Hypermethylation of CpG islands and shores around specific microRNAs and mirtrons is associated with the phenotype and presence of bladder cancer

PURPOSE To analyze the role and translational potential for hypermethylation of CpG islands and shores in the regulation of small RNAs within urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC). To examine microRNAs (miR) and mirtrons, a new class of RNA located within gene introns and processed in a Drosha-independent manner. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The methylation status of 865 small RNAs was evaluated in normal and malignant cell lines by using 5-azacytidine and microarrays. Bisulfite sequencing was used for CpG regions around selected RNAs. Prognostic and diagnostic associations for epigenetically regulated RNAs were examined by using material from 359 patients, including 216 tumors and 121 urinary samples (68 cases and 53 controls). Functional analyses examined the effect of silencing susceptible RNAs in normal urothelial cells. RESULTS Exonic/UTR-located miRs and mirtons are most susceptible to epigenetic regulation. We identified 4 mirtrons and 16 miRs with CpG hypermethylation across 35 regions in normal and malignant urothelium. For several miRs, hypermethylation was more frequent and dense in CpG shores than islands (e.g., miRs-9/149/210/212/328/503/1224/1227/1229), and was associated with tumor grade, stage, and prognosis (e.g., miR-1224 multivariate analysis OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-5.0; P = 0.006). The urinary expression of epigenetically silenced RNAs (miRs-152/328/1224) was associated with the presence of UCC (concordance index, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; ANOVA P < 0.016). CONCLUSIONS Hypermethylation of mirtrons and miRs is common in UCC. Mirtrons appear particularly susceptible to epigenetic regulation. Aberrant hypermethylation of small RNAs is associated with the presence and behavior of UCC, suggesting potential roles as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers

Multi-domain quantitative recovery following Radical Cystectomy for patients within the iROC (Robot Assisted Radical Cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion versus Open Radical Cystectomy) Randomised Controlled Trial: The first 30 patients

Many patients develop complications after radical cystectomy (RC) [1]. Reductions in morbidity have occurred through centralisation and technical improvements [2], and perhaps through robot-assisted RC (RARC). Whilst RARC is gaining popularity, there are concerns about oncological safety [3] and extracorporeal reconstruction [4], and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) find little difference [5]. We are conducting a prospective RCT comparing open RC and RARC with mandated intracorporeal reconstruction (Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion versus Open Radical Cystectomy [iROC] trial) [6]

Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy Versus Open Radical Cystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Perioperative, Oncological, and Quality of Life Outcomes Using Randomized Controlled Trials

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)Context: Differences in recovery, oncological, and quality of life (QoL) outcomes between open radical cystectomy (ORC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for patients with bladder cancer are unclear.  Objective: This review aims to compare these outcomes within randomized trials of ORC and RARC in this context. The primary outcome was the rate of 90-d perioperative events. The secondary outcomes included operative, pathological, survival, and health-related QoL (HRQoL) measures.  Evidence acquisition: Systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov were performed up to May 31, 2022.  Evidence synthesis: Eight trials, reporting 1024 participants, were included. RARC was associated with a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS; mean difference [MD] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03–0.39, p = 0.02) than and similar complication rates to ORC. ORC was associated with higher thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 95% CI 1.02–3.31, p = 0.04). ORC was associated with more blood loss (MD 322 ml, 95% CI 193–450, p < 0.001) and transfusions (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.65–3.36, p < 0.001), but shorter operative time (MD 76 min, 95% CI 39–112, p < 0.001) than RARC. No differences in lymph node yield (MD 1.07, 95% CI –1.73 to 3.86, p = 0.5) or positive surgical margin rates (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54–1.67, p = 0.9) were present. RARC was associated with better physical functioning or well-being (standardized MD 0.47, 95% CI 0.29–0.65, p < 0.001) and role functioning (MD 8.8, 95% CI 2.4–15.1, p = 0.007), but no improvement in overall HRQoL. No differences in progression-free survival or overall survival were seen. Limitations may include a lack of generalization given trial patients.  Conclusions: RARC offers various perioperative benefits over ORC. It may be more suitable in patients wishing to avoid blood transfusion, those wanting a shorter LOS, or those at a high risk of thromboembolic events.  Patient summary: This study compares robot-assisted keyhole surgery with open surgery for bladder cancer. The robot-assisted approach offered less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer blood clots. No other differences were seen.Peer reviewe

Identification and Diagnostic Performance of a Small RNA within the PCA3 and BMCC1 Gene Locus That Potentially Targets mRNA

Background: PCA3 is a long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) with unknown function, upregulated in prostate cancer. LncRNAs may be processed into smaller active species. We hypothesized this for PCA3. Methods: We computed feasible RNA hairpins within the BMCC1 gene (encompassing PCA3) and searched a prostate transcriptome for these. We measured expression using qRT-PCR in three cohorts of prostate cancer tissues (n = 60), exfoliated urinary cells (n = 484 with cancer and n = 166 controls), and in cell lines (n = 22). We used in silico predictions and RNA knockup to identify potential mRNA targets of short transcribed RNAs. Results: We predicted 13 hairpins, of which PCA3-shRNA2 was most abundant within the prostate transcriptome. PCA3-shRNA2 is located within intron 1 of PCA3 and appears regulated by androgens. Expression of PCA3-shRNA2 was upregulated in malignant prostatic tissues, exfoliated urinary cells from men with prostate cancer (13–273 fold change; t test P < 0.003), and closely correlated to PCA3 expression (r = 0.84–0.93; P < 0.001). Urinary PCA3-shRNA2 (C-index, 0.75–0.81) and PCA3 (C-index, 0.78) could predict the presence of cancer in most men. PCA3-shRNA2 knockup altered the expression of predicted target mRNAs, including COPS2, SOX11, WDR48, TEAD1, and Noggin. PCA3-shRNA2 expression was negatively correlated with COPS2 in patient samples (r = −0.32; P < 0.001). Conclusion: We identified a short RNA within PCA3, whose expression is correlated to PCA3, which may target mRNAs implicated in prostate biology

The Role of Tobacco Smoke in Bladder and Kidney Carcinogenesis: A Comparison of Exposures and Meta-analysis of Incidence and Mortality Risks.

Context Tobacco smoke includes a mix of carcinogens implicated in the etiology of bladder cancer (BC) and renal cell cancer (RCC). Objective We reviewed the impact of tobacco exposure on BCC and RCC incidence and mortality, and whether smoking cessation decreases the risk. Evidence acquisition A systematic review of original articles in English was performed in August 2013. Meta-analysis of risks was performed using adjusted risk ratios where available. Publication bias was assessed using Begg and Egger tests. Evidence synthesis We identified 2683 papers, of which 114 fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 90 studies investigated BC and 24 investigated RCC. The pooled relative risk (RR) of BC incidence was 2.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.37–2.78) for all smokers, 3.37 (3.01–3.78) for current smokers, and 1.98 (1.76–2.22) for former smokers. The corresponding pooled RR of BC disease-specific mortality (DSM) was 1.79 (1.40–2.29), 1.89 (1.29–2.78) and 1.66 (1.10–2.52). The pooled RR of RCC incidence was 1.27 (1.18–135) for all smokers, 1.29 (1.14–1.46) for current smokers, and 1.14 (1.06–1.22) for former smokers. The corresponding RCC DSM risk was 1.20 (1.02–1.41), 1.32 (1.08–1.62), and 1.01 (0.85–1.18). Conclusions We present an up-to-date review of tobacco smoking and BC and RCC incidence and mortality. Tobacco smoking significantly increases the risk of BC and RCC incidence. BC incidence and DSM risk are greatest in current smokers and lowest in former smokers, indicating that smoking cessation confers benefit. We found that secondhand smoke exposure is associated with a significant increase in BC risk. Patient summary Tobacco smoking affects the development and progression of bladder cancer and renal cell cancer. Smoking cessation reduces the risks of developing and dying from these common cancers. We quantify these risks using the most up-to-date results published in the literature

Diagnosis, treatment, and survival from kidney cancer: real‐world National Health Service England data between 2013 and 2019

Objectives: To report the NHS Digital (NHSD) data for patients diagnosed with kidney cancer (KC) in England. We explore the incidence, route to diagnosis (RTD), treatment, and survival patterns from 2013 to 2019. Materials and Methods: Data was extracted from the Cancer Data NHSD portal for International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition coded KC; this included Cancer Registry data, Hospital Episode Statistics, and cancer waiting times data. Results: Registrations included 66 696 individuals with KC. Incidence of new KC diagnoses increased (8998 in 2013, to 10 232 in 2019), but the age‐standardised rates were stable (18.7–19.4/100 000 population). Almost half of patients (30 340 [45.5%]) were aged 0–70 years and the cohort were most frequently diagnosed with Stage 1–2 KC (n = 26 297 [39.4%]). Most patients were diagnosed through non‐urgent general practitioner referrals (n = 16 814 [30.4%]), followed by 2‐week‐wait (n = 15 472 [28.0%]) and emergency routes (n = 11 796 [21.3%]), with older patients (aged ≥70 years), Stage 4 KCs, and patients with non‐specified renal cell carcinoma being significantly more likely to present through the emergency route (all P &lt; 0.001). Invasive treatment (surgery or ablation), radiotherapy, or systemic anti‐cancer therapy use varied with disease stage, patient factors, and treatment network (Cancer Alliance). Survival outcomes differed by Stage, histological subtype, and social deprivation class (P &lt; 0.001). Age‐standardised mortality rates did not change over the study duration, although immunotherapy usage is likely not captured in this study timeline. Conclusion: The NHSD resource provides useful insight about the incidence, diagnostic pathways, treatment, and survival of patients with KC in England and a useful benchmark for the upcoming commissioned National Kidney Cancer Audit. The RTD data may be limited by incidental diagnoses, which could confound the high proportion of ‘emergency’ diagnoses. Importantly, survival outcomes remained relatively unchanged

Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer:the PART feasibility RCT

Background Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Objectives To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture. Design We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation. Setting Five NHS hospitals in England. Participants Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa. Interventions Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU. Primary outcome measure The randomisation of 80 men. Secondary outcome measures Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods. Results Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and ‘tips’ documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) – with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants – than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only. Conclusions Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted

E-cigarettes and urologic health: a collaborative review of toxicology, epidemiology, and potential risks

Context: Use of electronic cigarettes (ECs) is on the rise in most high-income countries. Smoking conventional cigarettes is a known risk factor for urologic malignancy incidence, progression, and mortality, as well as for other urologic health indicators. The potential impact of EC use on urologic health is therefore of clinical interest to the urology community. Objective: To review the available data on current EC use, including potential benefits in urologic patients, potential issues linked to toxicology of EC constituents, and how this might translate into urologic health risks. Evidence acquisition: A Medline search was carried out in August 2016 for studies reporting urologic health outcomes and EC use. Snowballing techniques were also used to identify relevant studies from recent systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis of data around EC health outcomes, toxicology, and potential use in smoking cessation and health policy was carried out. Evidence synthesis: We found no studies to date that have been specifically designed to prospectively assess urologic health risks, even in an observational setting. Generating such data would be an important contribution to the debate on the role of ECs in public health and clinical practice. There is evidence from a recent Cochrane review of RCTs that ECs can support smoking cessation. There are emerging data indicating that potentially harmful components of ECs such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals could be linked to possible urologic health risks. Conclusions: ECs might be a useful tool to encourage cessation of conventional cigarette smoking. However, data collection around the specific impact of ECs on urologic health is needed to clarify the possible patient benefits, outcomes, and adverse events. Patient summary: While electronic cigarettes might help some people to stop smoking, their overall impact on urologic health is not clear. While electronic cigarettes might help some people to stop smoking, it is not clear if they may be bad for urologic health