PURPOSE: Prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA), a homologue of the Ly-6/Thy-1 family of cell surface antigens, has been shown to be increased in a majority of human transitional cell carcinomas. We tested the possibility of using PSCA as an adjunct marker for urine cytology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immunocytochemical analysis was performed on 44 archived voided urine samples obtained from 3 groups of patients based on initial voided urine cytological results and subsequent followup biopsy findings. Group 1 (14 of 44 patients) had positive findings on cytology and histology, group 2 (16 of 44) had negative cytology but positive histology, and group 3 (14 of 44) had negative findings on cytology and histology. Cytological slides prepared from 10 fresh voided urine samples were also analyzed. Papanicoloau stained archived urine slides were de-stained and re-stained immunocytochemically with a monoclonal antibody against PSCA. Immunofluorescence followed by laser scanning cytometer analysis was also performed on archived slides from 2 representative cases. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity were 46.7% and 100% for cytology alone, respectively, and 80% and 85.7% for PSCA alone, respectively. PSCA immunostaining was positive in 92.8% group 1, 68.8% group 2 and only 14.3% group 3 samples. The difference in positive PSCA findings in groups 2 and 3 were statistically significant at p <0.01 by chi-square test. Whereas some superficial umbrella cells showed slight staining by immunocytochemistry, it was feasible to distinguish the expression levels between tumor and normal superficial umbrella cells quantitatively using immunofluorescence coupled with laser scan cytometry analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Immunocytochemical analysis of PSCA on archived voided urine samples may provide a simple and quantitative adjunct marker for cytological diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma.
PURPOSE: Prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA), a homologue of the Ly-6/Thy-1 family of cell surface antigens, has been shown to be increased in a majority of human transitional cell carcinomas. We tested the possibility of using PSCA as an adjunct marker for urine cytology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immunocytochemical analysis was performed on 44 archived voided urine samples obtained from 3 groups of patients based on initial voided urine cytological results and subsequent followup biopsy findings. Group 1 (14 of 44 patients) had positive findings on cytology and histology, group 2 (16 of 44) had negative cytology but positive histology, and group 3 (14 of 44) had negative findings on cytology and histology. Cytological slides prepared from 10 fresh voided urine samples were also analyzed. Papanicoloau stained archived urine slides were de-stained and re-stained immunocytochemically with a monoclonal antibody against PSCA. Immunofluorescence followed by laser scanning cytometer analysis was also performed on archived slides from 2 representative cases. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity were 46.7% and 100% for cytology alone, respectively, and 80% and 85.7% for PSCA alone, respectively. PSCA immunostaining was positive in 92.8% group 1, 68.8% group 2 and only 14.3% group 3 samples. The difference in positive PSCA findings in groups 2 and 3 were statistically significant at p <0.01 by chi-square test. Whereas some superficial umbrella cells showed slight staining by immunocytochemistry, it was feasible to distinguish the expression levels between tumor and normal superficial umbrella cells quantitatively using immunofluorescence coupled with laser scan cytometry analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Immunocytochemical analysis of PSCA on archived voided urine samples may provide a simple and quantitative adjunct marker for cytological diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma.
Authors: Jie Gao; Peng-Tao Yang; Yan Diao; Hua-Feng Kang; Yang Zhao; Shuai Lin; Zi-Ming Wang; Meng Wang; Xi-Jing Wang; Zhi-Jun Dai Journal: Int J Clin Exp Med Date: 2015-02-15
Authors: S Bossow; C Grossardt; A Temme; M F Leber; S Sawall; E P Rieber; R Cattaneo; C von Kalle; G Ungerechts Journal: Cancer Gene Ther Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 5.987
Authors: Tanya B Dorff; Vivek Narayan; Stephen J Forman; Peter D Zang; Joseph A Fraietta; Carl H June; Naomi B Haas; Saul J Priceman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Xifeng Wu; Yuanqing Ye; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Patrick Sulem; Thorunn Rafnar; Giuseppe Matullo; Daniela Seminara; Teruhiko Yoshida; Norihisa Saeki; Angeline S Andrew; Colin P Dinney; Bogdan Czerniak; Zuo-feng Zhang; Anne E Kiltie; D Timothy Bishop; Paolo Vineis; Stefano Porru; Frank Buntinx; Eliane Kellen; Maurice P Zeegers; Rajiv Kumar; Peter Rudnai; Eugene Gurzau; Kvetoslava Koppova; Jose Ignacio Mayordomo; Manuel Sanchez; Berta Saez; Annika Lindblom; Petra de Verdier; Gunnar Steineck; Gordon B Mills; Alan Schned; Simonetta Guarrera; Silvia Polidoro; Shen-Chih Chang; Jie Lin; David W Chang; Katherine S Hale; Tadeusz Majewski; H Barton Grossman; Steinunn Thorlacius; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Katja K H Aben; J Alfred Witjes; Kari Stefansson; Christopher I Amos; Margaret R Karagas; Jian Gu Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-08-02 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Indu Kohaar; Patricia Porter-Gill; Petra Lenz; Yi-Ping Fu; Adam Mumy; Wei Tang; Andrea B Apolo; Nathaniel Rothman; Dalsu Baris; Alan R Schned; Kris Ylaya; Molly Schwenn; Alison Johnson; Michael Jones; Masatoshi Kida; Debra T Silverman; Stephen M Hewitt; Lee E Moore; Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-12-23 Impact factor: 13.506