OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the nuclear matrix protein-22 (NMP22) assay can improve the accuracy of discriminating between high-risk patients with and without bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Age, gender, race, smoking status, haematuria and its extent, and the NMP22 and urinary cytology results, were available for 1272 patients. The data of 670 (52.7%) from four study sites were used to develop a logistic regression model-based nomogram to predict the presence of bladder cancer. The remaining data from 602 (47.3%) patients from nine study sites were used to externally validate the nomogram. A separate nomogram was developed for urinary cytology, and for the combination of NMP22 and urinary cytology findings. RESULTS: Of 1272 patients, 76 (6.0%) had bladder cancer, 217 (17.1%) were NMP22-positive and 17 (1.3%) had malignant cells on urinary cytology. NMP22 and urinary cytology results were independent predictors of bladder cancer (P = 0.005 and 0.007, respectively). In external validation, the area under the curve (AUC) for NMP22 was 76.0% vs 56.2% for cytology. External validation of the multivariable NMP22-based bladder cancer nomogram gave an AUC of 82.4% vs 74.7% for the multivariable cytology-based nomogram (gain 7.7%; P = 0.006) vs 82.6% for the multivariable nomogram combining NMP22 and cytology results (gain 0.2%; P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: The ability of the NMP22 test to predict bladder cancer in high-risk patients significantly exceeds that of urinary cytology. The NMP22-based nomogram can help to identify individuals at risk of bladder cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the nuclear matrix protein-22 (NMP22) assay can improve the accuracy of discriminating between high-risk patients with and without bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Age, gender, race, smoking status, haematuria and its extent, and the NMP22 and urinary cytology results, were available for 1272 patients. The data of 670 (52.7%) from four study sites were used to develop a logistic regression model-based nomogram to predict the presence of bladder cancer. The remaining data from 602 (47.3%) patients from nine study sites were used to externally validate the nomogram. A separate nomogram was developed for urinary cytology, and for the combination of NMP22 and urinary cytology findings. RESULTS: Of 1272 patients, 76 (6.0%) had bladder cancer, 217 (17.1%) were NMP22-positive and 17 (1.3%) had malignant cells on urinary cytology. NMP22 and urinary cytology results were independent predictors of bladder cancer (P = 0.005 and 0.007, respectively). In external validation, the area under the curve (AUC) for NMP22 was 76.0% vs 56.2% for cytology. External validation of the multivariable NMP22-based bladder cancer nomogram gave an AUC of 82.4% vs 74.7% for the multivariable cytology-based nomogram (gain 7.7%; P = 0.006) vs 82.6% for the multivariable nomogram combining NMP22 and cytology results (gain 0.2%; P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: The ability of the NMP22 test to predict bladder cancer in high-risk patients significantly exceeds that of urinary cytology. The NMP22-based nomogram can help to identify individuals at risk of bladder cancer.
Authors: Mandy L Y Sin; Kathleen E Mach; Rahul Sinha; Fan Wu; Dharati R Trivedi; Emanuela Altobelli; Kristin C Jensen; Debashis Sahoo; Ying Lu; Joseph C Liao Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Beate Pesch; Dirk Taeger; Georg Johnen; Katarzyna Gawrych; Nadine Bonberg; Christian Schwentner; Harald Wellhäusser; Matthias Kluckert; Gabriele Leng; Michael Nasterlack; Yair Lotan; Arnulf Stenzl; Thomas Brüning Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 3.015
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
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Daher C Chade; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Douglas S Scherr; Guido Dalbagni Journal: Immunotherapy Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.196
Authors: Laimonis Kavalieris; Paul J O'Sullivan; James M Suttie; Brent K Pownall; Peter J Gilling; Christophe Chemasle; David G Darling Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Willemien Beukers; Raju Kandimalla; Diandra van Houwelingen; Hrvoje Kovacic; Jie-Fen D Chin; Hester F Lingsma; Lars Dyrskjot; Ellen C Zwarthoff Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.240