PURPOSE: We previously prospectively evaluated the clinical usefulness of a fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for treating patients with atypical cytology results at risk for bladder cancer. This study is a prospective validation the usefulness of fluorescence in situ hybridization in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 2007 and January 2009 every patient who underwent cystoscopy and cytology with atypical cytology underwent a reflex UroVysion test. A comprehensive review was then performed to evaluate clinical and pathological data on each patient. RESULTS: The study population comprised 108 patients with no history of cancer and 108 who underwent cystoscopy for cancer surveillance. In patients with cystoscopically visualized lesions UroVysion had a positive predictive value of 100% but there were false-negative results. In patients with equivocal cystoscopy and a history of cancer all 4 high grade tumors were detected and there were no false-negative findings. In patients with equivocal cystoscopy and no prior cancer the positive predictive value was 100% and there were no false-negative results. In patients with negative cystoscopy the UroVysion test detected all cancers but the positive predictive value was 10% and 29% in patients with and without a history of cancer, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study of a reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in patients with atypical cytology validates our previous findings. In patients with atypical cytology and obvious tumor on cystoscopy the assay was unnecessary but it was beneficial in those with equivocal or negative cystoscopy results. The fluorescence in situ hybridization assay identified all urothelial carcinoma tumors in patients with equivocal or negative cystoscopy. In patients with equivocal or negative cystoscopy and atypical cytology, a reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay may help avoid unnecessary evaluation while identifying those who would need further evaluation.
PURPOSE: We previously prospectively evaluated the clinical usefulness of a fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for treating patients with atypical cytology results at risk for bladder cancer. This study is a prospective validation the usefulness of fluorescence in situ hybridization in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 2007 and January 2009 every patient who underwent cystoscopy and cytology with atypical cytology underwent a reflex UroVysion test. A comprehensive review was then performed to evaluate clinical and pathological data on each patient. RESULTS: The study population comprised 108 patients with no history of cancer and 108 who underwent cystoscopy for cancer surveillance. In patients with cystoscopically visualized lesions UroVysion had a positive predictive value of 100% but there were false-negative results. In patients with equivocal cystoscopy and a history of cancer all 4 high grade tumors were detected and there were no false-negative findings. In patients with equivocal cystoscopy and no prior cancer the positive predictive value was 100% and there were no false-negative results. In patients with negative cystoscopy the UroVysion test detected all cancers but the positive predictive value was 10% and 29% in patients with and without a history of cancer, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study of a reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in patients with atypical cytology validates our previous findings. In patients with atypical cytology and obvious tumor on cystoscopy the assay was unnecessary but it was beneficial in those with equivocal or negative cystoscopy results. The fluorescence in situ hybridization assay identified all urothelial carcinoma tumors in patients with equivocal or negative cystoscopy. In patients with equivocal or negative cystoscopy and atypical cytology, a reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay may help avoid unnecessary evaluation while identifying those who would need further evaluation.
Authors: Philip H Kim; Ranjit Sukhu; Billy H Cordon; John P Sfakianos; Daniel D Sjoberg; A Ari Hakimi; Guido Dalbagni; Oscar Lin; Harry W Herr Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Haythem Dimashkieh; Daynna J Wolff; T Michael Smith; Patricia M Houser; Paul J Nietert; Jack Yang Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Casey Seideman; Daniel Canter; Philip Kim; Billy Cordon; Alon Weizer; Irma Oliva; Jianyu Rao; Brant A Inman; Michael Posch; Harry Herr; Yair Lotan Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Alessandro Sciarra; Giovanni Di Lascio; Francesco Del Giudice; Pier Paolo Leoncini; Stefano Salciccia; Alessandro Gentilucci; Angelo Porreca; Benjamin I Chung; Giovanni Di Pierro; Gian Maria Busetto; Ettore De Berardinis; Martina Maggi Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2021-03-29
Authors: Barrett Cowan; Eric Klein; Ken Jansz; Karl Westenfelder; Timothy Bradford; Chad Peterson; Douglas Scherr; Lawrence I Karsh; Blair Egerdie; Alfred Witjes; Andrew Trainer; Richard Harris; Bernard Goldfarb; Stanley Flax; Robert Kroeger; Buffi Boyd; Joseph Liao; Sanjay Patel; Julia Bridge; Victor Reuter; Neil Quigley; Sarah Brown; Suling Zhao; Malini Satya; Michael Bates; Iris M Simon; Scott Campbell; Yair Lotan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 5.969