Aim: Several urinary hypermethylation-markers (hmDNA) have been described for bladder cancer (BC) detection, but none have been able to replace cystoscopy yet. We systematically reviewed and evaluated current literature on urinary hmDNA markers for BC diagnostics. Patients & methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE.com and The Cochrane Library up to February 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, was conducted. Results: A total of 30/42 studies included compared gene panels, with varying sensitivities (52–100%) and specificities (0–100%). Considerable heterogeneity across studies was observed and most was case–control studies. Conclusion: Reported diagnostic accuracy of urinary hmDNA for BC detection is highly variable and there is a lack of validation studies. Recent studies indicate that complementary markers are needed to allow for clinical implementation.

Keywords:

References

1 International Agency for Research on Cancer. Globocan 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. 14 November 2016. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx.
Google Scholar
2 Van Rhijn BW, Burger M, Lotan Y et al. Recurrence and progression of disease in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: from epidemiology to treatment strategy. Eur. Urol. 56(3), 430–442 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3 Babjuk M, Bohle A, Burger M et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur. Urol. 71(3), 447–461 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4 Svatek RS, Hollenbeck BK, Holmang S et al. The economics of bladder cancer: costs and considerations of caring for this disease. Eur. Urol. 66(2), 253–262 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5 Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and meta-analyses. Urology 61(1), 109–118; discussion 118 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6 Jones PA, Baylin SB. The fundamental role of epigenetic events in cancer. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3(6), 415–428 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7 Ralla B, Stephan C, Meller S, Dietrich D, Kristiansen G, Jung K. Nucleic acid-based biomarkers in body fluids of patients with urologic malignancies. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 51(4), 200–231 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6(7), e1000097 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9 Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C (Eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 0.9. Cochrane Collaboration (2013).
Google Scholar
10 Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 155(8), 529–536 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11 Aleman A, Adrien L, Lopez-Serra L et al. Identification of DNA hypermethylation of SOX9 in association with bladder cancer progression using CpG microarrays. Br. J. Cancer 98(2), 466–473 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12 Andersson E, Dahmcke CM, Steven K, Larsen LK, Guldberg P. Filtration device for on-site collection, storage and shipment of cells from urine and its application to DNA-based detection of bladder cancer. PLoS ONE 10(7), e0131889 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13 Cabello MJ, Grau L, Franco N et al. Multiplexed methylation profiles of tumor suppressor genes in bladder cancer. J. Mol. Diagn. 3(1), 29–40 (2011).
Google Scholar
14 Cebrian V, Alvarez M, Aleman A et al. Discovery of myopodin methylation in bladder cancer. J. Pathol. 216(1), 111–119 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15 Chan MW, Chan LW, Tang NL et al. Frequent hypermethylation of promoter region of RASSF1A in tumor tissues and voided urine of urinary bladder cancer patients. Int. J. Cancer 104(5), 611–616 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16 Chan MW, Chan LW, Tang NL et al. Hypermethylation of multiple genes in tumor tissues and voided urine in urinary bladder cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 8(2), 464–470 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17 Chihara Y, Kanai Y, Fujimoto H et al. Diagnostic markers of urothelial cancer based on DNA methylation analysis. BMC Cancer 13, 275 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18 Chung W, Bondaruk J, Jelinek J et al. Detection of bladder cancer using novel DNA methylation biomarkers in urine sediments. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 20(7), 1483–1491 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19 Costa VL, Henrique R, Danielsen SA et al. Three epigenetic biomarkers, GDF15, TMEFF2, and VIM, accurately predict bladder cancer from DNA-based analyses of urine samples. Clin. Cancer Res. 16(23), 5842–5851 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20 Costa VL, Henrique R, Danielsen SA et al. TCF21 and PCDH17 methylation: an innovative panel of biomarkers for a simultaneous detection of urological cancers. Epigenetics 6(9), 1120–1130 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21 Dahmcke CM, Steven KE, Larsen LK et al. A prospective blinded evaluation of urine-DNA testing for detection of urothelial bladder carcinoma in patients with gross hematuria. Eur. Urol. 70(6), 916–919 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22 Dulaimi E, Uzzo RG, Greenberg RE, Al-Saleem T, Cairns P. Detection of bladder cancer in urine by a tumor suppressor gene hypermethylation panel. Clin. Cancer Res. 10(6), 1887–1893 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23 Fantony JJ, Abern MR, Gopalakrishna A et al. Multi-institutional external validation of urinary TWIST1 and NID2 methylation as a diagnostic test for bladder cancer. Urol. Oncol. 33(9), 387; e381–386 (2015).
Google Scholar
24 Fernandez CA, Millholland JM, Zwarthoff EC, Feldman AS, Karnes RJ, Shuber AP. A noninvasive multi-analyte diagnostic assay: combining protein and DNA markers to stratify bladder cancer patients. Res. Rep. Urol. 4, 17–26 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25 Friedrich MG, Weisenberger DJ, Cheng JC et al. Detection of methylated apoptosis-associated genes in urine sediments of bladder cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 10(22), 7457–7465 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26 Garcia-Baquero R, Puerta P, Beltran M et al. 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. 190(2), 723–730 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27 Hayashi M, Bernert H, Kagohara LT et al. Epigenetic inactivation of VGF associated with urothelial cell carcinoma and its potential as a non-invasive biomarker using urine. Oncotarget 5(10), 3350–3361 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28 Hoque MO, Begum S, Topaloglu O et al. Quantitation of promoter methylation of multiple genes in urine DNA and bladder cancer detection. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98(14), 996–1004 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29 Kandimalla R, Masius R, Beukers W et al. A 3-plex methylation assay combined with the FGFR3 mutation assay sensitively detects recurrent bladder cancer in voided urine. Clin. Cancer Res. 19(17), 4760–4769 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30 Lee J, Wysocki PT, Topaloglu O et al. Epigenetic silencing of S100A2 in bladder and head and neck cancers. Oncoscience 2(4), 410–418 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31 Lin HH, Ke HL, Huang SP, Wu WJ, Chen YK, Chang LL. Increase sensitivity in detecting superficial, low grade bladder cancer by combination analysis of hypermethylation of E-cadherin, p16, p14, RASSF1A genes in urine. Urol. Oncol. 28(6), 597–602 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32 Maldonado L, Brait M, Michailidi C et al. An epigenetic marker panel for recurrence risk prediction of low grade papillary urothelial cell carcinoma (LGPUCC) and its potential use for surveillance after transurethral resection using urine. Oncotarget 5(14), 5218–5233 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33 Pietrusinski M, Kepczynski L, Jedrzejczyk A et al. Detection of bladder cancer in urine sediments by a hypermethylation panel of selected tumor suppressor genes. Cancer Biomark. 18(1), 47–59 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34 Reinert T, Borre M, Christiansen A, Hermann GG, Orntoft TF, Dyrskjot L. Diagnosis of bladder cancer recurrence based on urinary levels of EOMES, HOXA9, POU4F2, TWIST1, VIM, and ZNF154 hypermethylation. PLoS ONE 7(10), e46297 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35 Reinert T, Modin C, Castano FM et al. Comprehensive genome methylation analysis in bladder cancer: identification and validation of novel methylated genes and application of these as urinary tumor markers. Clin. Cancer Res. 17(17), 5582–5592 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36 Renard I, Joniau S, Van Cleynenbreugel B et al. Identification and validation of the methylated TWIST1 and NID2 genes through real-time methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction assays for the noninvasive detection of primary bladder cancer in urine samples. Eur. Urol. 58(1), 96–104 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37 Roperch JP, Grandchamp B, Desgrandchamps F et al. Promoter hypermethylation of HS3ST2, SEPTIN9 and SLIT2 combined with FGFR3 mutations as a sensitive/specific urinary assay for diagnosis and surveillance in patients with low or high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. BMC Cancer 16, 704 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38 Roupret M, Hupertan V, Yates DR et al. A comparison of the performance of microsatellite and methylation urine analysis for predicting the recurrence of urothelial cell carcinoma, and definition of a set of markers by Bayesian network analysis. BJU Int. 101(11), 1448–1453 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39 Scher MB, Elbaum MB, Mogilevkin Y et al. Detecting DNA methylation of the BCL2, CDKN2A and NID2 genes in urine using a nested methylation specific polymerase chain reaction assay to predict bladder cancer. J. Urol. 188(6), 2101–2107 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40 Serizawa RR, Ralfkiaer U, Steven K et al. Integrated genetic and epigenetic analysis of bladder cancer reveals an additive diagnostic value of FGFR3 mutations and hypermethylation events. Int. J. Cancer 129(1), 78–87 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41 Urakami S, Shiina H, Enokida H et al. Combination analysis of hypermethylated Wnt-antagonist family genes as a novel epigenetic biomarker panel for bladder cancer detection. Clin. Cancer Res. 12(7 Pt 1), 2109–2116 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42 Van Kessel KE, Beukers W, Lurkin I et al. Validation of a DNA methylation-mutation urine assay to select patients with hematuria for cystoscopy. J. Urol. 197(3, Pt 1), 590–595 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43 Van Kessel KE, Van Neste L, Lurkin I, Zwarthoff EC, Van Criekinge W. Evaluation of an epigenetic profile for the detection of bladder cancer in patients with hematuria. J. Urol. 195(3), 601–607 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44 Vinci S, Giannarini G, Selli C et al. Quantitative methylation analysis of BCL2, hTERT, and DAPK promoters in urine sediment for the detection of non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: a prospective, two-center validation study. Urol. Oncol. 29(2), 150–156 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45 Wang K, Tian Y, Xu H. Improved noninvasive bladder cancer diagnosis using urine sediments and novel DNA methylation biomarker panels. Clin. Lab. 62(3), 327–336 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46 Wang Y, Yu Y, Ye R et al. An epigenetic biomarker combination of PCDH17 and POU4F2 detects bladder cancer accurately by methylation analyses of urine sediment DNA in Han Chinese. Oncotarget 7(3), 2754–2764 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
47 Yates DR, Rehman I, Meuth M, Cross SS, Hamdy FC, Catto JW. Methylational urinalysis: a prospective study of bladder cancer patients and age stratified benign controls. Oncogene 25(13), 1984–1988 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48 Yegin Z, Gunes S, Buyukalpelli R. Hypermethylation of TWIST1 and NID2 in tumor tissues and voided urine in urinary bladder cancer patients. DNA Cell Biol. 32(7), 386–392 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49 Yeh CM, Chen PC, Hsieh HY et al. Methylomics analysis identifies ZNF671 as an epigenetically repressed novel tumor suppressor and a potential non-invasive biomarker for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Oncotarget 6(30), 29555–29572 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
50 Yu J, Zhu T, Wang Z et al. A novel set of DNA methylation markers in urine sediments for sensitive/specific detection of bladder cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 13(24), 7296–7304 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51 Zhao Y, Guo S, Sun J et al. Methylcap-seq reveals novel DNA methylation markers for the diagnosis and recurrence prediction of bladder cancer in a Chinese population. PLoS ONE 7(4), e35175 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52 Zuiverloon TC, Beukers W, Van Der Keur KA et al. A methylation assay for the detection of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) recurrences in voided urine. BJU Int. 109(6), 941–948 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
53 Beukers W, Van Der Keur KA, Kandimalla R et al. FGFR3, TERT and OTX1 as a urinary biomarker combination for surveillance of patients with bladder cancer in a large prospective multicenter study. J. Urol. 197(6), 1410–1418 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54 Marsit CJ, Houseman EA, Schned AR, Karagas MR, Kelsey KT. Promoter hypermethylation is associated with current smoking, age, gender and survival in bladder cancer. Carcinogenesis 28(8), 1745–1751 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
55 Montori VM, Wyer P, Newman TB, Keitz S, Guyatt G; Evidence-Based Medicine Teaching Tips Working Group. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 5. The effect of spectrum of disease on the performance of diagnostic tests. CMAJ 173(4), 385–390 (2005).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
56 Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 282(11), 1061–1066 (1999).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57 Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 93(14), 1054–1061 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58 Van Rhijn BW, Van Der Poel HG, Van Der Kwast TH. Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 47(6), 736–748 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59 Chen H, Yu Y, Rong S, Wang H. Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of DNA methylation biomarkers for bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomarkers 19(3), 189–197 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
60 Macaskill PGC, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y. Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration (2010). http://srdta.cochrane.org/.
Google Scholar

Vol. 10, No. 5

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 200 times

History

Received 27 November 2017

Accepted 12 February 2018

Published online 25 April 2018

Published in print May 2018

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at:

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/epi-2017-0156

Financial & competing interests disclosure

RDM Steenbergen has a minority stake in Self-screen BV, a spin-off company of VU University Medical Center Amsterdam. EC Zwarthoff is an advisor for MDxHealth and is involved in research projects that were funded by MDxHealth. RDM Steenbergen, JA Nieuwenhuijzen, and LI Segerink. are named inventors on a patent application filed by Nanomed Diagnostics, which relates to the detection of hmDNA in urine. Application number: WO2017NL5019920170331. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download