Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243379

Serum soluble B7-H3 is a prognostic marker for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Takeshi Azuma 1,2,3,*, Yujiro Sato 1, Tatsukuni Ohno 4, Miyuki Azuma 2, Haruki Kume 3
Editor: Francisco X Real5
PMCID: PMC7732087  PMID: 33306717

Abstract

Background

B7-H3 is a member of the B7 family of immune-regulatory ligands and is a costimulatory molecule promoting the T cell response in vitro. We herein investigated the clinical utility of serum soluble B7-H3 (sB7-H3) in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).

Methods

We analyzed 555 patients in whom NMIBC was diagnosed at Tokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center between 2008 and 2013. We measured the serum sB7-H3 (sB7-H3) level using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and evaluated the utility of sB7-H3 as a prognostic biomarker for NMIBC. We used the Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess recurrence-free survival (RFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with the sB7-H3 level.

Results

We detected high levels of sB7-H3 in the sera of 47% of patients with NMIBC versus only 8% in healthy donors. The increase of sB7-H3 was significantly associated with poor RFS and PFS. Multivariate analysis showed that elevated sB7-H3 was an independent prognostic factor of RFS and PFS. According to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), in intermediate-low and intermediate-high risk groups, the presence of sB7-H3 significantly determined the rate of recurrence and progression.

Conclusions

Our data suggested that evaluating serum sB7-H3 expression is a useful tool for predicting the prognosis of patients with NMIBC.

Introduction

Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) is usually performed to resect non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) completely [1, 2]. Nonetheless, local recurrence and progression often become a problem despite this procedure. The probability of recurrence at one year is 15–70% while the probability of progression to muscle invasive bladder cancer at five years is 7–40%[3, 4].

Several, clinical, prognostic features are associated with recurrence and progression. Based on these features, the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines’ classification of patients with NMIBC into four groups to predict recurrence and progression [5, 6]. Although this classification system is helpful for predicting the recurrence and progression of NMIBC, it fails to take into consideration a number of newly reported factors.

Several recent studies have reported an association between inflammation and cancer [7, 8]. In the tumor microenvironment, activation of systemic inflammation, such as the release of several inflammatory cytokines and migration of leucocytes, was observed. The inflammatory cells themselves and the cytokines released by them cause a vicious circle in the tumor microenvironment, where the inflammatory reaction conduces to the growth and progression of the cancer, thus affecting the prognosis of the patient [9, 10]. Recently, we demonstrated that serum soluble B7-H4 could be used as a tool for predicting the prognosis of patients with renal cell carcinoma. Moreover, Podojil reported that B7-H4 can be a new target for immunotherapy in an N-butyl-N-(4-hydroxybutyl)-nitrosamine-induced, murine bladder cancer model [11].

B7-H3 (CD276), which was identified as a new costimulatory molecule activating the T cell response [12], has a single IgV- and IgC-like domain (2Ig form) with a transmembrane and intracellular tail. In humans, a duplicate of B7-H3 (4Ig form) was also identified, but the physiological differences between the 2Ig and 4Ig forms have not yet been elucidated [13, 14]. In addition to the membrane form of B7-H3, serum soluble B7-H3 (sB7-H3), which is involved in the regulation of immune responses, has also been identified. B7-H3 is expressed in various types of cancer, suggesting that it may be associated with inhibition against the anti-tumor immune response [15]. Therefore, in the present study we evaluated the utility of sB7-H3 as a prognostic marker for NMIBC recurrence and progression.

Materials and methods

Patients and healthy donors

We studied serum samples from 555 patients with the diagnosis of NMIBC based on histopathological evaluation at Tokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center between 2008 and 2013. All the patients were treated with TURBT and were subsequently followed-up. The serum samples were obtained before TURBT and frozen at -80°C. The control group included healthy donors (HD) with no history of malignancy. The study was approved by the ethical review board of Tama Medical Center and was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. The patients and healthy volunteers provided written informed consent for the specimens to be collected. All the participants provided their informed consent.

Detection of sB7-H3

To detect human sB7-H3 (human CD276/B7-H3), sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (LifeSpan BioScience, Seattle, United States) was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The samples were positive for above-background levels of sB7-H3. Each sample was assayed in triplicate.

Statistical analysis

The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the serum sB7-H3 level in the NMIBC patients and HD. The χ 2 test or Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the relationship between the presence of B7-H3 and NMIBC characteristics.

Cystoscopy, urine analysis, and cytology were performed every three months in the follow-up examinations after TURBT. We defined recurrence as the first bladder tumor relapse confirmed by pathological examination and the time to recurrence as the time from the date of TURBT to the date of bladder cancer recurrence. We defined progression as the first bladder tumor relapse beyond stage T1 confirmed by pathological examination and the time to progression to MIBC as the time from the date of TURBT to the date of the first progression. We estimated the recurrence and progression curves using the Kaplan-Meier method and used the log-rank test to compare the curves. To evaluate the effect of multiple independent prognostic factors on the outcome, we used Cox regression analysis. We used the JMP® statistical software package for all analyses. P< 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

Results

Patient characteristics

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of patients with bladder cancer. We enrolled 555 patients with the diagnosis of NMIBC (445 male and 110 female patients; mean age = 73.5 y; age range: 22–98 y) and 108 HD (81 male and 22 female subjects; mean age = 71.5 y; age range: 35–85 y) as controls and obtained serum samples. Of these, 25 (4%) cases were pTis, 354 (64%) were pTa, and 176 (32%) were pT1. There were 328 (59%) cases of primary bladder cancer and 227 (41%) cases of recurrent bladder cancer. The median follow-up time was 18.2 months.

Table 1. Characteristics of patients with NMIBC.

Age Average 73.5 years
  Range 22-98 years
    Number of patients (%)
Gender Male 445 (80)
  Female 110 (20)
     
Soluble B7-H3 Negative 294 (53)
  Positive 261 (47)
     
Number of tumors 1 279 (50)
  2-7 235 (42)
  ≥8 41 (8)
     
Tumor size <3 497 (90)
  ≥3 58 (10)
     
Prior recurrence rate Primary 328 (59)
  ≤1 recurrence/year 200 (36)
  >1 recurrence/year 27 (5)
     
T category Ta 354 (64)
  T1 201 (36)
     
Carcinoma in situ No 460 (83)
  Yes 95 (17)
     
Grade G1 80 (14)
  G2 330 (59)
  G3 145 (27)

Three hundred fifteen (57%) patients had a recurrence. We followed up survivors with a recurrence for a median period of 17.9 months. The recurrence-free survival rate (RFS) at one and three years was 44.4% and 38.6%, respectively. The median time of recurrence was 9.4 months. Progression to MIBC occurred in 47 (14.9%) of the 315 patients with recurrence. The progression-free survival rate (PFS) at three and five years was 91.8 and 85.4%, respectively.

Presence of serum sB7-H3 in patients with NMIBC

ELISA revealed that 47% (261 out of 555) of the serum samples from patients with bladder cancer and 8% (eight of 103) of samples from HD were positive for sB7-H3. The levels of sB7-H3 were significantly higher in patients with bladder cancer (31.6 ng/mL in all patients with bladder cancer and 67.1 ng/ml in positive patients with bladder cancer; range: 10–215 ng/mL) than in the HD (1 ng/mL in all HD and 12.5 ng/ml in positive HD; range: 0–17 ng/mL) (p< 0.001; Fig 1). Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis showed that a cut-off value 19.0 ng/ml (sensitivity: 0.45, specificity: 1.0) was able to distinguish bladder cancer patients from the healthy donors (AUC = 0.71, p<0.05). Table 2 shows that sB7-H3-positivity in patients with NMIBC correlated with tumor number and size.

Fig 1. Detection of serum soluble B7-H3 (sB7-H3) in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).

Fig 1

We next examined the concentration of sB7-H3 in the HD and patients with NMIBC. Sera from 555 patients with NMIBC and 103 HD were diluted to 1:10 in PBS and tested by ELISA as described in Materials and Methods. The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test followed by multiple regression analysis (p<0.005).

Table 2. Characteristics of patients with and without soluble B7-H3.

    Patients without soluble B7-H3 Patients with
soluble B7-H3
p value
Number of tumors 1 162 (55) 117 (45)  
  2-7 111 (38) 124 (48)  
  ≥8 21 (7) 20 (7) <0.05
         
Tumor size <3cm 270(92) 227 (87)  
  >3cm 24 (8) 34 (13) <0.05
       
Prior recurrence rate Primary 178 (61) 150 (57)  
  ≤1 recurrence/year 100 (34) 100 (38)  
  >1 recurrence/year 16 (5) 11 (5) 0.136
         
T category Ta 191 (65) 163 (62)  
  T1 103 (35)  98 (38) 0.23
         
Carcinoma in situ No 233 (79) 225 (86)  
  Yes 61 (21) 36 (14) <0.05
         
Grade G1 49 (17) 31 (12)  
  G2 169 (57) 161 (62)  
  G3 76 (26) 69 (26) 0.31
         
Recurrence Yes 135 (46) 180 (69)  
  No 159 (54) 81 (31) <0.05
         
Progression Yes 24 (8) 23 (9)  
  No 270 (92) 238 (91) 0.52

Forty-five percent (148 of 328) of the samples were obtained from the patients with primary bladder cancer and 49% (113 of 227) were obtained from the patients with recurrent bladder cancer. There was no significant difference in serum sB7-H3 level between the patients with primary bladder cancer (average: 28.7 ng/mL; range: 0–215 ng/mL) and those with recurrent bladder cancer (average: 35.7 ng/mL; range: 0–211 ng/mL) (p = 0.07).

One hundred forty-three (26%) patients had intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) instillation. There was no significant difference in serum sB7-H3 level between patients with a BCG instillation (average: 31.6 ng/mL) and those without it (average: 31.5 ng/mL) (p = 0.98).

Association between the presence of sB7-H3 and clinical outcomes

The serum sB7-H3-positive and negative groups differed significantly in terms of their recurrence rate (Fig 2A). The RFS rate for the serum sB7-H3-positive and negative groups was 25.4 and 60.2% at three years and 23.2 and 51.9% five years, respectively. Univariate Cox regression analysis revealed that serum sB7-H3 presence was a significant factor influencing bladder tumor recurrence (Table 3). The previously reported factors, including the number of tumors, tumor size, pathological T stage, presence of a carcinoma in situ, and tumor grade, were also associated with a poor clinical outcome on univariate regression analysis (Table 3).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

(A) Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival rate curves for patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with (n = 261) and without (n = 294) serum soluble B7-H3 (sB7-H3) (B) Progression-free survival rate curves for NMIBC patients with (n = 261) and without (n = 294) serum soluble sB7-H3.

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis of recurrence.

 Univariate Multivariate
  Cutoff HR (95% CI) p value  HR (95% CI) p value
Soluble B7-H3 Negative vs Positive 0.54 (0.43-0.66) <0.0001  0.51 (0.40-0.63) <0.0001
Number of tumors <0.0001  <0.0001 
Single vs 2-7 0.43 (0.24-0.60) 0.41 (0.23-0.59)
2-7 vs >7 0.20 (0.031-0.38) 0.20 (0.026-0.38)
Tumor size ≤3 vs >3 cm 0.30 (0.12-0.46) 0.0005 0.27 (0.086-0.45) 0.0051
T category Ta vs T1 0.12 (0.0044-0.23) 0.039 0.023 (-0.15-0.11) 0.73
Carcinoma in situ No vs Yes 0.17 (0.024-0.34) 0.027 0.20 (0.049-0.37)  0.0094
Grade 0.0039 0.011
G1 vs G2 0.40 (0.17-0.65) 0.36 (0.12-0.63)
G2 vs G3 0.18 (0.023-0.35)  0.18 (0.015-0.35)
Prior recurrence rate 0.079 0.05
Primary vs ≤1rec/yr 0.22 (0.015-0.46) 0.27 (0.050-0.51)
  ≤1rec/yr vs >1rec/yr 0.15 (-0.076-0.39)   0.085 (-0.14-0.33)  

The serum sB7-H3-positive and negative groups differed significantly in terms of their PFS (Fig 2B). PFS for the serum sB7-H3-positive and negative groups was 85.0 and 95.0% at three years and 68.8 and 91.7% at five years, respectively. Univariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the presence of serum sB7-H3 significantly influenced bladder tumor progression (Table 4). The previously reported factors, including the tumor size, pathological T stage, presence of carcinoma in situ, and tumor grade, were also associated with a poor clinical outcome on univariate regression (Table 4).

Table 4. Univariate and multivariate analysis of progression.

 Univariate   Multivariate  
  Cutoff HR (95% CI) p value  HR (95% CI) p value
Soluble B7-H3 Negative vs Positive 0.56 (0.25-0.87) 0.0002 0.46 (0.14-0.78) 0.0048
Number of tumors Single vs Multiple 0.11 (-0.18-0.42) 0.089 0.75 (-1.2-1.4) 0.95
Tumor size ≤3 vs >3 cm 1.1 (0.76-1.4) <0.0001  0.77 (0.41-1.1) <0.0001
T category Ta vs T1 12 (5.2-14) <0.0001  12 (8.3-14) <0.0001
Carcinoma in situ No vs Yes 0.62 (0.12-1.3) 0.026 4.5 (0.027-0.67) 0.033
Grade G1 and G2 vs G3 0.86 (0.57-1.2) <0.0001  1.75 (1.01-3.05)  0.046
Prior recurrence rate Primary vs recurrent 0.15 (-0.15-0.46) 0.8 1.0 (-0.28-1.3)  0.8

Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression including the presence of serum sB7-H3, number of tumors, tumor size, T category, presence of an in situ carcinoma, grade, and prior recurrence rate revealed that the presence of serum sB7-H3 had a significant, independent, predictive value for RFS and PFS (Tables 3 and 4).

Association between sB7-H3 presence and the EORTC risk table

We applied the EORTC risk scoring system to our cohort, classifying our patients into low (n = 36; 6%), intermediate-low (n = 239; 43%), intermediate-high (n = 254; 46%), and high risk (n = 26; 5%)-of-recurrence groups (Table 5). We also divided them into low (n = 96; 17%), intermediate-low (n = 204; 37%), intermediate-high (n = 196; 35%), and high risk (n = 59; 11%)-of-progression groups. We further subdivided each group based on the presence of sB7-H3 (Table 5), then compared the RFS and PFS rates against the presence of sB7-H3. In the intermediate-low and high groups, the presence of sB7-H3 was associated with a significantly poorer clinical outcome (Figs 3 and 4). The three-year recurrence rate in patients with sB7-H3 versus those without it was lower in the low (35.7 vs 64.6%, respectively), intermediate-low (22.9 vs 56.9%, respectively), intermediate-high (21.5 vs 44.5%, respectively), and high risk (14.7 vs 44.4%, respectively)-of-recurrence groups. Five-year PFS was also lower in patients with sB7-H3 than in patients without sB7-H3 in the intermediate-low (91.2 vs 98.5%, respectively), intermediate-high (46.4 vs 81.6%, respectively), and low (71.1 vs 81.3%, respectively)-risk-of-progression groups. The low-risk groups had no patients with progression.

Table 5. Characteristics of patients with and without soluble B7-H3.

    Patients without Patients with p value
    Soluble B7-H3 Soluble B7-H3  
EORTC recurrence Low 22 (7) 14 (5)  
  Intermediate-low 134 (46) 105 (40)  
  Intermediate-high 129 (44) 125 (48) 0.58
  High 9 (3) 17 (7)  
         
EORTC progression Low 59 (20) 37 (14)  
  Intermediate-low 103 (35) 104 (40) 0.42
  Intermediate-high 99 (34) 95 (36)  
  High 33 (11) 25 (10)  

Fig 3. Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival rate curves for patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) classified by the EORTC risk table for recurrence.

Fig 3

All the groups were further divided according to the presence of serum soluble B7-H3. The figures show the low (A), intermediate-low (B), intermediate-high (C), and high (D)-risk groups.

Fig 4. PFS rate curves for NMIBC patients classified by the EORTC risk table for progression all the groups were further divided according to the presence of sB7-H3.

Fig 4

Figures show the intermediate-low (A), intermediate-high (B) and high (C)-risk groups. The low-risk groups had no patients with progression.

Discussion

In the present study, we revealed that NMIBC with sB7-H3 had a poor clinical prognosis. Especially in groups classified as intermediate-low or high-risk by the EORTC, the presence of sB7-H3 may be a significant predictive factor of recurrence and progression. Groups with intermediate-low and intermediate-high risk had as poor a clinical prognosis as the high-risk group. The ability to detect patients with a poor prognosis in groups with intermediate-low and intermediate-high risk is obviously of great clinical value. About half the patients in the intermediate-low and intermediate-high risk groups benefited from having their serum sB7-H3 level measured.

Several studies reported the expression of B7-H3 in various types of human cancer cell lines and tissues, such as leukemia, colon cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, prostate cancer, urothelial cell cancer, renal cell cancer, gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, and neuroblastoma [1620]. These data indicate that human cancer cells commonly express B7-H3 on the cell surface, suggesting that B7-H3 plays an important role in cancer cell development.

Several studies demonstrated that B7-H3 co-stimulates the T cell response [12]. The co-stimulatory effect of B7-H3 on the CD8+ T-cell response was observed by inducing cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTLs) and anti-tumor immunity in B7-H3-transfected tumor cells [15]. In some murine models, B7-H3 expression led to the activation of tumor-specific CTL, which can slow tumor growth or eradicate tumors [15, 21, 22]. These data indicated that a high level of B7-H3 expression may be beneficial in the immune response to tumor antigens. Manipulating B7-H3 may provide an opportunity to regulate the immune response and design new immunotherapeutic approaches.

B7-H3 plays an important role in tumor progression, metastasis, recurrence, and other adverse clinical features [17, 18, 2325]. Three previous studies demonstrated an association between B7-H3 expression and cancer-specific mortality or disease progression after a cystectomy [2628]; two of the studies showed no association while one did. The discrepancies in the findings may have been due to a higher proportion of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (85.8%) in Zhili’s cohort than in Boorjian et al.’s cohort (65.2%). These studies focused on mB7-H3 and targeted populations with a radical cystectomy, i.e., aggressive cancer. In the present study, we focused on sB7-H3 in patients with NMIBC and demonstrated an association between the presence of sB7-H3 and the recurrence and progression rates. We found that the presence of sB7-H3 may be an independent factor predictive of a good prognosis in terms of recurrence and progression in patients with NMIBC.

sB7-H3 is a soluble form of B7-H3 that is produced by monocytes, activated T cells, DCs, and B7-H3-positive tumor cells [29]. Zhang et al. showed that patients with the diagnosis of sepsis, in contrast to healthy individuals, exhibited significantly higher levels of plasma sB7-H3 (sB7-H3), which correlated with the clinical outcomes and levels of plasma TNF-α and IL-6 [30]. They also reported that membrane-bound sB7-H3 was cleaved from leukocytes by matrix metalloproteinases [29].

sB7-H3 were able to be detected in several cancers and cancer cell lines, and high serum levels were significantly associated with poor clinical outcomes [31, 32]. Chao et al. demonstrated the invasion and metastasis of pancreatic cancer cells via the TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway [33]. In addition, sB7-H3 induced VEGF and IL-8 secretion via the TLR4/NF-κB pathway, supporting the idea that sB7-H3 promotes invasion and cancer cell metastasis. Hao et al. showed that mB7-H3 can regulate epithelial to mesenchymal transition of hepatocellular carcinoma through activating Jak2/Stat3 signaling [34]. According to these two reports, mB7-H3 or sB7-H3 was associated with inflammation, and their signaling pathways were different.

TLR4 signaling in cancer cells and leukocytes mediate inflammation related to oncogenesis [7, 35]. Immune cells infiltration occurs in various cancers, with interaction between tumor cells and lymphocytes forming an inflammatory positive feedback loop [36]. TLR4, which is expressed in cancer cells and leukocytes, mediates inflammation, which often leads to the suppression of immune functions, inducing tumor immune escape [37]. Several studies have reported that the growth and invasion of cancer cells may be able to be boosted by inflammation in the tumor microenvironment [38]. Zhang et al. showed that sB7-H3 was able to augment the inflammatory response thorough TLR4 [30]. Our results suggested that serum sB7-H3 amplified cancer-associated inflammation in bladder cancer patients.

Conclusions

NMIBC with sB7-H3 has a poor clinical prognosis. The presence of sB7-H3 may be useful as a predictive factor for recurrence and progression. These findings may be helpful for determining an appropriate treatment for patients with NMIBC.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number 16K11037 to Y. Sato and JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number 17K11169 to T. Azuma. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics for Hispanics/Latinos, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(5):283–98. 10.3322/caac.21153 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sakano S, Matsuyama H, Takai K, Yoshihiro S, Kamiryo Y, Shirataki S, et al. Risk group stratification to predict recurrence after transurethral resection in Japanese patients with stage Ta and T1 bladder tumours: validation study on the European Association of Urology guidelines. BJU Int. 2011;107(10):1598–604. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09850.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Allard P, Bernard P, Fradet Y, Tetu B. The early clinical course of primary Ta and T1 bladder cancer: a proposed prognostic index. Br J Urol. 1998;81(5):692–8. 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00628.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kurth KH, Denis L, Bouffioux C, Sylvester R, Debruyne FM, Pavone-Macaluso M, et al. Factors affecting recurrence and progression in superficial bladder tumours. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A(11):1840–6. 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00287-s . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sylvester RJ, van der Meijden AP, Oosterlinck W, Witjes JA, Bouffioux C, Denis L, et al. Predicting recurrence and progression in individual patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer using EORTC risk tables: a combined analysis of 2596 patients from seven EORTC trials. Eur Urol. 2006;49(3):466–5; discussion 75–7. 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.031 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Babjuk M, Oosterlinck W, Sylvester R, Kaasinen E, Bohle A, Palou-Redorta J, et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, the 2011 update. Eur Urol. 2011;59(6):997–1008. 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Coussens LM, Werb Z. Inflammation and cancer. Nature. 2002;420(6917):860–7. 10.1038/nature01322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Whiteside TL. The tumor microenvironment and its role in promoting tumor growth. Oncogene. 2008;27(45):5904–12. 10.1038/onc.2008.271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Federico A, Morgillo F, Tuccillo C, Ciardiello F, Loguercio C. Chronic inflammation and oxidative stress in human carcinogenesis. Int J Cancer. 2007;121(11):2381–6. 10.1002/ijc.23192 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.de Visser KE, Eichten A, Coussens LM. Paradoxical roles of the immune system during cancer development. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6(1):24–37. 10.1038/nrc1782 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Podojil JR, Glaser AP, Baker D, Courtois ET, Fantini D, Yu Y, et al. Antibody targeting of B7-H4 enhances the immune response in urothelial carcinoma. Oncoimmunology. 2020;9(1):1744897 10.1080/2162402X.2020.1744897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chapoval AI, Ni J, Lau JS, Wilcox RA, Flies DB, Liu D, et al. B7-H3: a costimulatory molecule for T cell activation and IFN-gamma production. Nat Immunol. 2001;2(3):269–74. 10.1038/85339 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sun M, Richards S, Prasad DV, Mai XM, Rudensky A, Dong C. Characterization of mouse and human B7-H3 genes. J Immunol. 2002;168(12):6294–7. 10.4049/jimmunol.168.12.6294 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Steinberger P, Majdic O, Derdak SV, Pfistershammer K, Kirchberger S, Klauser C, et al. Molecular characterization of human 4Ig-B7-H3, a member of the B7 family with four Ig-like domains. J Immunol. 2004;172(4):2352–9. 10.4049/jimmunol.172.4.2352 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Luo L, Chapoval AI, Flies DB, Zhu G, Hirano F, Wang S, et al. B7-H3 enhances tumor immunity in vivo by costimulating rapid clonal expansion of antigen-specific CD8+ cytolytic T cells. J Immunol. 2004;173(9):5445–50. 10.4049/jimmunol.173.9.5445 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zang X, Thompson RH, Al-Ahmadie HA, Serio AM, Reuter VE, Eastham JA, et al. B7-H3 and B7x are highly expressed in human prostate cancer and associated with disease spread and poor outcome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(49):19458–63. 10.1073/pnas.0709802104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Crispen PL, Sheinin Y, Roth TJ, Lohse CM, Kuntz SM, Frigola X, et al. Tumor cell and tumor vasculature expression of B7-H3 predict survival in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(16):5150–7. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sun Y, Wang Y, Zhao J, Gu M, Giscombe R, Lefvert AK, et al. B7-H3 and B7-H4 expression in non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2006;53(2):143–51. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2006.05.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Castriconi R, Dondero A, Augugliaro R, Cantoni C, Carnemolla B, Sementa AR, et al. Identification of 4Ig-B7-H3 as a neuroblastoma-associated molecule that exerts a protective role from an NK cell-mediated lysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(34):12640–5. 10.1073/pnas.0405025101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Saatian B, Yu XY, Lane AP, Doyle T, Casolaro V, Spannhake EW. Expression of genes for B7-H3 and other T cell ligands by nasal epithelial cells during differentiation and activation. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2004;287(1):L217–25. 10.1152/ajplung.00132.2003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lupu CM, Eisenbach C, Kuefner MA, Schmidt J, Lupu AD, Stremmel W, et al. An orthotopic colon cancer model for studying the B7-H3 antitumor effect in vivo. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10(5):635–45. 10.1007/BF03239969 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Luo L, Qiao H, Meng F, Dong X, Zhou B, Jiang H, et al. Arsenic trioxide synergizes with B7H3-mediated immunotherapy to eradicate hepatocellular carcinomas. Int J Cancer. 2006;118(7):1823–30. 10.1002/ijc.21557 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wu CP, Jiang JT, Tan M, Zhu YB, Ji M, Xu KF, et al. Relationship between co-stimulatory molecule B7-H3 expression and gastric carcinoma histology and prognosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(3):457–9. 10.3748/wjg.v12.i3.457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yamato I, Sho M, Nomi T, Akahori T, Shimada K, Hotta K, et al. Clinical importance of B7-H3 expression in human pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(10):1709–16. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Roth TJ, Sheinin Y, Lohse CM, Kuntz SM, Frigola X, Inman BA, et al. B7-H3 ligand expression by prostate cancer: a novel marker of prognosis and potential target for therapy. Cancer Res. 2007;67(16):7893–900. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1068 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Boorjian SA, Sheinin Y, Crispen PL, Farmer SA, Lohse CM, Kuntz SM, et al. T-cell coregulatory molecule expression in urothelial cell carcinoma: clinicopathologic correlations and association with survival. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(15):4800–8. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0731 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Xylinas E, Robinson BD, Kluth LA, Volkmer BG, Hautmann R, Kufer R, et al. Association of T-cell co-regulatory protein expression with clinical outcomes following radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(1):121–7. 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.08.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Xu Z, Wang L, Tian J, Man H, Li P, Shan B. High expression of B7-H3 and CD163 in cancer tissues indicates malignant clinicopathological status and poor prognosis of patients with urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder. Oncol Lett. 2018;15(5):6519–26. 10.3892/ol.2018.8173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhang G, Hou J, Shi J, Yu G, Lu B, Zhang X. Soluble CD276 (B7-H3) is released from monocytes, dendritic cells and activated T cells and is detectable in normal human serum. Immunology. 2008;123(4):538–46. 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2007.02723.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhang G, Wang J, Kelly J, Gu G, Hou J, Zhou Y, et al. B7-H3 augments the inflammatory response and is associated with human sepsis. J Immunol. 2010;185(6):3677–84. 10.4049/jimmunol.0904020 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zhao L, Xie C, Liu D, Li T, Zhang Y, Wan C. Early Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Hepatocirrhosis by Soluble B7-H3. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(5):807–12. 10.1007/s11605-017-3386-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Baral A, Ye HX, Jiang PC, Yao Y, Mao Y. B7-H3 and B7-H1 expression in cerebral spinal fluid and tumor tissue correlates with the malignancy grade of glioma patients. Oncol Lett. 2014;8(3):1195–201. 10.3892/ol.2014.2268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Xie C, Liu D, Chen Q, Yang C, Wang B, Wu H. Soluble B7-H3 promotes the invasion and metastasis of pancreatic carcinoma cells through the TLR4/NF-kappaB pathway. Sci Rep. 2016;6:27528 10.1038/srep27528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Liu H, Tekle C, Chen YW, Kristian A, Zhao Y, Zhou M, et al. B7-H3 silencing increases paclitaxel sensitivity by abrogating Jak2/Stat3 phosphorylation. Mol Cancer Ther. 2011;10(6):960–71. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-11-0072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Oblak A, Jerala R. Toll-like receptor 4 activation in cancer progression and therapy. Clin Dev Immunol. 2011;2011:609579 10.1155/2011/609579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, Balkwill F. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature. 2008;454(7203):436–44. 10.1038/nature07205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gabrilovich DI, Nagaraj S. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators of the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol. 2009;9(3):162–74. 10.1038/nri2506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Donskov F, von der Maase H. Impact of immune parameters on long-term survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(13):1997–2005. 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.9594 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Francisco X Real

23 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-26604

Serum soluble B7-H3 is a prognostic marker for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Azuma,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 3 months. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francisco X. Real

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199719 (Introduction paragraph 3)

https://www.jimmunol.org/content/185/6/3677.full (Discussion paragraph 5)

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27528 (Discussion paragraph 7)

https://www.clinical-genitourinary-cancer.com/article/S1558-7673(13)00049-9/fulltext (Discussion paragraph 7)

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Please provide a brief summary of the methods regarding the detection and measurement of sB7-H3 in serum. This is in line with our reproducibility criterion for publishing, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication.

4. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the collection of control tissue specimens used in this study, the method used to collect them, and the demographic details of the patients from which they were collected. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the  date range (month and year) during which you collected specimens,  b) a description of how participants were recruited to provide samples, and c) eligibility criteria for being included in this part of the study.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is addressing a very interesting question asking if B7-H4, a specific member of the immunstimulatory B7 family, in its soluble from can be used as a prognostic marker in NMIBC.

A strength of this project is its large patient cohort.

However, there are several aspects in the manuscript that should be improved.

1) the introduction is not written in a precise and clear style and order.

2) The authors should carefully ensure that they really describe what they are doing. (for example under the headline "presence of serum sB7-H3 in patients with NMIBC" they start with "This assay revealed that..." without mentioning which assay they mean).

3) There is a very recent paper from Podojil et al., on B7-H4 in urothelial carcinoma that should be included into the discussion ( PMID: 32363111 ).

Reviewer #2: This is a review of a historical series of 555 patients with NMIBC, in which sB7-H3 has been measured in plasma, relating it to progression and recurrence-free survival.

The authors should be congratulated for an exhaustive work, as well as the description of a promising marker in the study of recurrence and progression of NMIBC. Anyway, I think the work may improve with the following contributions:

Introduction: The first paragraph seems to be missing. If not, it is advisable to check the grammar.

Material and methods: Given that the primary objective is recurrence, it should be indicated how these patients have been followed (cystoscopy, cytology, ultrasound, CT ...). In the definitions part, progression is defined as “beyond T2 stage”. I suppose they mean "beyond T1 stage", to diagnose progression to muscle infiltrating.

It does not show how these patients were treated. Given that most are intermediate or high risk tumours, the logical thing is that they had some treatment. The therapy applied logically may have influenced the recurrence, altering the results of the study. If this data is not available, it should be included among the weaknesses of the work, in the discussion section.

Results: The median follow-up of the entire series is missing, not only of the tumors that have recurred, as well as whether there were any lost to follow-up.

At the bottom of Figure 2, the results of the curves are discussed. This data is already given in the text, so duplication should be avoided.

As there are some healthy donors positive for sB7H3, can a cut-off level be defined to know when it is considered positive?

Given that tumors with positive sB7H3 are usually recurrent, I recommend doing uni / multivariate analysis of the variable “prior recurrence”, grouping primary vs recurrent. It is possible that it may be significant.

Discussion

The analysis has been carried out on a series for which the treatment applied is not available. If the percentage of patients who have received BCG is high, the EORTC tables loses validity, making it more advisable to use the risk according to CUETO (Babjuck et al, EAU Guidelines NMIBC 2020). If the information is available, it is advisable to see if these results hold up. If so, the importance of this marker would increase, as it would be significant even when a more “modern” BCG treatment is performed. And it can serve as an indicator to predict response to BCG, something much needed today.

Conclusions

Nothing to add

Reviewer #3: The manuscript “Serum soluble B7-H3 is a prognostic marker for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer“ by et al address an important point in NMIBC that is the finding of good prognostic marker for recurrence and progression of the disease. The has evaluated 555 patient samples and found a correlation between the serum levels of B7-H3 and disease recurrence and progression to MIBC. The article is well written but I miss some aspect that I think need to be elucidated.

1.- The authors point the NMIBC need of good markers for disease progression, but they not make a reasoning of why to measure B7-H3, is there any rationale for that or is just because?

2.- With the patient descriptions it is not clear how many of the patients are primary or recurrent in each analysis. It will be interesting to have the B7-H3 values dissected by patients’ groups not just by positive vs negative. Is there a cut value that really distinguish healthy vs cancer patient?

3.-Currently the patients that are considered high risk of tumor progression according to EORT guidelines are treated with intravesical instillations. Is that the case for some of those patients in the cohort?. In the same line, it will be interesting to know how are the B7-H3 serum levels in a cystitis or a bladder infection patient. Will B7-H3 be as HD or as a cancer patient?

4.- I miss the analysis of how varied (or not) the B7-H3 serum levels among the patients with a primary tumor vs those that are recurrent, not only in positive vs negative but the quantitative amount.

5.- In table 2 which is the unit of the tumor size? Cm?. The authors distinguish Ta T1 and Tis, how many of the patients have Tis plus Ta or T1 and how do this affect the analysis?

6.- The authors point in mat. and meth. that the samples were collected between 2008 and 2013. I thnk it will be important to know the follow up time.

7.- In page 16, last paragraph, the author wrote that in the samples they found an 8% of tumor progression (47 samples) but in figure 4 they make the Kaplan analysis with the 555 samples. I think they should make this among the samples of recurrent patients not with the total.

8.- And last, I think that the authors most do an effort to point clearly how many of the patients that are not categorized now of high risk of recurrence or progression will be benefit with the measurement of sB7-H3. To me it is not clear as it is now.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243379.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Oct 2020

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is addressing a very interesting question asking if B7-H4, a specific member of the immunstimulatory B7 family, in its soluble from can be used as a prognostic marker in NMIBC.

A strength of this project is its large patient cohort.

However, there are several aspects in the manuscript that should be improved.

1) the introduction is not written in a precise and clear style and order.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we have written, “Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) is usually performed to resect non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) completely” in the Introduction.

2) The authors should carefully ensure that they really describe what they are doing. (for example under the headline "presence of serum sB7-H3 in patients with NMIBC" they start with "This assay revealed that..." without mentioning which assay they mean).

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we have written, “ELISA revealed that 47% (261 out of 555) of the samples…”

3) There is a very recent paper from Podojil et al., on B7-H4 in urothelial carcinoma that should be included into the discussion ( PMID: 32363111 ).

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we have added “Podojil reported that B7-H4 can be a new target for immunotherapy in an N-butyl-N-(4-hydroxybutyl)-nitrosamine-induced, murine bladder cancer model” in the Introduction.

Reviewer #2: This is a review of a historical series of 555 patients with NMIBC, in which sB7-H3 has been measured in plasma, relating it to progression and recurrence-free survival.

The authors should be congratulated for an exhaustive work, as well as the description of a promising marker in the study of recurrence and progression of NMIBC. Anyway, I think the work may improve with the following contributions:

Introduction: The first paragraph seems to be missing. If not, it is advisable to check the grammar.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we have changed this to “Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) is usually performed to resect non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) completely” in the Introduction.

Material and methods: Given that the primary objective is recurrence, it should be indicated how these patients have been followed (cystoscopy, cytology, ultrasound, CT ...). In the definitions part, progression is defined as “beyond T2 stage”. I suppose they mean "beyond T1 stage", to diagnose progression to muscle infiltrating.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added, “Cystoscopy, urine analysis, and cytology were performed every three months in the follow-up examinations after TURBT” in Materials and Methods. We have also corrected to “beyond stage T1.”

It does not show how these patients were treated. Given that most are intermediate or high risk tumours, the logical thing is that they had some treatment. The therapy applied logically may have influenced the recurrence, altering the results of the study. If this data is not available, it should be included among the weaknesses of the work, in the discussion section.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added “There was no significant difference in serum sB7-H3 level between patients with a BCG instillation (average: 31.6 ng/mL) and those without it (average: 31.5 ng/mL) (p=0.98)” in the Results.

Results: The median follow-up of the entire series is missing, not only of the tumors that have recurred, as well as whether there were any lost to follow-up.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we have added “The median follow-up time was 18.2 months” in the Results.

At the bottom of Figure 2, the results of the curves are discussed. This data is already given in the text, so duplication should be avoided.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, deleted this discussions in Fig.2.

As there are some healthy donors positive for sB7H3, can a cut-off level be defined to know when it is considered positive?

Thank you for your suggestion. However, there is a clear cut-off level. We explained that the samples were positive for above-background levels of sB7-H3.

Given that tumors with positive sB7H3 are usually recurrent, I recommend doing uni / multivariate analysis of the variable “prior recurrence”, grouping primary vs recurrent. It is possible that it may be significant.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added, “Forty-five percent (148 of 328) of the samples were obtained from the patients with primary bladder cancer and 49% (113 of 227) were obtained from patients with recurrent bladder cancer. There was no significant difference in serum sB7-H3 level between patients with primary bladder cancer (average: 28.7 ng/mL; range: 0 - 215 ng/mL) and patients with recurrent bladder cancer (average: 35.7 ng/mL; range: 0 - 211 ng/mL) (p=0.07)” in the Results.

Discussion

The analysis has been carried out on a series for which the treatment applied is not available. If the percentage of patients who have received BCG is high, the EORTC tables loses validity, making it more advisable to use the risk according to CUETO (Babjuck et al, EAU Guidelines NMIBC 2020). If the information is available, it is advisable to see if these results hold up. If so, the importance of this marker would increase, as it would be significant even when a more “modern” BCG treatment is performed. And it can serve as an indicator to predict response to BCG, something much needed today.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added, “There was no significant difference in serum sB7-H3 level between patients with a BCG instillation (average: 31.6 ng/mL) and those without it (average: 31.5 ng/mL) (p=0.98)” in the Results.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript “Serum soluble B7-H3 is a prognostic marker for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer“ by et al address an important point in NMIBC that is the finding of good prognostic marker for recurrence and progression of the disease. The has evaluated 555 patient samples and found a correlation between the serum levels of B7-H3 and disease recurrence and progression to MIBC. The article is well written but I miss some aspect that I think need to be elucidated.

1.- The authors point the NMIBC need of good markers for disease progression, but they not make a reasoning of why to measure B7-H3, is there any rationale for that or is just because?

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added, “B7-H3 is expressed in various types of cancer, suggesting that it may be associated with inhibition against the anti-tumor immune response“ in the Introduction.

2.- With the patient descriptions it is not clear how many of the patients are primary or recurrent in each analysis. It will be interesting to have the B7-H3 values dissected by patients’ groups not just by positive vs negative. Is there a cut value that really distinguish healthy vs cancer patient?

Thank you for your suggestion.  Accordingly, we added, “Forty-five percent (148 of 328) of the samples were obtained from the patients with primary bladder cancer and 49% (113 of 227) were obtained from patients with recurrent bladder cancer. There was no significant difference in serum sB7-H3 level between patients with primary bladder cancer (average: 28.7 ng/mL; range: 0 - 215 ng/mL) and patients with recurrent bladder cancer (average: 35.7 ng/mL; range: 0 - 211 ng/mL) (p=0.07)” in the Results.

3.-Currently the patients that are considered high risk of tumor progression according to EORT guidelines are treated with intravesical instillations. Is that the case for some of those patients in the cohort?. In the same line, it will be interesting to know how are the B7-H3 serum levels in a cystitis or a bladder infection patient. Will B7-H3 be as HD or as a cancer patient?

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added “There was no significant difference in serum sB7-H3 level between patients with a BCG instillation (average: 31.6 ng/mL) and those without it (average: 31.5 ng/mL) (p=0.98)” in the Results. We do not have B7-H3 serum levels for cystitis.

4.- I miss the analysis of how varied (or not) the B7-H3 serum levels among the patients with a primary tumor vs those that are recurrent, not only in positive vs negative but the quantitative amount.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added “There was no significant difference in serum sB7-H3 level between patients with primary bladder cancer (average: 28.7 ng/mL; range: 0 - 215 ng/mL) and patients with recurrent bladder cancer (average: 35.7 ng/mL; range: 0 - 211 ng/mL) (p=0.07)” in the Results.

5.- In table 2 which is the unit of the tumor size? Cm?. The authors distinguish Ta T1 and Tis, how many of the patients have Tis plus Ta or T1 and how do this affect the analysis?

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added “cm” in the Table.

There were 80 patients with Tis plus Ta or T1. These patients’ distribution was not different from that of patients with pure Tis.

6.- The authors point in mat. and meth. that the samples were collected between 2008 and 2013. I thnk it will be important to know the follow up time.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added “The median follow-up time was 18.2 months” in the Results.

7.- In page 16, last paragraph, the author wrote that in the samples they found an 8% of tumor progression (47 samples) but in figure 4 they make the Kaplan analysis with the 555 samples. I think they should make this among the samples of recurrent patients not with the total.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we changed this to “Progression to MIBC occurred in 47 (14.9 %) of the 315 patients with recurrence”.

8.- And last, I think that the authors most do an effort to point clearly how many of the patients that are not categorized now of high risk of recurrence or progression will be benefit with the measurement of sB7-H3. To me it is not clear as it is now.

Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we added “About half the patients in the low-intermediate and high-intermediate risk groups benefited from having their serum sB7-H3 level measured” in Discussion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: answerplos REV10.22.20.docx

Decision Letter 1

Francisco X Real

20 Nov 2020

Serum soluble B7-H3 is a prognostic marker for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

PONE-D-20-26604R1

Dear Dr. Azuma,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Francisco X. Real

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors addressed most of the comments raised the previous review. I think that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication. Congratulations!!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Francisco X Real

24 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-26604R1

Serum soluble B7-H3 is a prognostic marker for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Dear Dr. Azuma:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Francisco X. Real

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES