Oncogenic Activation of Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor-3 and RAS Genes as Non-Overlapping Mutual Exclusive Events in Urinary Bladder Cancer

  • Pandith, Arshad A (Advanced Centre for Human Genetics) ;
  • Hussain, Aashaq (Department of Urology, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Khan, Mosin S (Departments of Clinical Biochemistry, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Shah, Zafar A (Departments of Immunology and Molecular Medicine, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Wani, M Saleem (Departments of Clinical Biochemistry, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Siddiqi, Mushtaq A (Departments of Immunology and Molecular Medicine, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2016.06.01


Background: Urinary bladder cancer is a common malignancy in the West and ranks as the $7^{th}$ most common cancer in our region of Kashmir, India. FGFR3 mutations are frequent in superficial urothelial carcinoma (UC) differing from the RAS gene mutational pattern. The aim of this study was to analyze the frequency and association of FGFR3 and RAS gene mutations in UC cases. Materials and Methods: Paired tumor and adjacent normal tissue specimens of 65 consecutive UC patients were examined. DNA preparations were evaluated for the occurrence of FGFR3 and RAS gene mutations by PCR-SCCP and DNA sequencing. Results: Somatic point mutations of FGFR3 were identified in 32.3% (21 of 65). The pattern and distribution were significantly associated with low grade/stage (p<0.05). The overall mutations in exon 1 and 2 in all the forms of RAS genes aggregated to 21.5% and showed no association with any clinic-pathological parameters. In total, 53.8% (35 of 65) of the tumors studied had mutations in either a RAS or FGFR3 gene, but these were totally mutually exclusive in and none of the samples showed both the mutational events in mutually exclusive RAS and FGFR3. Conclusions: We conclude that RAS and FGFR3 mutations in UC are mutually exclusive and non-overlapping events which reflect activation of oncogenic pathways through different elements.


  1. Agazie YM, Movilla N, Ischenko I, et al (2003). The phosphotyrosine phosphatase SHP2 is a critical mediator of transformation induced by the oncogenic fibroblast growth factor receptor 3. Oncogene, 22, 6909-18 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1206798
  2. Al Hussain TO, Akhtar M (2013) Molecular basis of urinary bladder cancer. Adv Anat Pathol, 20, 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0b013e31827bd0ec
  3. Arshad AP, Mushtaq AS (2012). Burden of cancers in the valley of Kashmir: 5 year epidemiological study reveals adifferent scenario. Tumor Biol, 33, 1629-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-012-0418-z
  4. Arshad AP, Zafar S, Nighat P, et al (2010). FGFR3 Germline Mutations Identified in Skeletal Dysplasia Significantly Cause Low-Grade and Low-Stage Bladder Cancer by Somatic Mutations. Uro Today Int J, 3.
  5. Ayan S, Gokce G, Kilicarslan H, et al (2001). K-RAS mutation in transitional cell carcinoma of urinary bladder. Int Urol Nephrol, 33, 363-367. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015213713048
  6. Bakkar AA, Wallerand H, Radvanyi F, et al (2003). FGFR3 and TP53 gene mutations define two distinct pathways in urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer Res, 63, 8108-12.
  7. Beaglehole RA, Irwin, Prentice T (2004). Changing history. The World Health Report, 122.
  8. Bellus GA, Spector EB, Speiser PW, et al (2000). Distinct missense mutations of the FGFR3 lys650 codon modulate receptor kinase activation and the severity of the skeletal dysplasia phenotype. Am J Hum Genet, 67, 1411-21. https://doi.org/10.1086/316892
  9. Billerey C, Chopin D, Aubriot-Lorton MH et al (2001). Frequent FGFR3 Mutations in Papillary Non-Invasive Bladder (PTa). Tumors Am J Pathol, 158, 1955-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64665-2
  10. Billerey C, Chopin D, Aubriot-Lorton MH, et al (2001). Frequent FGFR3 mutations in papillary non-invasive bladder (pTa) tumors. Am J Pathol, 158, 1955-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64665-2
  11. Billerey C, Chopin D,. Aubriot-Lorton MH, et al (2001). Frequent FGFR3 Mutations in Papillary Non-Invasive Bladder (PTa) Tumors. Am J Pathol, 58, 1955-9.
  12. Cappellen D, De Oliveira C, Ricol D, et al (1999). Frequent activating mutations of FGFR3 in human bladder and cervix carcinomas. Nat Genet, 23, 18-20.
  13. Chesi M, Brents LA, Ely SA et al (2001). Activated fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 is an oncogene that contributes to tumor progression in multiple myeloma. Blood, 97, 729-736. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.V97.3.729
  14. Chesi M, Nardini E, Brents LA, et al (1997). Frequent translocation t(4;14)(p16.3;q32.3) in multiple myeloma is associated with increased expression and activating mutations of fibroblast growth factor receptor 3. Nat Genet, 16, 260-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0797-260
  15. Dinney CP, McConkey DJ, Millikan RE, et al (2007). Focus on bladder cancer. Cancer Cell, 6, 111-6.
  16. Hart KC, Robertson S, Donoghue DJ (2001). Identification of tyrosine residues in constitutively activated fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 involved in mitogenesis, Stat activation, and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase activation. Mol Biol Cell, 12, 931-42. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.12.4.931
  17. Hartmann A, Schlake G, Zaak D, et al (2002). Occurrence of Chromosome 9 and P53 Alterations in Multifocal Dysplasia and Carcinoma in Situ of Human Urinary Bladder. Cancer Res, 62, 809-18.
  18. Hernandez S, de Muga S, Agell L, et al (2009). FGFR3 mutations in prostate cancer: association with low-grade tumors. Mod Pathol, 22, 848-56. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2009.46
  19. Jebar AH, Hurst CD, Tomlinson DC, et al (2005). FGFR3 and RAS Gene Mutations Are Mutually Exclusive Genetic Events in Urothelial Cell Carcinoma. Oncogene, 24, 5218-25. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1208705
  20. Juanpere N, Agell L, Lorenzo M et al.(2012). Mutations in FGFR3 and PIK3CA, singly or combined with RAS and AKT1, are associated with AKT but not with MAPK pathway activation in urothelial bladder cancer. Hum Pathol. 43, 1573-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2011.10.026
  21. Kanai M, Goke M, Tsunekawa S, et al (1997). Signal transduction pathway of human fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 and Identification of a novel 66-kDa phosphoprotein. J Biol Chem, 272, 6621-8. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.272.10.6621
  22. Kimura T, Suzuki H, Ohashi T, et al (2001). The incidence of thanatophoric dysplasia mutations in FGFR3 gene is higher in low-grade or superficial bladder carcinomas. Cancer, 92, 2555-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20011115)92:10<2555::AID-CNCR1607>3.0.CO;2-M
  23. Knowles MA (1999). The genetics of transitional cell carcinoma: progress and potential clinical application. Brit J Urol Int, 84, 412-27.
  24. Lindgren D, Liedberg F, Andersson A. et al (2006). Molecular characterization of early-stage bladder carcinomas by expression profiles, FGFR3 mutation status, and loss of 9q. Oncogene, 25, 2685-96. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1209249
  25. Malkowicz SB, Van Poppel H, Mickisch G, et al (2007). Muscleinvasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Urol, 69, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(07)00617-6
  26. Nagata M, Muto S, Horie S (2016). Molecular biomarkers in bladder cancer: novel potential indicators of prognosis and treatment outcomes. Dis Markers. 2016, 8205836
  27. Olderoy G, Daehlin L, Ogreid D (1998). High frequency of Ha-RAS and Ki-RAS in transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Anticancer Res, 18, 2675-8.
  28. Ornitz DM, Marie PJ (2002). FGF signaling pathways in endochondral and intramembranous bone development and human genetic disease. Genes Dev, 16, 1446-65. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.990702
  29. Pelucchi C, Bosetti C, Negri E, et al (2006). Mechanisms of disease: the epidemiology of bladder cancer. Natl Clin Prac Urol, 3, 327-340. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0510
  30. Powers CJ, McLeskey SW, Wellstein A (2007). Fibroblast growth factors, their receptors and signaling, Endocr Relat Cancer, 3, 165-97.
  31. Przybojewska B, Jagiello A, Jalmuzna P (2000). H-RAS, K-RAS and N-RAS gene activation in human bladder cancers. Cancer Genet Cytogenet, 121, 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4608(00)00223-5
  32. Sibley K, D. Cuthbert-Heavens, Knowles MA (2001). Loss of heterozygosity at 4p16.3 and mutation of FGFR3 in transitional cell carcinoma. Oncogene, 20 (6), 686-691. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1204110
  33. Smal MP, Rolevich AI, Polyakov SL, et al. (2014). FGFR3 and TP53 mutations in a prospective cohort of Belarusian bladder cancer patients. Exp Oncol, 36, 246-51.
  34. Spruck CH, Ohneseit PF, Gonzalez-Zulueta M, et al (1994). Two molecular pathways to TCC of the bladder. Cancer Res, 54, 784-8.
  35. Theodorescu D, Cornil I, Sheehan C, et al (1991). Ha-RAS induction of the invasive phenotype results in up-regulation of epidermal growth factor receptors and altered responsiveness to epidermal growth factor in human papillary transitional cell carcinoma cells. Cancer Res, 51, 4486-91.
  36. Uchida T, Wada C, Ishida H, et al (1995). p53 mutations and prognosis in bladder tumors. Urol Int, 55, 63-7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000282753
  37. Vajo Z, Francomano CA, Wilkin DJ (2000). The molecular and genetic basis of fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 disorders: the achondroplasia family of skeletal dysplasias, Muenke craniosynostosis, and Crouzon syndrome with acanthosis nigricans. Endocr Rev, 21, 23-39.
  38. van Rhijn BW, Lurkin I, Radvanyi F, et al (2001). The fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) mutation is a strong indicator of superficial bladder cancer with low recurrence rate. Cancer Res, 61, 1265-8.
  39. van Rhijn BW, van der Kwast TH, Vis A, et al (2004). FGFR3 and P53 characterize alternative genetic pathways in the pathogenesis of urothelial cell carcinoma. Cancer Res, 64, 1911-4. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-2421
  40. Zhang ZT, Pak J, Huang HY, et al (1991). Role of Ha-RAS activation in superficial papillary pathway of urothelial tumor formation. Oncogene, 20, 1973-80.
  41. Hart K, Robertson S, Kanemitsu MY, et al (2000). Transformation and Stat activation by derivatives of FGFR1, FGFR3, and FGFR4. Oncogene, 19, 3309-20. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1203650