Literature DB >> 17850364

Surveillance of patients with bladder carcinoma using fluorescent in-situ hybridization on bladder washings.

Jonathan Bergman1, Richard C Reznichek, Jacob Rajfer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of the UroVysion (Abbott Laboratories Inc., Downers Grove, IL, USA) fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) assay to that of urinary cytology obtained from bladder irrigation during cystoscopic surveillance in patients with bladder carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The medical records were retrospectively reviewed for 41 consecutive patients screened at the authors' institution between August 2000 and December 2006 for recurrence of pathologically confirmed bladder cancer. All 162 cytology examinations and 141 FISH assay results obtained from bladder washing were included. Recurrence was determined by cystoscopy, bladder biopsy and upper-tract imaging. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values were assessed using a chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom.
RESULTS: There were 24 men and 17 women (male to female ratio 0.59), the mean (range) age was 56 (33-73) years and the mean follow-up 30 (2-57) months. At the initial diagnosis, 35 of the 41 patients (85%) had superficial tumours (stage <or= T1), while six (15%) had muscle-invasive tumours (stage >or=T2). Twenty-six (63%) had low-grade and 15 (37%) had high-grade tumours. In 16 of 141 (11%) of the FISH assays and 16 of 162 (10%) of the cytological samples that were collected from bladder irrigations, there were too few cells for an adequate analysis. The FISH assay correctly correlated with subsequent cystoscopy, bladder biopsy or upper-tract imaging in 110/125 (88%) cases but not in 15/125 (12%). Cytology correctly correlated with the subsequent evaluation in 112/146 (77%) cases but did not in 34/146 (23%). When the FISH was compared with cytology in this setting, the sensitivity was 77% (30/39) vs 74% (37/50; P > 0.1), the specificity was 93% (80/86) vs 78% (75/96; P < 0.01), the positive predictive value was 83% (30/36) vs 64% (37/58; P < 0.05), and the negative predictive value was 90% (80/89) vs 85% (75/88; P > 0.1), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The UroVysion FISH assay obtained from bladder washings during cystoscopic surveillance of patients with a history of bladder cancer provides a similar specificity but greater sensitivity than that of cytology for detecting bladder cancer recurrences. Given the better specificity and similar sensitivity of UroVysion compared with urine cytology obtained from bladder washings, a reasonable approach might be to use the UroVysion assay as the primary marker for recurrence, with urine cytology used as a complementary examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17850364     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07183.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  The role of FISH and cytology in upper urinary tract surveillance after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.

Authors:  Mario I Fernández; Sahil Parikh; H Barton Grossman; Ruth Katz; Surena F Matin; Colin P N Dinney; Ashish M Kamat
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2011-03-10       Impact factor: 3.498

3.  Expression and biological-clinical significance of hTR, hTERT and CKS2 in washing fluids of patients with bladder cancer.

Authors:  Letizia Mezzasoma; Cinzia Antognelli; Chiara Del Buono; Fabrizio Stracci; Emanuele Cottini; Giovanni Cochetti; Vincenzo N Talesa; Ettore Mearini
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  Guidelines for development of diagnostic markers in bladder cancer.

Authors:  Peter J Goebell; Susan L Groshen; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-02-06       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  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

8.  UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization (UroVysion FISH) assay for detection of bladder cancer in voided urine of Turkish patients: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Yavuz Dodurga; Cığır Biray Avcı; Sunde Yılmaz; Oktay Nazlı; Ozgür Coğulu; Tufan Cankaya; Cumhur Gündüz
Journal:  Contemp Oncol (Pozn)       Date:  2013-04-29

Review 9.  Comparison of Guidelines on Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (EAU, CUA, AUA, NCCN, NICE).

Authors:  Nicholas E Power; Jonathan Izawa
Journal:  Bladder Cancer       Date:  2016-01-07

Review 10.  An up-to-date catalog of available urinary biomarkers for the surveillance of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Francesco Soria; Michael J Droller; Yair Lotan; Paolo Gontero; David D'Andrea; Kilian M Gust; Morgan Rouprêt; Marek Babjuk; Joan Palou; Shahrokh F Shariat
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 4.226

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.