Optimizing identification of consensus molecular subtypes in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a comparison of two sequencing methods and gene sets using FFPE specimens

BACKGROUND: Molecular subtypes predict prognosis in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and are explored as predictive markers. To provide a common base for molecular subtyping and facilitate clinical applications, a consensus classification has been developed. However, methods to determine consensus molecular subtypes require validation, particularly when FFPE specimens are used. Here, we aimed to evaluate two gene expression analysis methods on FFPE samples and to compare reduced gene sets to classify tumors into molecular subtypes. METHODS: RNA was isolated from FFPE blocks of 15 MIBC patients. Massive analysis of 3’ cDNA ends (MACE) and the HTG transcriptome panel (HTP) were used to retrieve gene expression. We used normalized, log2-transformed data to call consensus and TCGA subtypes with the consensusMIBC package for R using all available genes, a 68-gene panel (ESSEN1), and a 48-gene panel (ESSEN2). RESULTS: Fifteen MACE-samples and 14 HTP-samples were available for molecular subtyping. The 14 samples were classified as Ba/Sq in 7 (50%), LumP in 2 (14.3%), LumU in 1 (7.1%), LumNS in 1 (7.1%), stroma-rich in 2 (14.3%) and NE-like in 1 (7.1%) case based on MACE- or HTP-derived transcriptome data. Consensus subtypes were concordant in 71% (10/14) of cases when comparing MACE with HTP data. Four cases with aberrant subtypes had a stroma-rich molecular subtype with either method. The overlap of the molecular consensus subtypes with the reduced ESSEN1 and ESSEN2 panels were 86% and 100%, respectively, with HTP data and 86% with MACE data. CONCLUSION: Determination of consensus molecular subtypes of MIBC from FFPE samples is feasible using various RNA sequencing methods. Inconsistent classification mainly involves the stroma-rich molecular subtype, which may be the consequence of sample heterogeneity with (stroma)-cell sampling bias and highlights the limitations of bulk RNA-based subclassification. Classification is still reliable when analysis is reduced to selected genes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-11016-9.