recent years. With the widespread application of radiotherapy in BC, there is always a lot of interest in bladder-sparing treatments (18). The trimodality therapy (TMT) model is a first-line approach to preserving the bladder recommended by the guide, consisting of maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and concurrent chemotherapy (19). It achieves organ preservation and improves survival and QoL (20). However, several retrospective clinical trials have shown no statistically significant differences in OS, disease-specific survival (DSS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between TMT and RC + PLND treatment (21). But patients receiving TMT have higher QoL than those receiving RC + PLND (22, 23). For elderly patients who are unable to tolerate RC because of their poor physical condition, accepting TMT bladder-sparing treatment can get better clinical benefits and QoL (24, 25). The concurrent chemotherapy used in TMT model is usually platinum-based chemotherapy, with carboplatin used in cases of renal insufficiency. Other alternatives, such as 5-fluorouracil and docetaxel, are also available (26–28). However, TMT bladder-sparing treatment also has some issues: patients often develop fibrosis of pelvic tissues after receiving EBRT, which increases the difficulty of salvage RC when cancer recurrence and progression (29). Additionally, EBRT can cause adverse events (AEs) such as radiation cystitis, sexual dysfunction, gastrointestinal symptoms (30). The emergence of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can further reduce the AEs of radiotherapy (31).
The TMT bladder-sparing model has been applied in clinical step by step, and there have been many clinical trials that have confirmed higher OS benefit and QoL for patients with MIBC who received TMT compared with RC + PLND treatment, and it also provides data and evidence for new bladder-sparing strategy (32–34). Nowadays in clinical, bladder-sparing treatments, such as TMT and partial cystectomy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), have attracted wide interest and extensive attention (35). A systematic meta-analysis assessed DSS and OS after TMT and RC. The mean ten-year DSS was 50.9% for TMT and 57.8% for RC (P = 0.26). The mean ten-year OS for TMT was numerically lower than that for RC (30.9% vs. 35.1%, P = 0.32) (36). This meta-analysis revealed that TMT as a promising treatment option for MIBC may provide comparable survival outcomes to RC. A retrospective study reported that 115 MIBC patients at the Juravinski Cancer Center from 2010 to 2016 experienced TMT or TURBT followed by radiotherapy without concurrent chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) rates of TMT and radiotherapy alone after TURBT were 84.4% and 66.7%, respectively. The three-year disease-free survival (DFS) and OS of patients who received TMT were 68.5% and 49.6%, respectively. The risks of disease recurrence and mortality of patients referred for TMT decreased by 45% and 51%, respectively, compared with those who received radiotherapy alone after TURBT (37). However, TMT for MIBC may result in a significant pelvic recurrence rate (24-43%) and salvage cystectomy rate (25%-30%) (38). Moreover, radiotherapy plus concurrent chemotherapy may damage the bladder wall and lead to gradual fibrosis, which could cause RC finally as well (39). At present, the validation of biomarkers predicting tumor response to radiotherapy plus concurrent chemotherapy and guiding bladder-sparing treatments for MIBC patients was lacking (40) (Table 1).
Table 1. Clinical trials of TMT for bladder cancer.
3 The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors has provided a new choice for patients with bladder cancer
3.1 History of immunotherapy
Immunotherapy was first used in UC in the 1970s, and Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) was used as a common immunotherapeutic agent for NMIBC after TURBT to benefit middle and high-risk patients clinically (41). In UC treatment, immunotherapy has better cancer-control efficacy and lower treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rates compared to traditional platinum-based chemotherapy (42). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as a new treatment strategy for advanced and/or metastatic UC, provide new choices for patients who are not tolerant to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, and also provide new treatment options in adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant settings (43). In recent years, the development of ICIs has revolutionized cancer treatments (44). Although immunotherapies affected the immune system and thus caused immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs), these imAEs were generally manageable with early and appropriate interventions (45). Besides, the development of sequencing technologies has improved the genomic characterization of BC, which increased our understanding of the pathogenesis of BC and identified potential therapeutic targets (46). Given the encouraging treatment prospects of ICIs, ICIs have been approved for the treatment of several solid tumors. Especially, accumulating evidence supported the study of ICIs on UC (47, 48). Despite the high mutational burden of BC, a subset of MIBC and advanced BC patients with ICIs still showed durable responses (49). Currently, programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) are the two checkpoints that has been the most studied in clinical (50).
3.2 Exploration of immunotherapy in advanced solid tumors
ICIs has preliminarily revealed anti-cancer efficacy in UC, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, gastric cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) solid tumors across clinical studies in China (51). Moreover, it has been approved for the treatment of UC, classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma in China (52). Additionally, ICIs has positively promising efficacy, acceptable safety profiles and economic benefits, certain new clinical indications in MSI-H/dMMR solid tumors are currently being explored (53). Thus, it may provide a potentially effective weapon against cancer for clinicians and patients, especially for patients with the financial burden. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved five ICIs (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab and durvalumab) for the treatment of MIBC patients who had tumour progression during or following platinum-based chemotherapy (54). Besides, pembrolizumab and nivolumab were also approved as a first-line treatment in MIBC patients who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy and had high expression of PD-L1 (55, 56). PD-1 expresses in activated T lymphocytes, adjusts effector T cell function and suppresses immune responses of T cell (57). As PD-1 is combined with its ligand, PD-L1, T cell activity downregulation and exhaustion occurs. It is now thought that this is one of the mechanisms to prevent autoimmunity (58). In MIBC patients, some studies showed that compared with normal bladder tissue, PD-1/PD-L1 expression was higher in tumor specimens (59, 60). Moreover, PD-L1 expression level in tumor tissue was related to a higher tumor grade and stage, with rich expression in BCG-unresponsive patients (61). Standard treatment for metastatic MIBC has been limited to platinum-based chemotherapy for a long time (62). For some cisplatin-intolerant patients, approval of first-line immunotherapy rely on the PD-L1 expression level, namely Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) and Combined Positive Score (CPS) (63). Employing TPS and CPS Immunohistochemical staining may maximize status for first-line ICIs to treat MIBC patients unfit for platinum-based chemotherapy (64).
3.3 The clinical practice of immune checkpoint inhibitors for cisplatin-intolerant patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma
Currently, platinum-based chemotherapy remains the standard of care for UC (65, 66). Atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) and pembrolizumab (PD-1 inhibitor) have showed promising efficacy and safety in the IMvigor210 trial and KEYNOTE-052 trial respectively, and recently been approved as first-line treatment for some cisplatin-intolerant patients (67). IMvigor130, a multicentre, phase III, randomised trial, untreated patients with locally advanced urothelial carcinoma (laUC) or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy, atezolizumab monotherapy, or placebo and platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoints were PFS and OS (atezolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy vs placebo and platinum-based chemotherapy) and OS (atezolizumab monotherapy vs placebo and platinum-based chemotherapy). After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, median PFS was 8.2 months in patients receiving atezolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy and 6.3 months in patients receiving placebo and platinum-based chemotherapy. Median OS was 16.0 months in patients receiving atezolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy and 13.4 months in patients receiving placebo and platinum-based chemotherapy. Median OS was 15.7 months in patients receiving atezolizumab monotherapy and 13.1 months in patients receiving placebo and platinum-based chemotherapy, there was no statistical significance in OS of two groups of patients. Although OS was not reached, further analysis suggested that patients with high PD-L1 expression might benefit from immunotherapy. These results supported that atezolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged PFS in patients with mUC (68). The KEYNOTE-361 study was used to evaluate the efficacy of pembrolizumab alone or combined with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) regimen for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) patients. For the total population, the pembrolizumab combined GC regimen group did not show a statistically significant benefit in PFS and OS compared to the GC regimen group and for the population of CPS≥10%, the OS benefit of the pembrolizumab group was similar to that of the GC regimen group. Pembrolizumab combined with GC regimen did not show a significant OS benefit in the KEYNOTE-361 study (69). The KEYNOTE-361 study suggested that PD-1 inhibitor and platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely used for aUC treatment. However, in IMvigor130 study, there was no statistical significance in OS between atezolizumab monotherapy and platinum-based chemotherapy for laUC or mUC. But patients with high expression of PD-L1 could benefit from immunotherapy and PD-L1 inhibitor and platinum-based chemotherapy could prolong PFS in patients with mUC. The KEYNOTE-866 study is a currently ongoing, randomized, double-blind, phase III clinical trial that aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapy (pembrolizumab combined with GC chemotherapy) in MIBC patients, which is expected to provide further evidence and data for the clinical benefit of PD-1 inhibitor combined with chemotherapy (70). The JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial evaluated the efficacy of avelumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) combined with best supportive care (BSC) on maintenance treatment of la/m UC. The results showed that avelumab combined with BSC maintenance had significantly higher median OS and PFS than BSC alone (71) (Table 2).
Table 2. Clinical trials of ICIs for bladder cancer.
3.4 Immune checkpoint inhibitors bring new possibility for bladder preservation
Postoperative immunotherapy should be considered a potential alternative treatment option for recurrent MIBC patients to achieve bladder preservation (72). Mao J. reported two cases with bladder-sparing treatments for recurrent MIBC. One patient received NAC plus maximal TURBT and postoperative tislelizumab (PD-1 inhibitor). The another was given maximal TURBT combined with postoperative adjuvant intravesical chemotherapy plus tislelizumab (73). In a retrospective study regarding bladder-sparing treatments, 31 patients with locally advanced or metastatic BC received tislelizumab combined with GC or GC alone, respectively. The results suggested that patients treated with tislelizumab plus GC achieved better anti-cancer efficacy and safety than those by GC alone (74). The study (ONO-4538-X41) was a Phase II clinical trial aiming to determine the safety and anti-cancer efficacy of nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) in combination with GC as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with MIBC who wanted to preserve the bladder. Preliminary results showed that neoadjuvant therapy of nivolumab combined with GC obtained a better clinical CR rate and longer DFS in most patients (75). There were also clinical trials that combined ICIs with TMT for bladder preservation (76). The MK-3475-992/KEYNOTE-992 trial is an III-phase, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at the basis of the TMT model, aiming to explore the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab combined with radiotherapy and chemotherapy in MIBC patients, with DFS as the primary endpoint. The trial is still ongoing and no primary results have been reported yet (77) (Table 2).
3.5 Immune checkpoint inhibitors and immune resistance
ICIs have been widely used in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for MIBC at present, but the objective response rate (ORR) is not satisfactory and varies greatly, and immune resistance still needs to be given close attention. The mechanism of immune resistance is complex and not exactly the same as that of traditional chemotherapy and targeted treatments. It involves multiple factors such as the tumor itself, external factors, and the immunity of the body. The currently clearly studied mechanisms include: endogenous tumor mechanisms, exogenous tumor mechanisms and host-related mechanisms. The endogenous mechanisms of tumor mainly involve: gene mutations and abnormalities in signal transduction pathways, including tumor protein P53 (TP53) gene mutation and PTEN/PI3K/AKT/mTOR signal transduction pathway; epigenetic alterations, such as hypermethylation of DNA; other related mechanisms also include the influence of low expression of PD-L1. The exogenous mechanisms of tumor are closely related to the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME), involving immunosuppressive and effector cells, immunosuppressive factors, alternative immune checkpoints, vascular endothelial growth factors, and TME metabolic reprogramming. Finally, host-related mechanisms are also important influencing factors of immune resistance. Gender, age, genetic history, underlying diseases, and lifestyle of patients are all related to immune resistance in MIBC, while gut microbiota, intestinal metabolism, antibiotics, and hormones can all affect the efficacy of immunotherapy.
4 Immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antibody-drug coupling agent exceeds that of gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the future
Antibody-drug coupling agent (ADC) is a kind of targeted drug based on antigen-antibody specific binding (78). It uses specific linkers to connect antibodies to small cytotoxic drugs, which can effectively act on tumor sites, reduce systemic distribution and increase targeted concentration (79). Once the antibody of ADC binds to the target antigen expressed on cancer cells, ADC will be endocytosed into cells, fused with lysosomes, degraded, and cytotoxic drugs will be released, directly leading to apoptosis (80). In addition, the release of cytotoxic drugs can also alter the tumor microenvironment, further enhancing the efficacy of ADC in killing cancer cells (81). Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) is an ADC drug that targets binding to the tumor-specific highly expressed protein Nectin-4 and was approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of mUC that progresses after platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (82). In clinical trial, EV showed high clinical response. In the treatment of mUC, the efficacy of EV alone or combined with ICIs can completely match or even exceed that of platinum-based chemotherapy (83). In an EV-103 phase Ib/II study, 45 patients with mUC who received 3 cycles of EV combined with pembrolizumab therapy with a median follow-up of 11.5 months showed an ORR of 73.3% and a CR of 15.6%. In 33 patients who had good clinical response, more than half the patients had a sustained response, which suggested that EV combined with pembrolizumab has clinical benefit as an alternative for cisplatin-intolerant patients or as a strategy for patients with mUC who can not tolerate AEs of cisplatin (84). Platinum-based chemotherapy, as a traditional first-line regimen, has AEs such as digestive tract reactions, bone marrow suppression and nephrotoxicity. Some patients cannot tolerate platinum-based regimens due to their own physical conditions or other reasons, especially among the elderly or those with more underlying diseases. The EV-302 clinic trial was designed to evaluate the clinical benefit of EV in combination with pembrolizumab and GC chemotherapy in patients with untreated laUC or mUC. The results showed that in patients with untreated laUC or mUC, treatment with EV and pembrolizumab had significantly better radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and OS than GC chemotherapy, with a safety profile consistent with previous reports (85, 86). The emergence of EV has brought a breakthrough in the treatment of patients with laUC or mUC. The combination regimen of EV and pembrolizumab, with its outstanding efficacy and good tolerance, will profoundly change the clinical practice, enabling more patients to benefit from this innovative treatment and bringing new hope for prolonging the OS of patients with laUC or mUC and preserving their bladders for those who require QoL. On December 15, 2023, the FDA fully approved EV and PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with laUC or mUC (Table 3).
Table 3. Clinical trials of ICIs combined with ADC or FGFR inhibitor for bladder cancer.
5 New second-line clinical strategy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with fibroblast growth factor receptor mRNA overexpression
5.1 Advances in fibroblast growth factor receptor pathway
Fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway has a crucial role in embryonic development, angiogenesis and tissue development, and the regulation of homeostasis (87). At the same time, FGF-FGFR pathway also plays an important role in the occurrence and development of malignant tumors (88). FGF-FGFR pathway can cooperate with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) to induce angiogenesis in tumor tissues and promote its growth and proliferation (89). An ongoing randomized, open, multicenter Phase Ib clinical trial to evaluate the clinical efficacy of durvalumab combined with FGFR inhibitors in MIBC found no significant differences in OS and PFS between durvalumab combined with FGFR targeted therapy and durvalumab alone (90). Current clinical trial has failed to confirm the efficacy of FGFR inhibitors combined with ICIs, and these findings need to be validated through long-term clinical follow-up and adequate clinical data. Studies have reported the anti-tumor efficacy and mechanism of erdafitinib combined with ICIs in mouse models, as well as compared and evaluated the anti-tumor efficacy between erdafitinib combined with ICIs and erdafitinib alone (91). The results showed that erdafitinib combined with ICIs inhibited tumor growth and had a significant survival advantage in mouse models. The synergistic anti-tumor efficacy of erdafitinib combined with ICIs depended on killing tumor cells directly mediated by erdafitinib, as well as the increase of tumor infiltrating T cells and the decrease of regulatory T cells and the down-regulation of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells through PD-1 inhibitors to enhance anti-tumor activity. Survival rate was also higher in the combined treatment group.
5.2 Fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor clinical study
Erdafitinib, the most widely studied FGFR inhibitor, is a pan-FGFR1–4 inhibitor and the only FGFR inhibitor approved by FDA for the treatment of aUC or mUC (92, 93). The the randomized, open-label phase III THOR study, which evaluated the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in combination with erdafitinib in PD-L1 -positive patients with mUC, found that pembrolizumab in combination with erdafitinib had a significant ORR and prolonged median PFS (94). Final data were not reported, but interim data provided prospect and direction for clinical practice of pembrolizumab in combination with erdafitinib. Like erdafitinib, rogaratinib is also a pan-FGFR1–4 inhibitor. Rogaratinib acts on FGFRs of cancer cells and stromal cells, and its anti-tumor efficacy is mediated by concurrent several mechanisms, such as inhibiting cancer cell proliferation and survival and targeting signaling in the TME (95, 96). The FORT-2 study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rogaratinib in combination with atezolizumab in first-line treatment for patients with aUC or mUC who were FGFR-positive and cisplatin-intolerant (97). Latest conclusions and relevance showed that in this phase Ib nonrandomized clinical trial, rogaratinib plus atezolizumab demonstrated a good efficacy and manageable safety, suggesting broad potential benefit for patients with aUC or mUC and FGFR mRNA overexpression. Studies of FGFR-targeted therapy combined with ICIs are mostly ongoing, and these findings may provide new clinical strategy for patients with aUC or mUC (Table 3).
MIBC exhibits a high frequency of gene mutations, especially FGFR3. Single nucleotide variant (SNV), insertions and deletions (INDEL), amplification and missense mutations of FGFR3 usually lead to overexpression of FGFR3. Approximately 50% of MIBC show overexpression of FGFR3, and FGFR signaling pathway may play a key role in progression of MIBC, thus targeted therapy holds great promise for MIBC. Based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) and targeting the FGFR signaling pathway, targeted therapy may be the most beneficial for MIBC. The FGFR signaling pathway in MIBC has gradually been studied in clinical trials and FGFR inhibitor erdafitinib and rogaratinib have preliminarily shown anti-tumor activity. However, whether targeting the FGFR signaling pathway can improve the prognosis of patients or whether low-invasive MIBC has a better prognosis still needs to be confirmed by further clinical research.
6 Next-generation sequencing guides individualized treatment and predicts immunotherapy efficacy and patient prognosis
Recently, the development of NGS has improved the genomic characterization of BC, which may improve the understanding of the genetic underpinnings of disease and drug response for clinicians and allow further customization of treatments and prediction of individualized therapeutic responses (98). Given the unsatisfactory ORR of ICIs as first-line treatment in UC, it is very important to identify biological indicators in predicting the efficacy of ICIs by whole-genome sequencing of BC for further clinical application of ICIs (99).
DNA damage response and repair (DDR) defects play a vital role in the occurrence, development, therapeutic response to immunotherapy, and prognosis of BC (100). Sixty patients with aUC whose tumor samples were analyzed by NGS on pre-immunotherapy tumor specimens met inclusion criteria and thus enrolled in clinical trials regarding immunotherapy. Twenty-eight patients carrying DDR alterations and fifteen harboring deleterious DDR mutations were identified in all patients, respectively. DDR alterations were related to a higher response rate of immunotherapy (67.9% vs. 18.8%, P<0.001) and longer OS and PFS over DDR mutations. A higher response rate was observed in patients whose tumors harbored deleterious DDR mutations compared with patients with DDR alterations (80% vs. 54%, P<0.001) (101).
Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), a core component of the DDR gene, could recognize DNA double-strand break and activate the ATM-mediated homologous recombination repair pathway (102). It might cause functional alterations of the corresponding encoding proteins and finally affect the sensitivity to immunotherapy (103). A collected cohort data from 210 patients with BC who received immunotherapy showed that ATM-mutant BC patients derived greater OS benefits. It suggested that ATM mutation significantly increased the sensitivity to immunotherapy and had potentially prognostic significance for immunotherapy response (104). More and more DDR-related genes were studied. Teo and his team analyzed 34 DDR genes in several pathways. In patients with mUC receiving nivolumab or atezolizumab, harmful DDR alterations were relevant to longer OS (101). Biallelic mutations of genes of DDR pathways such as TP53 was also significantly related to increasing tumor immunogenicity (105).
The cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) gene, also knowed as the P16 gene, encodes multiple tumor suppressor 1 (MTS1) (106). Compared with normal tissue, CDKN2A has a higher expression level in tumor tissue, which can be a biomarker and reflect prognosis in cancers (107). In assays of immune cell infiltration, high CDKN2A expression level in tumor tissue was obviously and positively relateted to more activated immune cells, which suggested that CDKN2A may play a key role in tumor immunity (108). CDKN2A has great potential as a target for immunotherapy. Based on the information and data from the above immunotherapy cohort, we hypothesized that ATM mutation and TP53 mutation as well as CDKN2A mutation could predict immunotherapy efficacy and prognosis in patients with BC.
ARID1B is associated with the metastasis and recurrence of BC as well as immunosuppression (109). It frequently undergoes inactivating mutations in BC and breast cancer. ARID1B is a component protein of the switch/sucrose non-fermentable (SWI/SNF) chromatin-remodeling complex that participates in the occurrence of the tumors by regulating DNA repair and synthesis. Its inactivation may lead to aberrant chromatin closure, preventing the expression of tumor suppressor genes and promoting tumor cell proliferation and evasion of apoptotic mechanisms (110). E2F3 encodes a member of the small family of transcription factors, previous studies have found that E2F3 can promote tumor progression by participating in cell-cycle regulation and activating PI3K/AKT pathway (111). E2F3 is overexpressed in almost all BC, and plays an important role in progression of human BC. Negative regulation of E2F3 in tumor cells can inhibit the proliferation of BC cells (112). Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was correlated with response to ICIs. A retrospective cohort showed that among TMB ≥10 mut/Mb patients, mutations in E2F3 or STK11 correlated with worse OS (113).
Histone methyltransferase KMT2D gene often carries loss-of-function somatic point mutations in BC. It encodes lysine methyltransferase 2D, and deletion of KMT2D is associated with abnormal epigenetic reprogramming in different molecular pathways. KMT2D often mutates in MIBC patients with high histological grade (114). The expression of KMT2D is also regarded as a prognostic biomarker for BC. It promotes the expression of TP53, and TP53 and KMT2D mutation only occurre among patients with MIBC (115). In BC cell lines, overexpression of KMT2D is associated with tumor suppressive effects. It has been observed that patients with high expression of KMT2D tended to have a higher OS and better immune response. However, deletion of KMT2D is associated with cell adhesion, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and upregulation of various metabolic pathways, including hexose or glycolytic metabolic pathways. Meanwhile, compared with wild-type (WT), deletion of KMT2D have a modest increase in tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and amino acid metabolites (116).
CCND1, namely cyclin D1, is a core gene of the cell cycle and a frequently unregulated biomarker in some tumors. In the early G1 phase, CCND1 acts as a promoter for the progression of the cell cycle from the G1 phase to the S phase or as a growth factor sensor (117). The activity of CCND1 is regulated by Rb protein. CCND1 and/or Rb mutations are frequently observed in BC (118). CCND1 and its partner cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) regulate the G1/S transition through Rb phosphorylation. CDK4/CDK6 small peptide inhibitors effectively block Rb phosphorylation in vivo. Furthermore, Rb is also phosphorylated by cyclin E-CDK2 in the late G1 phase. The excessive phosphorylation of Rb reduces its affinity for E2F, thereby allowing E2F to activate and transcribe the genes required for cell division (119). When the cell cycle is disrupted, E2F is activated and transcribs genes related to cell proliferation and differentiation, leading to tumor progression. The expression of CCND1 has certain value in terms of diagnosis and prediction of BC, but its clinical significance in the occurrence and treatment of BC have not provided consistent results through relevant research.
7 Conclusion and outlook
Currently, the standard first-line neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment for laUC or mUC remains platinum-based chemotherapy. TMT is a recognized treatment strategy for selected patients with MIBC who are motivated to preserving the bladder. The above data suggest long-term OS benefit for TMT similar to RC, and continue to support TMT as an appropriate alternative for bladder-sparing. The emergence of ICIs has provided a new choice for cisplatin-intolerant patients with laUC or mUC as well as patients with MIBC who want to preserve the bladder and require a higher QoL. The clinical efficacy of ICIs monotherapy or combined with other therapies (such as ADC) on patients with UC has high feasibility and controllable safety. For patients with laUC or mUC who have FGFR mRNA overexpression, FGFR inhibitor erdafitinib may provide new second-line clinical strategy combined with ICIs. At the same time, in the course of treatment, how to choose an more effective treatment program? How to achieve individualized treatment for different patients? How to avoid and manage AEs? Further studies on molecular markers, drug dosage and treatment sequence are needed.
ICIs have been widely used for ten years Has accumulated a great deal of experience in immunotherapy. FGFR inhibitors have a bright future, but they still require a large amount of clinical data support. ADC represented by EV is constantly emerging and have shown positive results in clinical trials. However, to truly achieve precise treatment of UC by ADC, there are still some challenges in terms of safety and drug efficacy. These issues may be addressed through further optimizing and improving linker and coupling technology, developing new hydrophilic small molecule cytotoxic agents, and selecting fully human monoclonal antibody. Meanwhile, the above research results indicate that the clinical benefits of EV have no significant correlation with the level of PD-L1 expression. This suggests that the combination of EV and ICIs can enhance the efficacy and avoid the problem that the effect of ICIs is restricted by PD-L1 expression. Based on the ORR of EV combined with pembrolizumab, EV can play an important role in the preoperative neoadjuvant therapy of MIBC in the future. In addition, identifying effective biomarkers for predicting prognosis and potential UC patients who can benefit from ADC treatment through more precise molecular typing will remain important explorations in the future. We look forward to conducting more extensive research in the future to provide more compelling evidence for clinical treatment of BC.
Author contributions
WN: Writing – original draft. PC: Writing – original draft. JZ: Writing – review & editing. WC: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for its publication. Current work was partly supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing [CSTB2022NSCQ-MSX0157] and The Young and Middle-aged Medical High-end Talent Project of Chongqing [YXGD202549].
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Lenis AT, Lec PM, Chamie K, and Mshs MD. Bladder cancer: A review. JAMA. (2020) 324:1980–91. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17598
2. Cumberbatch MGK, Jubber I, Black PC, Esperto F, Figueroa JD, Kamat AM, et al. Epidemiology of bladder cancer: A systematic review and contemporary update of risk factors in 2018. Eur Urol. (2018) 74:784–95. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.001
3. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. (2021) 71:209–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
4. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, and Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. (2022) 72:7–33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21708
5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, and Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. (2023) 73:17–48. doi: 10.3322/caac.21763
6. Semeniuk-Wojtaś A, Poddębniak-Strama K, Modzelewska M, Baryła M, Dziąg-Dudek E, Syryło T, et al. Tumour microenvironment as a predictive factor for immunotherapy in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother. (2023) 72:1971–89. doi: 10.1007/s00262-023-03376-9
7. Brocklehurst A, Varughese M, and Birtle A. Bladder preservation for muscle-invasive bladder cancer with variant histology. Semin Radiat Oncol. (2023) 33:62–9. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2022.10.008
8. Stein JP and Skinner DG. Radical cystectomy for invasive bladder cancer: long-term results of a standard procedure. World J Urol. (2006) 24:296–304. doi: 10.1007/s00345-006-0061-7
9. Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, Ulbright TM, and Reuter VE. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs-part B: prostate and bladder tumours. Eur Urol. (2016) 70:106–19. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.028
10. Wasco MJ, Daignault S, Zhang Y, Kunju LP, Kinnaman M, Braun T, et al. Urothelial carcinoma with divergent histologic differentiation (mixed histologic features) predicts the presence of locally advanced bladder cancer when detected at transurethral resection. Urology. (2007) 70:69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.033
11. Krasnow RE, Drumm M, Roberts HJ, Niemierko A, Wu CL, Wu S, et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with histologic variants of urothelial cancer treated with trimodality bladder-sparing therapy. Eur Urol. (2017) 72:54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.002
12. Hamad J, McCloskey H, Milowsky MI, Royce T, and Smith A. Bladder preservation in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a comprehensive review. Int Braz J Urol. (2020) 46:169–84. doi: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2020.99.01
13. Tyson MD 2nd and Barocas DA. Quality of life after radical cystectomy. Urol Clin North Am. (2018) 45:249–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2017.12.008
14. Yin M, Joshi M, Meijer RP, Glantz M, Holder S, Harvey HA, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review and two-step meta-analysis. Oncologist. (2016) 21:708–15. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0440
15. Galsky MD, Wirtz HS, Bloudek B, Hepp Z, Farrar M, Timmons J, et al. Benchmarking maintenance therapy survival in first-line platinum-based chemotherapy-treated patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma using simulated disease modeling. Clin Epidemiol. (2023) 15:765–73. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S409791
16. Dudek AM, van Kampen JGM, Witjes JA, Kiemeney LALM, and Verhaegh GW. LINC00857 expression predicts and mediates the response to platinum-based chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cancer Med. (2018) 7:3342–50. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1570
17. de Kruijff IE, Beije N, Martens JWM, de Wit R, Boormans JL, and Sleijfer S. Liquid biopsies to select patients for perioperative chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol Oncol. (2021) 4:204–14. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.01.003
18. Koga F. Selective multimodal bladder-sparing therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: the present and the future. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. (2023) 23:1127–39. doi: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2257389
19. Swinton M, Mariam NBG, Tan JL, Murphy K, Elumalai T, Soni M, et al. Bladder-sparing treatment with radical dose radiotherapy is an effective alternative to radical cystectomy in patients with clinically node-positive nonmetastatic bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:4406–15. doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.00725
20. Mak RH, Hunt D, Shipley WU, Efstathiou JA, Tester WJ, Hagan MP, et al. Long-term outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer after selective bladder-preserving combined-modality therapy: a pooled analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocols 8802, 8903, 9506, 9706, 9906, and 0233. J Clin Oncol. (2014) 32:3801–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.5548
21. Vashistha V, Wang H, Mazzone A, Liss MA, Svatek RS, Schleicher M, et al. Radical cystectomy compared to combined modality treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. (2017) 97:1002–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.056
22. Song YP, McWilliam A, Hoskin PJ, and Choudhury A. Organ preservation in bladder cancer: an opportunity for truly personalized treatment. Nat Rev Urol. (2019) 16:511–22. doi: 10.1038/s41585-019-0199-x
23. Huddart RA, Birtle A, Maynard L, Beresford M, Blazeby J, Donovan J, et al. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of SPARE - a randomised feasibility study of selective bladder preservation versus radical cystectomy. BJU Int. (2017) 120:639–50. doi: 10.1111/bju.13900
24. Williams SB, Shan Y, Jazzar U, Mehta HB, Baillargeon JG, Huo J, et al. Comparing survival outcomes and costs associated with radical cystectomy and trimodal therapy for older adults with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. JAMA Surg. (2018) 153:881–9. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1680
25. Boustani J, Bertaut A, Galsky MD, Rosenberg JE, Bellmunt J, Powles T, et al. Radical cystectomy or bladder preservation with radiochemotherapy in elderly patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract (RISC) Investigators. Acta Oncol. (2018) 57:491–7. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1369565
26. Giacalone NJ, Shipley WU, Clayman RH, Niemierko A, Drumm M, Heney NM, et al. 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. (2017) 71:952–60. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.020
27. Hussain SA, Stocken DD, Peake DR, Glaholm JG, Zarkar A, Wallace DM, et al. Long-term results of a phase II study of synchronous chemoradiotherapy in advanced muscle invasive bladder cancer. Br J Cancer. (2004) 90:2106–11. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601852
28. Danesi DT, Arcangeli G, Cruciani E, Altavista P, Mecozzi A, Saracino B, et al. Conservative treatment of invasive bladder carcinoma by transurethral resection, protracted intravenous infusion chemotherapy, and hyperfractionated radiotherapy: long term results. Cancer. (2004) 101:2540–8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20654
29. Ramani VA, Maddineni SB, Grey BR, and Clarke NW. Differential complication rates following radical cystectomy in the irradiated and nonirradiated pelvis. Eur Urol. (2010) 57:1058–63. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.002
30. Henningsohn L, Wijkström H, Dickman PW, Bergmark K, and Steineck G. Distressful symptoms after radical radiotherapy for urinary bladder cancer. Radiother Oncol. (2002) 62:215–25. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8140(01)00455-8
31. Majeed H and Gupta V. Adverse effects of radiation therapy. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL (2023).
32. Kulkarni GS, Hermanns T, Wei Y, Bhindi B, Satkunasivam R, Athanasopoulos P, et al. Propensity score analysis of radical cystectomy versus bladder-sparing trimodal therapy in the setting of a multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic. J Clin Oncol. (2017) 35:2299–305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2327
33. Kamat AM, Hahn NM, Efstathiou JA, Lerner SP, Malmström PU, Choi W, et al. Bladder cancer. Lancet. (2016) 388:2796–810. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30512-8
34. Zhou YX, Hu QC, Zhu YJ, Mu XL, Liu JY, and Chen Y. Comparison of trimodality therapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with radical cystectomy for the survival of muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a population-based analysis. Eur J Med Res. (2023) 28:422. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01408-9
35. Lenis AT, Fero KE, Ojeaburu L, Lec PM, Golla V, Brisbane W, et al. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymph node dissection, and treatment delay in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer undergoing partial cystectomy. Urol Oncol. (2021) 39:496.e17–496.e24. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.01.016
36. Fahmy O, Khairul-Asri MG, Schubert T, Renninger M, Malek R, Kübler H, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the oncological long-term outcomes after trimodality therapy and radical cystectomy with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. (2018) 36:43–53. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.10.002
37. Nguyen EK, Yu H, Pond G, Shayegan B, Pinthus JH, Kapoor A, et al. Outcomes of trimodality bladder-sparing therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. (2020) 14:122–9. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.5945
38. Monteiro LL and Kassouf W. Radical Cystectomy is the best choice for most patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer? | Opinion: Yes. Int Braz J Urol. (2017) 43:184–7. doi: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.02.03
39. Silina L, Maksut F, Bernard-Pierrot I, Radvanyi F, Créhange G, Mégnin-Chanet F, et al. Review of experimental studies to improve radiotherapy response in bladder cancer: comments and perspectives. Cancers (Basel). (2020) 13:87. doi: 10.3390/cancers13010087
40. Desai NB and Bagrodia A. The challenge of matching assays to biology in DNA damage response biomarkers for response to radiotherapy in bladder cancer. Transl Androl Urol. (2019) 8:S514–6. doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.07.05
41. Babjuk M, Böhle A, Burger M, Capoun O, Cohen D, Compérat EM, et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol. (2017) 71:447–61. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.041
42. Uccello M, Adeleke S, Moschetta M, Ghose A, and Boussios S. Immunotherapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC): rational and current evidence. Ann Palliat Med. (2023) 12:1345–54. doi: 10.21037/apm-22-1350
43. Das S and Johnson DB. Immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer. (2019) 7:306. doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0805-8
44. Zhang J, Dai Z, Yan C, Zhang W, Wang D, and Tang D. A new biological triangle in cancer: intestinal microbiota, immune checkpoint inhibitors and antibiotics. Clin Transl Oncol. (2021) 23:2415–30. doi: 10.1007/s12094-021-02659-w
45. Clarke JM, George DJ, Lisi S, and Salama AKS. Immune checkpoint blockade: the new frontier in cancer treatment. Target Oncol. (2018) 13:1–20. doi: 10.1007/s11523-017-0549-7
46. Chen Z, Zhou L, Liu L, Hou Y, Xiong M, Yang Y, et al. Single-cell RNA sequencing highlights the role of inflammatory cancer-associated fibroblasts in bladder urothelial carcinoma. Nat Commun. (2020) 11:5077. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18916-5
47. Gouin KH, Ing N, Plummer JT, Rosser CJ, Ben Cheikh B, Oh C, et al. An N-Cadherin 2 expressing epithelial cell subpopulation predicts response to surgery, chemotherapy and immunotherapy in bladder cancer. Nat Commun. (2021) 12:4906. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25103-7
48. Chen X, Xu R, He D, Zhang Y, Chen H, Zhu Y, et al. CD8+ T effector and immune checkpoint signatures predict prognosis and responsiveness to immunotherapy in bladder cancer. Oncogene. (2021) 40:6223–34. doi: 10.1038/s41388-021-02019-6
49. Yuan H, Xiu Y, Liu T, Fan Y, and Xu D. The cuproptosis-associated 11 gene signature as a predictor for outcomes and response to Bacillus Calmette-Guerin and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in bladder carcinoma. Front Immunol. (2023) 14:1126247. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1126247
50. Liu Y and Zheng P. Preserving the CTLA-4 checkpoint for safer and more effective cancer immunotherapy. Trends Pharmacol Sci. (2020) 41:4–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2019.11.003
51. Shen L, Guo J, Zhang Q, Pan H, Yuan Y, Bai Y, et al. Tislelizumab in Chinese patients with advanced solid tumors: an open-label, non-comparative, phase 1/2 study. J Immunother Cancer. (2020) 8:e000437. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2019-000437
52. Lee A and Keam SJ. Tislelizumab: first approval. Drugs. (2020) 80:617–24. doi: 10.1007/s40265-020-01286-z
53. Zhang L, Geng Z, Hao B, and Geng Q. Tislelizumab: A modified anti-tumor programmed death receptor 1 antibody. Cancer Control. (2022) 29:10732748221111296. doi: 10.1177/10732748221111296
54. Hanna KS. Updates and novel treatments in urothelial carcinoma. J Oncol Pharm Pract. (2019) 25:648–56. doi: 10.1177/1078155218805141
55. Patel VG, Oh WK, and Galsky MD. Treatment of muscle-invasive and advanced bladder cancer in 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. (2020) 70:404–23. doi: 10.3322/caac.21631
56. Ward Grados DF, Ahmadi H, Griffith TS, and Warlick CA. Immunotherapy for bladder cancer: latest advances and ongoing clinical trials. Immunol Invest. (2022) 51:2226–51. doi: 10.1080/08820139.2022.2118606
57. de Jong FC, Rutten VC, Zuiverloon TCM, and Theodorescu D. Improving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy for localized bladder cancer. Int J Mol Sci. (2021) 22:2800. doi: 10.3390/ijms22062800
58. Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. (2012) 12:252–64. doi: 10.1038/nrc3239
59. Zhou TC, Sankin AI, Porcelli SA, Perlin DS, Schoenberg MP, and Zang X. A review of the PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint in bladder cancer: From mediator of immune escape to target for treatment. Urol Oncol. (2017) 35:14–20. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.10.004
60. Wang L, Sfakianos JP, Beaumont KG, Akturk G, Horowitz A, Sebra RP, et al. Myeloid cell-associated resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in urothelial cancer revealed through bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing. Clin Cancer Res. (2021) 27:4287–300. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4574
61. Moussa M, Papatsoris AG, Dellis A, Abou Chakra M, and Saad W. Novel anticancer therapy in BCG unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. (2020) 20:965–83. doi: 10.1080/14737140.2020.1822743
62. Teo MY, Mota JM, Whiting KA, Li HA, Funt SA, Lee CH, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 alteration status is associated with differential sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy in locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol. (2020) 78:907–15. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.018
63. Kaur J, Choi W, Geynisman DM, Plimack ER, and Ghatalia P. Role of immunotherapy in localized muscle invasive urothelial cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol. (2021) 13:17588359211045858. doi: 10.1177/17588359211045858
64. Schulz GB, Todorova R, Braunschweig T, Rodler S, Volz Y, Eismann L, et al. PD-L1 expression in bladder cancer: Which scoring algorithm in what tissue? Urol Oncol. (2021) 39:734.e1–734.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.06.001
65. Flaig TW, Spiess PE, Agarwal N, Bangs R, Boorjian SA, Buyyounouski MK, et al. Bladder cancer, version 3.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. (2020) 18:329–54. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.0011
66. Milowsky MI, Rumble RB, Booth CM, Gilligan T, Eapen LJ, Hauke RJ, et al. Guideline on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer (European association of urology guideline): American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol. (2016) 34:1945–52. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.9797
67. Suzman DL, Agrawal S, Ning YM, Maher VE, Fernandes LL, Karuri S, et al. FDA approval summary: atezolizumab or pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Oncologist. (2019) 24:563–9. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0084
68. Galsky MD, Arija JÁA, Bamias A, Davis ID, De Santis M, Kikuchi E, et al. Atezolizumab with or without chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial cancer (IMvigor130): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. (2020) 395:1547–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30230-0
69. Powles T, Csőszi T, Özgüroğlu M, Matsubara N, Géczi L, Cheng SY, et al. Pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (KEYNOTE-361): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. (2021) 22:931–45. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00152-2
70. Galsky MD, Hoimes CJ, Necchi A, Shore N, Witjes JA, Steinberg G, et al. Perioperative pembrolizumab therapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Phase III KEYNOTE-866 and KEYNOTE-905/EV-303. Future Oncol. (2021) 17:3137–50. doi: 10.2217/fon-2021-0273
71. Lee JL, Desai C, Park SH, Tsuchiya N, Su PJ, Chan TTW, et al. Avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) vs. BSC alone for advanced urothelial carcinoma: JAVELIN Bladder 100 Asian subgroup analysis. Urol Oncol. (2023) 41:256.e17–256.e25. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.02.002
72. Alfred Witjes J, Max Bruins H, Carrión A, Cathomas R, Compérat E, Efstathiou JA, et al. European association of urology guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: summary of the 2023 guidelines. Eur Urol. (2024) 85:17–31. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.08.016
73. Mao J, Yang C, Xin S, Cui K, Liu Z, Wang T, et al. Case report: Bladder preserving after maximal transurethral resection of the bladder tumor combined with chemotherapy and immunotherapy in recurrent muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients: A report of two cases. Front Med (Lausanne). (2022) 9:949567. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.949567
74. Ren X, Tian Y, Wang Z, Wang J, Li X, Yin Y, et al. Tislelizumab in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin chemotherapy as first-line adjuvant treatment for locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: a retrospective study. BMC Urol. (2022) 22:128. doi: 10.1186/s12894-022-01083-8
75. Kim H, Jeong BC, Hong J, Kwon GY, Kim CK, Park W, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer Res Treat. (2023) 55:636–42. doi: 10.4143/crt.2022.343
76. Marcq G, Souhami L, Cury FL, Salimi A, Aprikian A, Tanguay S, et al. Phase 1 trial of atezolizumab plus trimodal therapy in patients with localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. (2021) 110:738–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.12.033
77. Tissot G and Xylinas E. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in combination with chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: the MK-3475-992/KEYNOTE-992 trial. Eur Urol Focus. (2023) 9:227–8. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.12.012
78. Shi F, Liu Y, Zhou X, Shen P, Xue R, and Zhang M. Disitamab vedotin: a novel antibody-drug conjugates for cancer therapy. Drug Deliv. (2022) 29:1335–44. doi: 10.1080/10717544.2022.2069883
79. Birrer MJ, Moore KN, Betella I, and Bates RC. Antibody-drug conjugate-based therapeutics: state of the science. J Natl Cancer Inst. (2019) 111:538–49. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz035
80. Liu K, Li M, Li Y, Li Y, Chen Z, Tang Y, et al. A review of the clinical efficacy of FDA-approved antibody–drug conjugates in human cancers. Mol Cancer. (2024) 23:62. doi: 10.1186/s12943-024-01963-7
81. Staudacher AH and Brown MP. Antibody drug conjugates and bystander killing: is antigen-dependent internalisation required? Br J Cancer. (2017) 117:1736–42. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.367
82. Rosenberg J, Sridhar SS, Zhang J, Smith D, Ruether D, Flaig TW, et al. EV-101: A Phase I Study of Single-Agent Enfortumab Vedotin in Patients With Nectin-4-Positive Solid Tumors, Including Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. (2020) 38:1041–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02044
83. Lattanzi M and Rosenberg JE. The emerging role of antibody-drug conjugates in urothelial carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. (2020) 20:551–61. doi: 10.1080/14737140.2020.1782201
84. O’Donnell PH, Milowsky MI, Petrylak DP, Hoimes CJ, Flaig TW, Mar N, et al. Enfortumab vedotin with or without pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:4107–17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02887
85. Powles T, Valderrama BP, Gupta S, Bedke J, Kikuchi E, Hoffman-Censits J, et al. Enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab in untreated advanced urothelial cancer. N Engl J Med. (2024) 390:875–88. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2312117
86. Benjamin DJ, Rezazadeh Kalebasty A, and Prasad V. The overall survival benefit in EV-302: is enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab the new frontline standard of care for metastatic urothelial carcinoma? Eur Urol Oncol. (2024) 7:313–5. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.02.010
87. Katoh M, Loriot Y, Brandi G, Tavolari S, Wainberg ZA, and Katoh M. FGFR-targeted therapeutics: clinical activity, mechanisms of resistance and new directions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2024) 21:312–29. doi: 10.1038/s41571-024-00869-z
88. Zhang J, Tang PMK, Zhou Y, Cheng ASL, Yu J, Kang W, et al. Targeting the oncogenic FGF-FGFR axis in gastric carcinogenesis. Cells. (2019) 8:637. doi: 10.3390/cells8060637
89. Lieu C, Heymach J, Overman M, Tran H, and Kopetz S. Beyond VEGF: inhibition of the fibroblast growth factor pathway and antiangiogenesis. Clin Cancer Res. (2011) 17:6130–9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0659
90. Powles T, Carroll D, Chowdhury S, Gravis G, Joly F, Carles J, et al. An adaptive, biomarker-directed platform study of durvalumab in combination with targeted therapies in advanced urothelial cancer. Nat Med. (2021) 27:793–801. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01317-6
91. Palakurthi S, Kuraguchi M, Zacharek SJ, Zudaire E, Huang W, Bonal DM, et al. The combined effect of FGFR inhibition and PD-1 blockade promotes tumor-intrinsic induction of antitumor immunity. Cancer Immunol Res. (2019) 7:1457–71. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0595
92. Lopez-Beltran A, Cookson MS, Guercio BJ, and Cheng L. Advances in diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. BMJ. (2024) 384:e076743. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076743
93. Loriot Y, Necchi A, Park SH, Garcia-Donas J, Huddart R, Burgess E, et al. Erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. (2019) 381:338–48. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817323
94. Siefker-Radtke AO, Matsubara N, Park SH, Huddart RA, Burgess EF, Özgüroğlu M, et al. Erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer with select FGFR alterations: cohort 2 of the randomized phase III THOR trial. Ann Oncol. (2024) 35:107–17. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.003
95. Collin MP, Lobell M, Hübsch W, Brohm D, Schirok H, Jautelat R, et al. Discovery of rogaratinib (BAY 1163877): a pan-FGFR inhibitor. ChemMedChem. (2018) 13:437–45. doi: 10.1002/cmdc.201700718
96. Grünewald S, Politz O, Bender S, Héroult M, Lustig K, Thuss U, et al. Rogaratinib: A potent and selective pan-FGFR inhibitor with broad antitumor activity in FGFR-overexpressing preclinical cancer models. Int J Cancer. (2019) 145:1346–57. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32224
97. Sweis RF, Gajate P, Morales-Barrera R, Lee JL, Necchi A, de Braud F, et al. Rogaratinib plus atezolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with FGFR RNA-overexpressing urothelial cancer: the FORT-2 phase 1b nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. (2024) 10:1565–70. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.3900
98. Ortiz-Brüchle N, Muders M, Toma M, Esposito I, Hartmann A, Stöhr R, et al. Status der Verfügbarkeit und Anwendung von „next generation sequencing” (NGS) beim Harnblasenkarzinom – eine Umfrage in der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Uropathologie [Status of the availability and use of next generation sequencing (NGS) in bladder cancer-a questionnaire within the uropathology working group. Urologe A. (2020) 59:318–25. doi: 10.1007/s00120-019-01046-2
99. Dawid de Vera MT, Prieto Cuadra JD, Álvarez Pérez M, Garrido-Aranda A, Alba Conejo E, and Hierro Martín I. PD-L1 immunoexpression and molecular characterization of histological subtypes in urothelial carcinoma. Rev Esp Patol. (2023) 56:10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.patol.2022.09.002
100. Kornepati AVR, Rogers CM, Sung P, and Curiel TJ. The complementarity of DDR, nucleic acids and anti-tumour immunity. Nature. (2023) 619:475–86. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06069-6
101. Teo MY, Seier K, Ostrovnaya I, Regazzi AM, Kania BE, Moran MM, et al. Alterations in DNA damage response and repair genes as potential marker of clinical benefit from PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in advanced urothelial cancers. J Clin Oncol. (2018) 36:1685–94. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.7740
102. Pan YH, Zhang JX, Chen X, Liu F, Cao JZ, Chen Y, et al. Predictive value of the TP53/PIK3CA/ATM mutation classifier for patients with bladder cancer responding to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:643282. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.643282
103. Hu M, Zhou M, Bao X, Pan D, Jiao M, Liu X, et al. ATM inhibition enhances cancer immunotherapy by promoting mtDNA leakage and cGAS/STING activation. J Clin Invest. (2021) 131:e139333. doi: 10.1172/JCI139333
104. Yi R, Lin A, Cao M, Xu A, Luo P, and Zhang J. ATM mutations benefit bladder cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors by acting on the tumor immune microenvironment. Front Genet. (2020) 11:933. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00933
105. Jiang M, Jia K, Wang L, Li W, Chen B, Liu Y, et al. Alterations of DNA damage response pathway: Biomarker and therapeutic strategy for cancer immunotherapy. Acta Pharm Sin B. (2021) 11:2983–94. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2021.01.003
107. Bian Z, Fan R, and Xie L. A novel cuproptosis-related prognostic gene signature and validation of differential expression in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Genes (Basel). (2022) 13:851. doi: 10.3390/genes13050851
108. Chen Z, Guo Y, Zhao D, Zou Q, Yu F, Zhang L, et al. Comprehensive analysis revealed that CDKN2A is a biomarker for immune infiltrates in multiple cancers. Front Cell Dev Biol. (2021) 9:808208. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.808208
109. Wang X, Qiao G, Jiang N, Morse MA, Zhou X, Wang S, et al. Serial assessment of circulating T lymphocyte phenotype and receptor repertoire during treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with adoptive T cell immunotherapy. Am J Cancer Res. (2021) 11:1709–18.
110. Hao F, Zhang Y, Hou J, and Zhao B. Chromatin remodeling and cancer: the critical influence of the SWI/SNF complex. Epigenet Chromatin. (2025) 18:22. doi: 10.1186/s13072-025-00590-w
111. Gao J, Wang H, Qiu X, and Tang J. E2F3/CDCA2 reduces radiosensitivity in gastric adenocarcinoma by activating PI3K/AKT pathway. Br J Radiol. (2023) 96:20230477. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20230477
112. Liu L, Qiu M, Tan G, Liang Z, Qin Y, Chen L, et al. miR-200c inhibits invasion, migration and proliferation of bladder cancer cells through down-regulation of BMI-1 and E2F3. J Transl Med. (2014) 12:305. doi: 10.1186/s12967-014-0305-z
113. Xavier CB, Lopes CDH, Awni BM, Campos EF, Alves JPB, Camargo AA, et al. Interplay between tumor mutational burden and mutational profile and its effect on overall survival: A pilot study of metastatic patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cancers (Basel). (2022) 14:5433. doi: 10.3390/cancers14215433
114. Pérez-Montiel MD, Cerrato-Izaguirre D, Sánchez-Pérez Y, Diaz-Chavez J, Cortés-González CC, Rubio JA, et al. Mutational landscape of bladder cancer in mexican patients: KMT2D mutations and chr11q15.5 amplifications are associated with muscle invasion. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 24:1092. doi: 10.3390/ijms24021092
115. Wang F, Dong X, Yang F, and Xing N. Comparative analysis of differentially mutated genes in non-muscle and muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the Chinese population by whole exome sequencing. Front Genet. (2022) 13:831146. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.831146
116. Maitituoheti M, Keung EZ, Tang M, Yan L, Alam H, Han G, et al. Enhancer reprogramming confers dependence on glycolysis and IGF signaling in KMT2D mutant melanoma. Cell Rep. (2020) 33:108293. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108293
117. Zhao K, Zhang H, Lin J, Xu S, Liu J, Qian X, et al. Radiomic prediction of CCND1 expression levels and prognosis in low-grade glioma based on magnetic resonance imaging. Acad Radiol. (2024) 31:4595–610. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2024.03.031
118. Karakaya YA and Oral E. Correlation of cyclin D1, HER2, and AMACR expressions with histologic grade in bladder urothelial carcinomas. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. (2021) 64:84–90. doi: 10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_980_19
Keywords: antibody-drug coupling agent, bladder cancer, fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, next-generation sequencing, trimodality therapy
Citation: Ning W, Chang P, Zheng J and Chen W (2026) Advances in immunotherapy for bladder cancer and clinical practice of next-generation sequencing. Front. Immunol. 16:1684597. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1684597
Received: 12 August 2025; Accepted: 31 December 2025; Revised: 18 December 2025;
Published: 21 January 2026.
Edited by:
Giandomenico Roviello, University of Firenze, ItalyReviewed by:
Lei Yin, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, ChinaKhaled Alqarni, University of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Copyright © 2026 Ning, Chang, Zheng and Chen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ji Zheng, Sml6aGVuZ0B0bW11LmVkdS5jbg==; Wei Chen, ZG9jdG9yY3dAdG1tdS5lZHUuY24=