This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hernández, S. Articles by Real, F. X. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hernández, S. Articles by Real, F. X.

FGFR3 and Tp53 Mutations in T1G3 Transitional Bladder Carcinomas: Independent Distribution and Lack of Association with Prognosis

Authors' Affiliations: ¹ Universitat Pompeu Fabra, ² Institut Municipal d'Investigació Mèdica, ³ Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, ⁴ Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, ⁵ Hospital General Universitario, Instituto Biología Molecular y Celular, U. Miguel Hernández, Elche, ⁶ Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, and ⁷ Consorci Hospitalari Parc Tauli, Sabadell, Spain

Requests for reprints: Francisco X. Real, Unitat de Biologia Cellular i Molecular, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Mèdica, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Carrer del Dr. Aiguader 80, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. Phone: 34-9322-11009; Fax: 34-9322-13237; E-mail: preal{at}imim.es.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix: Members of the... References

 
FGFR3 and Tp53 mutations have been proposed as defining two alternative pathways in the pathogenesis of transitional bladder cancer. FGFR3 mutations are associated with low-grade tumors and a favorable prognosis. Tp53 alterations are associated with advanced tumors and, possibly, with a poor prognosis. We focus here on the subgroup of T1G3 superficial tumors because they are a major clinical challenge. Patients (n = 119) were identified from a prospective study of 1,356 cases. Mutations in FGFR3 (exons 7, 10, and 15) and Tp53 (exons 4-9) were analyzed using PCR and direct sequencing. All cases were followed for recurrence and death. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression. FGFR3 mutations were detected in 20 (16.8%) tumors; 100 mutations in Tp53 were found in tumors from 78 (65.5%) cases. Multiple alterations in Tp53 were present in 19 tumors (16%). Inactivating mutations were present in 58% of tumors. The combined mutation distribution (FGFR3/Tp53) was: wt/wt (34.5%), mut/wt (7.6%), wt/mut (48.7%), and mut/mut (9.2%), indicating that the presence of either mutation did not depend on the other (P value = 0.767). FGFR3 and Tp53 mutations were not associated with clinicopathologic characteristics of patients and did not predict, alone or in combination, recurrence or survival. Taking the risk of the wt/wt group as reference, the mutation-associated risks of cancer-specific mortality were: mut/wt 1.42 (0.15-13.75), wt/mut 0.67 (0.19-2.31), mut/mut 1.62 (0.27-9.59). These molecular features support the notion that T1G3 tumors are at the crossroads of the two main molecular pathways proposed for bladder cancer development and progression.

Several recent reports have proposed that FGFR3 mutations are associated with a low risk of recurrence of superficial tumors (7, 8). FGFR3 belongs to the tyrosine kinase receptor family. FGFR subfamily members differ in tissue expression, ligand specificity, signal pathway activation, and biological effects (9, 10). These receptors regulate diverse cellular processes including cell growth, differentiation, and angiogenesis. Gain-of-function mutations have been identified in different autosomal dominant human skeletal disorders such as hypochondroplasia, achondroplasia, and thanatophoric dysplasia (11, 12). FGFR3 mutations identical to those identified in these disorders have been reported in multiple myeloma, cervix, and bladder cancers (7, 8, 13, 14). Unlike Tp53 alterations, FGFR3 mutations occur predominantly in superficial/papillary transitional cell carcinomas and are reported to be associated with low-grade tumors and with a favorable prognosis (7, 8, 15, 16). Two recent studies of transitional cell carcinomas dealing with tumors of a broad range of stages and grades report that FGFR3 and Tp53 mutations show a mutually exclusive distribution, suggesting that the two alterations define different routes of transitional cell carcinoma development (15, 16).

In this work, we have studied the prevalence of genetic alterations in these two genes in a prospectively collected series of 119 T1G3 transitional cell carcinomas, as well as their ability to predict outcome. We have focused on this subgroup of superficial tumors because of their high risk of progression, the lack of prognostic markers, and because they constitute only 10% of all transitional cell carcinomas and, therefore, are poorly represented in previously published studies (7, 8, 13–16). In this group of tumors, we find a low prevalence of FGFR3 mutations and a high frequency of Tp53 mutations. In addition, and unlike the findings reported in less homogeneous patient series, mutations in both genes show an independent distribution, are not mutually exclusive, and are not able to predict patient survival.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix: Members of the... References

 
Tumor samples and patients. Cases were drawn from the EPICURO study which is comprised of 1,356 consecutive patients with incident bladder cancer recruited prospectively in 18 general hospitals in Spain between 1997 and 2001. Sociodemographic and clinical information was retrieved from hospital records. Tumors were staged and graded according to the criteria of the tumor-node-metastasis classification and the WHO-International Society of Urological Pathology (17). Diagnostic slides from each case were reviewed by a panel of expert study pathologists (R. Jaramillo and J. Lloreta) to confirm diagnosis and ensure uniformity of classification criteria across all cases. A total of 119 T1G3 cases were analyzed and are the subject of this report. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the cases included in the study.

FGFR3 and Tp53 mutation analysis. The tumor block that was most representative of the TG staging was selected for analysis. Areas containing >50% tumor cells were manually microdissected from sections of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues: three to five consecutive 10-µm sections were deparafinized and DNA was extracted using the DNeasy tissue kit (Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany). Exons 7, 10, and 15 of FGFR3 were amplified and sequenced using tumor DNA. Exons 5 to 8 of Tp53 were amplified and sequenced using tumor DNA; exons 9 and 4 were analyzed when no alterations were found in exons 5 to 8. In nine cases, including all tumors in which a silent mutation was identified, autologous normal leukocyte DNA was used to confirm the somatic nature of the mutations. The sequence of primers used is shown in Table 2. PCR reactions were done in a 50 µL volume using 10 to 50 ng of DNA, 0.2 µmol/L of each primer, 200 µmol/L deoxynucleotide triphosphates, 3.5 mmol/L MgCl₂, 1x PCR II buffer, and 1.5 units of Amplitaq Gold DNA Polymerase (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). PCR conditions were as follows: 95°C (10 minutes) for 1 cycle, 95°C (40 seconds), 63°C (40 seconds; for exons 4, 5, and 7-9 of Tp53 and exons 7 and 10 of FGFR3) or 67°C (40 seconds; for exon 6 of Tp53), 72°C (40 seconds) for 40 cycles, and a final extension step of 72°C (10 minutes). PCR products were separated by electrophoresis and visualized with ethidium bromide. Samples without DNA template were included in all assays as negative controls. PCR products were purified using Qiagen PCR purification kit (Qiagen, Crawley, United Kingdom) according to the manufacturer's protocol.

Statistical analyses. Mutational status (wild-type versus mutated), type of mutation (transition versus transversion), location of the mutation within the gene (exon versus intron), resulting change at the protein level (amino acid substitution versus premature stop codon), and number of mutations were considered as variables for analysis. The association between Tp53 and FGFR3 mutational status and clinical and pathologic characteristics of tumors were assessed by applying ², Fisher's exact, Student's, or Mann-Whitney U tests, as appropriate (18).

Kaplan-Meier survival curves were computed by each category of the potential prognostic factors and the log-rank and Breslow tests were applied to compare curves (19). Cox proportional hazard ratios were estimated to obtain risks of recurrence and death for cases in each molecular factor stratum, after adjusting for other confounder variables (20). The assumption of proportional hazards was checked for each variable. The final predictive models were fitted after forcing the FGFR3 and/or Tp53 molecular status variables at all the steps.

Results were considered significant at the two-sided P of 0.05 level. Statistical analysis was done using version 12.0 SPSS statistical package (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, 2003).

	Results

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix: Members of the... References

 
Mean age of cases was 67 years. Eighty-seven percent of cases were males, yielding a male/female ratio of 6.4. Most cases presented with a single tumor (66%; Table 1).

Prevalence of FGFR3 and Tp53 mutations in T1G3 bladder tumors. Table 3 shows a summary of the molecular results for FGFR3 and Tp53. Twenty tumors harbored a mutation in FGFR3 (16.8%). The most frequent mutation was S249C (n = 15; 75%; exon 7), followed by Y375C (n = 3; 15%; exon 10) and R248C (n = 2; 10%; exon 7). Exon 15 was sequenced in 86 tumors and no mutations were found. A total of 100 mutations in Tp53 were identified in 78 tumors, yielding a prevalence of 65.5%. There were 70 missense mutations, 9 silent mutations, and 16 mutations leading to a premature stop codon due either to the appearance of stop codon (n = 9) or a frameshift (n = 7). In addition, there were four mutations at intron-exon boundaries and a 30 bp in-frame deletion. Fifty-nine tumors (49.6%) had a single mutation, whereas multiple alterations were present in 19 tumors (16%). All mutations considered silent were verified and found to be absent from normal leukocyte DNA. The following mutation distribution was found: exon 4 (n = 16), exon 5 (n = 28), exon 6 (n = 8), exon 7 (n = 13), exon 8 (n = 24), exon 9 (n = 7), intronic mutations (n = 4). The nine silent mutations identified were found in exons 4 (n = 3), 8 (n = 2), and 9 (n = 4). Cases harboring exclusively silent (n = 6) or intronic mutations (n = 2), and the case with the 10 bp in-frame deletion, were considered as "wild-type" for the analyses; the remaining cases were considered to harbor p53 mutant alleles. Overall, there were 69 tumors (58%) harboring inactivating mutations. In 30% of the tumors harboring pathogenic mutations, the wild-type allele was undetected by sequencing, suggesting loss of one allele. p53 immunohistochemistry results were consistent with the findings of the mutational analysis: 49 of 53 tumors with one or more missense mutations showed p53 nuclear overexpression versus 1 of 8 tumors with a mutation leading to a premature stop codon.⁸

Association of FGFR3 and Tp53 mutations with clinicopathologic characteristics and patient outcome. There were no significant differences among groups defined according to FGFR3 and Tp53 mutational status regarding age, sex, number, size, location of neoplasms, and pathologic characteristics of tumors (papillary versus solid growth pattern, size, multiplicity, and location within the bladder). Treatment received was similar for patients with tumors in the four genotype groups (Table 1 and data not shown). Recurrence and mortality curves were similar for all patient groups, regardless of the tumor FGFR3 and Tp53 mutational status (Figs. 1 and 2). There was a slight difference in the recurrence curves in relationship to FGFR3 status during the first year of follow-up (Fig. 1B). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.432). Regarding Tp53, type of mutation, location of the mutation within the gene, resulting change at the protein level, and number of mutations were not significantly associated with recurrence or survival in a univariate model. Several multivariate Cox analyses were done to fit the final equation with the highest likelihood ratio test, always including in the model Tp53 and/or FGFR3 mutations. The adjusting variables retained in the models were number of primary tumors, treatment, and number of recurrences. None of the models showed a significant predictive value for recurrence or mortality for any of the FGFR3 and Tp53 genotypes (Table 4). Taking the patients whose tumors that had a wild-type sequence for both genes as a reference, the risk of death for patients whose tumors harbored mutations were: FGFR3^mut/Tp53^wt [1.42; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.15-13.75], FGFR3^wt/Tp53^mut (0.67; 95% CI, 0.19-2.31), and FGFR3^mut/Tp53^mut (1.62; 95% CI, 0.27-9.59), P = 0.735.

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Kaplan-Meier analysis for tumor recurrence using the log-rank and Breslow statistical tests, respectively. A, global recurrence; B, recurrence according to FGFR3 status (P = 0.759; P = 0.563); C, recurrence according to Tp53 status (P = 0.516; P = 0.436); D, recurrence according to the combined FGFR3/Tp53 genotype (P = 0.866; P = 0.782).

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier analysis for disease-specific survival using the log-rank and Breslow statistical tests, respectively. A, global mortality; B, mortality according to FGFR3 status (P = 0.622; P = 0.611); C, mortality according to Tp53 status (P = 0.483; P = 0.505); D, mortality according to the combined FGFR3/Tp53 genotype (P = 0.748; P = 0.658).

	Discussion

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix: Members of the... References

We have analyzed T1G3 tumors from a large series of patients included in a multicenter study in Spain. In addition to the large number of cases, several other characteristics of the study are noteworthy: (a) it was initially conceived to examine molecular alterations in genes involved in bladder cancer as markers of prognosis; (b) it prospectively included consecutive incident cases in general hospitals, thus avoiding referral selection bias; (c) a very high participation agreement rate was achieved (>85%); and (d) both active and passive follow-up strategies were used to accurately assess patient's outcome, with no patients being lost to follow-up.

The finding that FGFR3 mutations occur only in 16.8% of T1G3 tumors, whereas inactivating Tp53 mutations occur in 58% of tumors, supports the notion that these tumors resemble invasive bladder cancers at the molecular level. Indeed, nuclear accumulation of p53 was observed in 84% of tumors in this series, including cases that were found to be wild-type upon sequencing,⁹ as in a recent report by Kelsey et al. of a large series of bladder cancer cases (22). The high prevalence of Tp53 mutations found in our study may be related to the strict criteria used by the expert pathologists for tumor staging. In the largest published series, FGFR3 mutations were found in 141 of 182 (77%) Ta tumors and in 23 of 63 (36%) T1 tumors (8). In two reports including a broad spectrum of tumors, FGFR3 mutations were associated with low-stage and low-grade tumors and were found to be associated with a favorable clinical course (15, 16). In addition, FGFR3 and Tp53 mutations were found to occur in a mutually exclusive pattern (15, 16). In our study of T1G3 tumors, mutations in both genes showed an independent—and not mutually exclusive—distribution. In this subgroup of tumors, a more complex pattern of mutations in genes involved in the two prototypical progression pathways of transitional cell carcinomas emerges. Our findings are not in contradiction with prior studies because the latter have reported only on a small number of T1G3 tumors. Rather, they extend and complement earlier work, reflecting that the involvement of these two pathways in bladder cancer is more complex than previously proposed. The mutually exclusive pattern reported previously likely reflects the fact that the majority of cases included in those studies were either low-stage/low-grade or invasive tumors.

FGFR3 mutations did not predict recurrence or survival in patients with T1G3 tumors. This observation suggests that other genetic changes override the "good prognosis" associated with FGFR3 mutations in tumors of lower stage-grade. In chondrocytes, mutational activation of FGFR3 has been shown to induce the phosphorylation of STATs, the nuclear translocation of STAT-1, the constitutive activation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase-1/2/mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, and the overexpression of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors such as p16, p18, p19, and p21^CIP/KIP, leading to cell cycle exit (23–25). Tp53 mutations and p16^INK4A inactivation occur frequently in transitional cell carcinomas and could contribute to the abrogation of the "favorable" effects of FGFR3 mutations in these tumors. However, other genes are also likely to participate because we did not observe an association between Tp53 mutations and patient outcome.

In this regard, it will be important to identify the molecular alterations of low stage-grade tumors that progress and to determine whether such neoplasms (i.e., "progressor" T1G3 tumors) indeed resemble "incident" T1G3 tumors. Until now, there is little information on this issue. In our series, 34.5% of T1G3 tumors lacked mutations in both genes, supporting the notion that a substantial proportion of T1G3 tumors arise through the acquisition of alternative/additional molecular alterations.

We conclude that, in T1G3 bladder tumors, FGFR3 and Tp53 mutations do not display a mutually exclusive pattern and do not predict patient outcome. Our findings suggest that T1G3 tumors are at the crossroads of the two main molecular pathways proposed to be involved in bladder cancer development and progression.

	Appendix: Members of the Participating Centers

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix: Members of the... References

 
Institut Municipal d'Investigació Mèdica, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona; coordinating center): M. Kogevinas, N. Malats, F.X. Real, M. Sala, G. Castaño, M. Torà, D. Puente, C. Villanueva, C. Murta, J. Fortuny, E. López, S. Hernández, R. Jaramillo.¹⁰ Hospital del Mar, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Barcelona): J. Lloreta,¹⁰ S. Serrano,¹⁰ L. Ferrer,¹⁰ A. Gelabert, J. Carles, O. Bielsa, K. Villadiego. Hospital Germans Tries i Pujol (Badalona, Barcelona): L. Cecchini, J.M. Saladié, L. Ibarz. Hospital de Sant Boi (Sant Boi, Barcelona): M. Céspedes. Centre Hospitalari Parc Taulí (Sabadell, Barcelona): C. Serra, D. García, J. Pujadas, R. Hernando, A. Cabezuelo, C. Abad, A. Prera, J. Prat. Centre Hospitalari i Cardiològic (Manresa, Barcelona): M. Domènech, J. Badal, J. Malet. Hospital Universitario (La Laguna, Tenerife): R. García-Closas, J. Rodríguez de Vera, A.I. Martín. Hospital La Candelaria (Santa Cruz, Tenerife): J. Taño, F. Cáceres. Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Universidad Miguel Hernández (Elche, Alicante): A. Carrato, F. García-López, M. Ull, A. Teruel, E. Andrada, A. Bustos, A. Castillejo, J.L. Soto. Universidad de Oviedo (Oviedo, Asturias): A. Tardón. Hospital San Agustín (Avilés, Asturias): J.L. Guate, J.M. Lanzas, J. Velasco. Hospital Central Covadonga (Oviedo, Asturias): J.M. Fernández, J.J. Rodríguez, A. Herrero. Hospital Central General (Oviedo, Asturias): R. Abascal, C. Manzano, T. Miralles. Hospital de Cabueñes (Gijón, Asturias): M. Rivas, M. Arguelles. Hospital de Jove (Gijón, Asturias): M. Díaz, J. Sánchez, O. González. Hospital de Cruz Roja (Gijón, Asturias): A. Mateos, V. Frade. Hospital Alvarez-Buylla (Mieres, Asturias): P. Muntañola, C. Pravia. Hospital Jarrio (Coaña, Asturias): A.M. Huescar, F. Huergo. Hospital Carmen y Severo Ochoa (Cangas, Asturias): J. Mosquera. Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (Madrid): M. Esteller. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Bellaterra): R. Miró, R. Marcos. Progenika (Derio, Bizkaia): A. Martínez.

	Acknowledgments

 
We thank S. Mancilla, T. Lobato, A. Alfaro, G. Carretero, P. Fernández, I. López, and the many clinicians, investigators, nurses, technicians, and patients participating in the study, as well as the members of the EPICUR-Red. The authors also wish to thank M. Dosemeci, D. Silverman, and N. Rothman (National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD) for their participation in the etiological component of the Spanish Bladder Cancer Study. E.L. was supported by a Predoctoral Fellowship of the Ramón Areces Foundation, Madrid.

	Footnotes

 
Grant support: FIS 00/0745, C03/009, C03/010, G03/160, and G03/174 from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Sanidad.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Note: N. Malats and F. Real have made equivalent contributions and share senior authorship.

⁸ E. Lopez, S. Hernandez, et al. unpublished observations.

⁹ Unpublished data.

¹⁰ Study pathologists.

Received 1/17/05; revised 4/15/05; accepted 4/ 9/05.

	References

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix: Members of the... References

 

1. Knowles MA. Molecular genetics of bladder cancer: pathways of development and progression. Cancer Surv 1998;31:49–76.[Medline]
2. Spruck CH III, Ohneseit PF, Gonzalez-Zulueta M, et al. Two molecular pathways to transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer Res 1994;54:784–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Rosin MP, Cairns P, Epstein JI, Schoenberg MP, Sidransky D. Partial allelotype of carcinoma in situ of the human bladder. Cancer Res 1995;55:5213–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Primdahl H, von der Maase H, Christensen M, Wolf H, Orntoft TF. Allelic deletions of cell growth regulators during progression of bladder cancer. Cancer Res 2000;60:6623–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Hartmann A, Schlake G, Zaak D, et al. Occurrence of chromosome 9 and p53 alterations in multifocal dysplasia and carcinoma in situ of human urinary bladder. Cancer Res 2002;62:809–18.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Esrig D, Elmajian D, Groshen S, et al. Accumulation of nuclear p53 and tumor progression in bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1259–64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Billerey C, Chopin D, Aubriot-Lorton MH, et al. Frequent FGFR3 mutations in papillary non-invasive bladder (pTa) tumors. Am J Pathol 2001;158:1955–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Rhijn BWG, Vis AN, van der Kwast TH, et al. Molecular grading of urothelial cell carcinoma with fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 and MIB-1 is superior to pathologic grade for the prediction of clinical outcome. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1912–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Shaoul E, Reich-Slotky R, Berman B, Ron D. Fibroblast growth factor receptors display both common and distinct signaling pathways. Oncogene 1995;10:1553–61.[Medline]
10. Powers CJ, McLeskey SW, Wellstein A. Fibroblast growth factors, their receptors and signaling. Endocr Relat Cancer 2000;7:165–97.[Abstract]
11. Tavormina PL, Bellus GA, Webster MK, et al. A novel skeletal dysplasia with developmental delay and acanthosis nigricans is caused by a Lys650Met mutation in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 gene. Am J Hum Genet 1999;64:722–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Horton WA, Lunstrum GP. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 mutations in achondroplasia and related forms of dwarfism. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 2002;3:381–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Cappellen D, De Oliveira C, Ricol D, et al. Frequent activating mutations of FGFR3 in human bladder and cervix carcinomas. Nat Genet 1999;23:18–20.[Medline]
14. Sibley K, Stern P, Knowles MA. Frequency of fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 mutations in sporadic tumours. Oncogene 2001;20:4416–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Bakkar AA, Wallerand H, Radvanyi F, et al. FGFR3 and TP53 gene mutations define two distinct pathways in urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer Res 2003;63:8108–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. van Rhijn BW, van der Kwast TH, Vis AN, et al. FGFR3 and P53 characterize alternative genetic pathways in the pathogenesis of urothelial cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 2004;64:1911–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Sobin LH, Fleming ID. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 5th ed (1997). Union Internationale Contre le Cancer and the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer 1997;80:1803–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS, editors. Statistical methods in medical research. 4th ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 2002.
19. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457–81.[CrossRef]
20. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc B 1972;34:187–220.
21. Borden LS, Clark PE, Hall MC. Bladder cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2004;16:257–62.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Kelsey KT, Hirao T, Schned A, et al. A population-based study of immunohistochemical detection of p53 alteration in bladder cancer. Br J Cancer 2004;90:1572–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Su WC, Kitagawa M, Xue N, et al. Activation of Stat1 by mutant fibroblast growth-factor receptor in thanatophoric dysplasia type II dwarfism. Nature 1997;386:288–92.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Sahni M, Ambrosetti DC, Mansukhani A, Gertner R, Levy D, Basilico C. FGF signaling inhibits chondrocyte proliferation and regulates bone development through the STAT-1 pathway. Genes Dev 1999;13:1361–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Dailey L, Laplantine E, Priore R, Basilico C. A network of transcriptional and signaling events is activated by FGF to induce chondrocyte growth arrest and differentiation. J Cell Biol 2003;161:1053–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. X. Real p53: It Has It All, But Will It Make It to the Clinic As a Marker in Bladder Cancer? J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2007; 25(34): 5341 - 5344. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Lopez-Knowles, S. Hernandez, M. Kogevinas, J. Lloreta, A. Amoros, A. Tardon, A. Carrato, S. Kishore, C. Serra, N. Malats, et al. The p53 Pathway and Outcome among Patients with T1G3 Bladder Tumors. Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2006; 12(20): 6029 - 6036. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Hernandez, E. Lopez-Knowles, J. Lloreta, M. Kogevinas, A. Amoros, A. Tardon, A. Carrato, C. Serra, N. Malats, and F. X. Real Prospective Study of FGFR3 Mutations As a Prognostic Factor in Nonmuscle Invasive Urothelial Bladder Carcinomas J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2006; 24(22): 3664 - 3671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Lopez-Knowles, S. Hernandez, N. Malats, M. Kogevinas, J. Lloreta, A. Carrato, A. Tardon, C. Serra, F. X. Real, and EPICURO Study Group Investigators PIK3CA Mutations Are an Early Genetic Alteration Associated with FGFR3 Mutations in Superficial Papillary Bladder Tumors. Cancer Res., August 1, 2006; 66(15): 7401 - 7404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Knowles Molecular subtypes of bladder cancer: Jekyll and Hyde or chalk and cheese? Carcinogenesis, March 1, 2006; 27(3): 361 - 373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hernández, S. Articles by Real, F. X. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hernández, S. Articles by Real, F. X.