Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Genomic distinctions between metastatic lower and upper tract urothelial carcinoma revealed through rapid autopsy
Brian R. Winters, Navonil De Sarkar, Sonali Arora, Hamid Bolouri, Sujata Jana, Funda Vakar-Lopez, Heather H. Cheng, Michael T. Schweizer, Evan Y. Yu, Petros Grivas, John K. Lee, Lori Kollath, Sarah K. Holt, Lisa McFerrin, Gavin Ha, Peter S. Nelson, Robert B. Montgomery, Jonathan L. Wright, Hung-Ming Lam, Andrew C. Hsieh
Brian R. Winters, Navonil De Sarkar, Sonali Arora, Hamid Bolouri, Sujata Jana, Funda Vakar-Lopez, Heather H. Cheng, Michael T. Schweizer, Evan Y. Yu, Petros Grivas, John K. Lee, Lori Kollath, Sarah K. Holt, Lisa McFerrin, Gavin Ha, Peter S. Nelson, Robert B. Montgomery, Jonathan L. Wright, Hung-Ming Lam, Andrew C. Hsieh
View: Text | PDF
Clinical Research and Public Health Oncology

Genomic distinctions between metastatic lower and upper tract urothelial carcinoma revealed through rapid autopsy

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

BACKGROUND Little is known about the genomic differences between metastatic lower tract urothelial carcinoma (LTUC) and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). We compare genomic features of primary and metastatic UTUC and LTUC tumors in a cohort of patients with end-stage disease.METHODS We performed whole-exome sequencing on matched primary and metastatic tumor samples (n = 37) collected via rapid autopsy of 7 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Inter- and intrapatient mutational burden, mutational signatures, predicted deleterious mutations, and somatic copy number variations (sCNVs) were analyzed.RESULTS We investigated 3 patients with UTUC (3 primary samples, 13 metastases) and 4 patients with LTUC (4 primary samples, 17 metastases). We found that somatic single-nucleotide variant (sSNV) burden was higher in metastatic LTUC compared with UTUC. Moreover, the apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like (APOBEC), mutational signature was pervasive in metastatic LTUC and less so in UTUC. Despite a lower overall sSNV burden, UTUC displayed greater inter- and intra-individual genomic distances at the copy number level between primary and metastatic tumors than LTUC. Our data also indicate that metastatic UTUC lesions can arise from small clonal populations present in the primary cancer. Importantly, putative druggable mutations were found across patients with the majority shared across all metastases within a patient.CONCLUSIONS UTUC demonstrated a lower overall mutational burden but greater structural variability compared with LTUC. Our findings suggest that metastatic UTUC displays a greater spectrum of copy number divergence from LTUC. Importantly, we identified druggable lesions shared across metastatic samples, which demonstrate a level of targetable homogeneity within individual patients.FUNDING NIH, Seattle Translation Tumor Research Program in Bladder Cancer, Howard J. Cohen Bladder Cancer Foundation, Johns Hopkins Greenberg Bladder Cancer Institute, Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program, American Association for Cancer Research, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, David Matthews, and the Stinchcomb Memorial Funds.

Authors

Brian R. Winters, Navonil De Sarkar, Sonali Arora, Hamid Bolouri, Sujata Jana, Funda Vakar-Lopez, Heather H. Cheng, Michael T. Schweizer, Evan Y. Yu, Petros Grivas, John K. Lee, Lori Kollath, Sarah K. Holt, Lisa McFerrin, Gavin Ha, Peter S. Nelson, Robert B. Montgomery, Jonathan L. Wright, Hung-Ming Lam, Andrew C. Hsieh

×
Problems with a PDF?

This file is in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format. If you have not installed and configured the Adobe Acrobat Reader on your system.

Having trouble reading a PDF?

PDFs are designed to be printed out and read, but if you prefer to read them online, you may find it easier if you increase the view size to 125%.

Having trouble saving a PDF?

Many versions of the free Acrobat Reader do not allow Save. You must instead save the PDF from the JCI Online page you downloaded it from. PC users: Right-click on the Download link and choose the option that says something like "Save Link As...". Mac users should hold the mouse button down on the link to get these same options.

Having trouble printing a PDF?

  1. Try printing one page at a time or to a newer printer.
  2. Try saving the file to disk before printing rather than opening it "on the fly." This requires that you configure your browser to "Save" rather than "Launch Application" for the file type "application/pdf", and can usually be done in the "Helper Applications" options.
  3. Make sure you are using the latest version of Adobe's Acrobat Reader.

Supplemental data - Download (7.75 MB)

Advertisement

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts