Literature DB >> 16890655

Variability in the performance of nuclear matrix protein 22 for the detection of bladder cancer.

Shahrokh F Shariat1, Michael J Marberger, Yair Lotan, Marta Sanchez-Carbayo, Craig Zippe, Gerson Lüdecke, Hans Boman, Ihor Sawczuk, Martin G Friedrich, Roberto Casella, Christine Mian, Sanaa Eissa, Hideyuki Akaza, Vincenzo Serretta, Hartwig Huland, Hans Hedelin, Rupesh Raina, Naoto Miyanaga, Arthur I Sagalowsky, Claus G Roehrborn, Pierre I Karakiewicz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed variability in the diagnostic performance of NMP22 for detecting recurrence and progression in patients with Ta, T1, and/or CIS transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder in a large international cohort.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: NMP22 voided urine levels were measured in 2,871 patients who underwent office cystoscopy for monitoring previous stage Ta, T1 and/or CIS transitional cell carcinoma at 12 participating institutions.
RESULTS: Patient characteristics varied considerably among institutions. Overall 1,045 patients (36.4%) had recurrent transitional cell carcinoma (range across institutions 13.6% to 54.3%). Median NMP22 was 5.5 U/ml (range across institutions 2.5 to 18.8). Of the patients 33.5% had grade III tumors (range across institutions 20.6% to 54.0%) and 22.4% had muscle invasive tumors (range across institutions 3.2% to 38.2%). Area under the ROC curve for bladder TCC detection was 0.735 (95% CI 0.715 to 0.755, range across institutions 0.676 to 0.889). The manufacturer recommended cutoff of 10 U/ml detected 57% of cases with a 19% false-positive rate. AUC for grade III and stage T2 or greater disease was 0.806 (95% CI 0.780 to 831) and 0.864 (95% CI 0.839 to 0.890), respectively. For each NMP22 cutoff NMP22 had higher sensitivity for detecting grade III and stage T2 or greater bladder transitional cell carcinoma than for detecting any cancer. No optimal cutoffs for detecting any or aggressive bladder transitional cell carcinoma could be derived based on NMP22 values.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial degree of heterogeneity in the diagnostic performance of NMP22 applied to populations from different institutions. There is no clearly defined NMP22 cutoff but there is a continuum of risk for recurrence and progression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16890655     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.017

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


  30 in total

Review 1.  Current Use and Promise of Urinary Markers for Urothelial Cancer.

Authors:  William Tabayoyong; Ashish M Kamat
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  No influence of smoking status on the performance of urine markers for the detection of bladder cancer.

Authors:  Susanne Deininger; J Hennenlotter; S Rausch; K Docktor; E Neumann; I A da Costa; J Bedke; A Stenzl; T Todenhöfer
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-04-19       Impact factor: 4.553

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

4.  Individual risk assessment in bladder cancer patients based on a multi-marker panel.

Authors:  Tilman Todenhöfer; Jörg Hennenlotter; Stefan Aufderklamm; Ursula Kühs; Georgios Gakis; Miriam Germann; Arnulf Stenzl; Christian Schwentner
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 4.553

5.  Assessing the clinical benefit of nuclear matrix protein 22 in the surveillance of patients with nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer and negative cytology: a decision-curve analysis.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Caroline Savage; Thomas F Chromecki; Maxine Sun; Douglas S Scherr; Richard K Lee; Giovanni Lughezzani; Mesut Remzi; Michael J Marberger; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  [Quality of care in patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer: a prospective assessment in northern Germany].

Authors:  C Reek; M Rink; M Bloch; J Hansen; F K Chun; A Schneider; J Busche; M Fisch
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  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 8.  Bladder tumor markers: from hematuria to molecular diagnostics--where do we stand?

Authors:  Samir P Shirodkar; Vinata B Lokeshwar
Journal:  Expert Rev Anticancer Ther       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.512

9.  Biomarkers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer.

Authors:  Lorne I Budman; Wassim Kassouf; Jordan R Steinberg
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.