Literature DB >> 12768634

Evaluation of fluorescence in situ hybridization as an ancillary tool to urine cytology in diagnosing urothelial carcinoma.

Ravindra Veeramachaneni1, Mary L Nordberg, Runhua Shi, Guillermo A Herrera, Elba A Turbat-Herrera.   

Abstract

Our purpose was to evaluate the feasibility of performing fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on routine urine samples and to compare the relative sensitivities of urine cytology and FISH for detecting urothelial carcinoma. Light microscopy (LM) using cytologic evaluation and FISH were used to study 121 consecutive urine samples. A mixture of fluorescent probes to chromosomes 3, 7, 17, and the 9p21 locus were used for detection of numerical chromosomal abnormalities (UroVysion, Vysis/Abbott). Biopsy specimens from patients in the study were reviewed if available. FISH analysis was performed without knowledge of cytology or biopsy findings. The urine cytology of 121 samples was interpreted as 59 negative, 41 reactive, 16 atypical, 2 suspicious and 3 insufficient cells for diagnosis. 85 samples were successfully analyzed by FISH. Thirty-one of these showed chromosomal abnormalities and these samples were initially regarded on the original cytology reading as follows: 10 negative, 10 reactive, 9 atypical, and 2 suspicious. FISH demonstrated chromosomal abnormalities in a significant number of cases (67%) that were initially diagnosed as normal or reactive by LM. Twenty-five patients were identified who had biopsy-proven TCC and successful FISH. Thirteen of the 25 patients (52%) were abnormal by FISH (cytology: 2 suspicious, 6 atypical, 4 reactive, 1 negative). One patient was atypical by cytology with normal FISH results but had TCC on biopsy. Hyperdiploidy for chromosomes 3 (77%) and 7 (67%) were seen consistently. Multiple chromosomal abnormalities were seen in 67% of these cases. We conclude that FISH has a greater sensitivity in detecting urothelial carcinoma when coupled with urine cytology. It is not entirely clear at this time whether a positive FISH may indicate frank neoplastic urothelial transformation or merely be an indicator of unstable urothelium capable of or primed for malignant transformation thus detecting patients at significant risk. The use of FISH in conjunction with urine cytology can potentially reduce urothelial carcinoma morbidity and mortality by diagnosing these tumors earlier. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12768634     DOI: 10.1002/dc.10291

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol        ISSN: 1097-0339            Impact factor:   1.582


  8 in total

1.  Automated analysis of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) labeled genetic biomarkers in assisting cervical cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Xingwei Wang; Bin Zheng; Roy R Zhang; Shibo Li; Xiaodong Chen; John J Mulvihill; Xianglan Lu; Hui Pang; Hong Liu
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-06

2.  Clinical decisions for treatment of different staged bladder cancer based on multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assays?

Authors:  F Steffen Krause; Anita Rauch; Karl M Schrott; Dirk G Engehausen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-05-11       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Integrating a FISH imaging system into the cytology laboratory.

Authors:  G Denice Smith; Matt Riding; Kim Oswald; Joel S Bentz
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 2.091

4.  [Tumor markers for bladder cancer: up-to-date study by the Kiel Tumor Bank].

Authors:  S Hautmann; J Eggers; H Meyhoff; D Melchior; A Munk; M Hamann; M Naumann; P M Braun; K P Jünemann
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  [Urine-based diagnostics: an update on the Kiel Tumor Bank].

Authors:  S Hautmann; V B L Lokeshwar; K P Juenemann
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  A prospective comparison of UroVysion FISH and urine cytology in bladder cancer detection.

Authors:  Hugh J Lavery; Boriana Zaharieva; Andrew McFaddin; Nyla Heerema; Kamal S Pohar
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 7.  Review of the Clinical Approaches to the Use of Urine-based Tumor Markers in Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Timothy Clinton; Yair Lotan
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2017-10-16

8.  Differential diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma in situ from non-neoplastic urothelia: Analysis of CK20, CD44, P53 and Ki67.

Authors:  Mojgan Asgari; Mahtab Nabi Maybodi; Maryam Abolhasani
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2016-07-18
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.