BACKGROUND:Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is a heterogeneous disease, and gene expression profiling has identified several molecular subtypes with distinct biological and clinicopathological characteristics. While MIBC subtyping has primarily been based on messenger RNA (mRNA), long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) may provide additional resolution. METHODS:LncRNA expression was quantified from microarray data of a MIBC cohort treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC) (n = 223). Unsupervised consensus clustering of highly variant lncRNAs identified a four-cluster solution, which was characterized using a panel of MIBC biomarkers, regulon activity profiles, gene signatures, and survival analysis. The four-cluster solution was confirmed in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort (n = 405). A single-sample genomic classifier (GC) was trained using ridge-penalized logistic regression and validated in two independent cohorts (n = 255 and n = 94). RESULTS:NAC and TCGA cohorts both contained an lncRNA cluster (LC3) with favorable prognosis that was enriched with tumors of the luminal-papillary (LP) subtype. In both cohorts, patients with LP tumors in LC3 (LPL-C3) were younger and had organ-confined, node-negative disease. The LPL-C3 tumors had enhanced FGFR3, SHH, and wild-type p53 pathway activity. In the TCGA cohort, LPL-C3 tumors were enriched for FGFR3 mutations and depleted for TP53 and RB1 mutations. A GC trained to identify these LPL-C3 patients showed robust performance in two validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS:Using lncRNA expression profiles, we identified a biologically distinct subgroup of luminal-papillary MIBC with a favorable prognosis. These data suggest that lncRNAs provide additional information for higher-resolution subtyping, potentially improving precision patient management.

We report a comprehensive analysis of 412 muscle-invasive bladder cancers characterized by multiple TCGA analytical platforms. Fifty-eight genes were significantly mutated, and the overall mutational load was associated with APOBEC-signature mutagenesis. Clustering by mutation signature identified a high-mutation subset with 75% 5-year survival. mRNA expression clustering refined prior clustering analyses and identified a poor-survival "neuronal" subtype in which the majority of tumors lacked small cell or neuroendocrine histology. Clustering by mRNA, long non-coding RNA (lncRNA), and miRNA expression converged to identify subsets with differential epithelial-mesenchymal transition status, carcinoma in situ scores, histologic features, and survival. Our analyses identified 5 expression subtypes that may stratify response to different treatments.

(Cell Reports 23, 313–326; April 3, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the author list contained two errors. Specifically, David J. Kwiatkowski was misspelled as David J. Kwaitkowski, and William Y. Kim was inadvertently written as William T. Kim. Both names have been corrected online. The authors regret this error.

(Immunity 48, 812–830.e1–e14; April 17, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the authors neglected to include Younes Mokrab and Aaron M. Newman as co-authors and misspelled the names of authors Charles S. Rabkin and Ilya Shmulevich. The author names have been corrected here and online. In addition, the concluding sentence of the subsection “Immune Signature Compilation” in the Method Details in the original published article was deemed unclear because it did not specify differences among the gene set scoring methods. The concluding sentences now reads “Gene sets from Bindea et al., Senbabaoglu et al., and the MSigDB C7 collection were scored using single-sample gene set enrichment (ssGSEA) analysis (Barbie et al., 2009), as implemented in the GSVA R package (Hänzelmann et al., 2013). All other signatures were scored using methods found in the associated citations.”

(Cell 173, 371–385.e1–e9; April 5, 2018) It has come to our attention that we made two errors in preparation of this manuscript. First, in the STAR Methods, under the subheading of “Hypermutators and Immune Infiltrates” within the “Quantification and Statistical Analysis” section, we inadvertently referred to Figures S7A–S7C for data corresponding to sample stratification by hypermutator status alone in the last sentence. It should have referred to Figure S6A–S6C. Second, the lists of highly frequent missense mutations for COAD (colon adenocarcinoma) and READ (rectum adenocarcinoma) displayed in Figure S7 were incorrect because when we ordered the mutations in the initial analysis, we mistakenly combined the two cancer types COAD and READ for analysis, despite the fact that they were listed as two separate cancer types in the x-axis of the figure. After re-ordering the mutations by frequency for COAD and READ independently, information on highly frequent missense mutations for each of these cancer types is different and updated now in the revised Figure S7. These errors don't change the major conclusions of the paper and have been corrected online. We apologize for any confusion they may have caused. [Figure-presented]

The role of enhancers, a key class of non-coding regulatory DNA elements, in cancer development has increasingly been appreciated. Here, we present the detection and characterization of a large number of expressed enhancers in a genome-wide analysis of 8928 tumor samples across 33 cancer types using TCGA RNA-seq data. Compared with matched normal tissues, global enhancer activation was observed in most cancers. Across cancer types, global enhancer activity was positively associated with aneuploidy, but not mutation load, suggesting a hypothesis centered on "chromatin-state" to explain their interplay. Integrating eQTL, mRNA co-expression, and Hi-C data analysis, we developed a computational method to infer causal enhancer-gene interactions, revealing enhancers of clinically actionable genes. Having identified an enhancer ∼140 kb downstream of PD-L1, a major immunotherapy target, we validated it experimentally. This study provides a systematic view of enhancer activity in diverse tumor contexts and suggests the clinical implications of enhancers.