We conducted comprehensive integrative molecular analyses of the complete set of tumors in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), consisting of approximately 10,000 specimens and representing 33 types of cancer. We performed molecular clustering using data on chromosome-arm-level aneuploidy, DNA hypermethylation, mRNA, and miRNA expression levels and reverse-phase protein arrays, of which all, except for aneuploidy, revealed clustering primarily organized by histology, tissue type, or anatomic origin. The influence of cell type was evident in DNA-methylation-based clustering, even after excluding sites with known preexisting tissue-type-specific methylation. Integrative clustering further emphasized the dominant role of cell-of-origin patterns. Molecular similarities among histologically or anatomically related cancer types provide a basis for focused pan-cancer analyses, such as pan-gastrointestinal, pan-gynecological, pan-kidney, and pan-squamous cancers, and those related by stemness features, which in turn may inform strategies for future therapeutic development.

Summary 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, 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.

No abstract

It has come to our attention that we inadvertently used the wrong synonymous name for PD-L1 in the Discussion section on page 551. Instead of CD270, which is a synonymous name for the HVEM receptor, we should have used CD274 in that sentence. This error has been corrected online. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

No abstract