Literature DB >> 11435827

Screening and monitoring for bladder cancer: refining the use of NMP22.

L E Ponsky1, S Sharma, L Pandrangi, S Kedia, D Nelson, A Agarwal, C D Zippe.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: While detecting bladder cancer, bladder tumor markers demonstrate improved sensitivity compared with urinary cytology but the current limitation is the low specificity and positive predictive value, that is high false-positive rate. We examined the clinical categories of the false-positive results, established relative exclusion criteria, and recalculated the specificity and positive predictive value of this assay with these criteria.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 608 patients considered at risk for bladder cancer presented to a urology clinic and submitted a single urine sample. Of the 608 patients 529 (87%) presented with de novo hematuria or chronic voiding symptoms without a diagnosis of bladder cancer. There were 79 (13.0%) patients being monitored with a known history of bladder cancer. Each urine sample was examined via cytology, urinalysis, culture and NMP22 protein assay. All patients underwent office cystoscopy, and transurethral resection and/or biopsy if a bladder tumor was suspected.
RESULTS: Of the 608 patients 226 (37.2%) presented with microscopic hematuria, 143 (23.5%) with gross hematuria and 239 (39.3%) had chronic symptoms of urinary frequency or dysuria. There were 52 (8.6%) patients who had histologically confirmed bladder cancer. Of these 52 cancers NMP22 detected 46 (88.5%), whereas cytology identified only 16 (30.8%). When atypical cytology was considered positive, cytology detected 32 (61.5%) cases. In the 135 patients with increased NMP22 values the 46 identified tumors were accompanied by 89 false-positive values yielding a specificity of 83.9% and a positive predictive value of 34.1%. These false-positive results were divided into 6 clinical categories. Exclusion of these categories improved the specificity and positive predictive value of NMP22 to 99.2% and 92.0%, respectively, yielding results similar to urinary cytology (99.8% and 94.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: Awareness and exclusion of the categories of false-positive results can increase the specificity and positive predictive value of NMP22, enhancing the clinical use of this urinary tumor marker.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11435827

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  23 in total

1.  Influence of age on false positive rates of urine-based tumor markers.

Authors:  M Horstmann; T Todenhöfer; J Hennenlotter; S Aufderklamm; J Mischinger; U Kuehs; G Gakis; A Stenzl; C Schwentner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  UroSEEK gene panel for bladder cancer surveillance.

Authors:  Regan Wong; Charles J Rosser
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-12

3.  Urine cytology and adjunct markers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer.

Authors:  Peggy S Sullivan; Jessica B Chan; Mary R Levin; Jianyu Rao
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2010-07-25       Impact factor: 4.060

Review 4.  Molecular diagnostic trends in urological cancer: biomarkers for non-invasive diagnosis.

Authors:  V Urquidi; C J Rosser; S Goodison
Journal:  Curr Med Chem       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 4.530

Review 5.  Molecular and Functional Diagnostic Tools in Precision Oncology for Urological Malignancies.

Authors:  Vasanthakumar Sekar; Debapriya Ghosh Mehrotra; Biswanath Majumder
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-12-15

6.  The clinical usefulness of nuclear matrix protein-22 in patients with atypical urine cytology.

Authors:  Jae Sung Ahn; Hyun-Soo Kim; Sung-Goo Chang; Seung Hyun Jeon
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2011-09-28

7.  Spectrophotometric photodynamic detection involving extracorporeal treatment with hexaminolevulinate for bladder cancer cells in voided urine.

Authors:  Yasushi Nakai; Toshiyuki Ozawa; Fumiko Mizuno; Sayuri Onishi; Takuya Owari; Syunta Hori; Yosuke Morizawa; Yosihiro Tatsumi; Makito Miyake; Nobumichi Tanaka; Daisuke Tsuruta; Kiyohide Fujimoto
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 4.553

8.  Critical evaluation of urinary markers for bladder cancer detection and monitoring.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Jose A Karam; Yair Lotan; Pierre I Karakiewizc
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2008

Review 9.  Urinary markers in screening patients with hematuria.

Authors:  Edmund Chiong; Kris E Gaston; H Barton Grossman
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-12-04       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Molecular screening for bladder cancer: progress and potential.

Authors:  Anirban P Mitra; Richard J Cote
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.