PURPOSE: Fluorescence in situ hybridization is gaining popularity for transitional cell carcinoma screening. We determined the accuracy of fluorescence in situ hybridization for identifying upper tract transitional cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of our upper tract transitional cell carcinoma database from 2005 to 2008 identified 35 patients with upper tract transitional cell carcinoma who submitted voided urine specimens for fluorescence in situ hybridization at commercial laboratory during a routine office visit. Each patient was evaluated endoscopically in the operating room within 3 months of sampling. Suspicious lesions were biopsied and treated. Transitional cell carcinoma in the lower or upper tract was proved by direct visualization, positive biopsy or upper tract cytology read as positive or highly suspicious for malignancy. RESULTS: Of the patients 35 satisfied study inclusion criteria. A total of 67 fluorescence in situ hybridization specimens were submitted. Upper tract transitional cell carcinoma was identified on 51 operative evaluations, of which 23 showed concurrent bladder tumor. For all encounters the sensitivity of fluorescence in situ hybridization was 56% and specificity was 80%. Sensitivity for low and high grade lesions was 68% and 67%, respectively. Only upper tract tumors were noted in 28 patients, in whom there were 2 false-positive and 13 false-negative voided fluorescence in situ hybridization results. In these cases sensitivity was 54% and specificity was 78% compared to the 18% sensitivity and 100% specificity of bladder cytology. Sensitivity for low and high grade upper tract transitional cell carcinoma was 60% and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Voided fluorescence in situ hybridization has become an adjunct for bladder transitional cell carcinoma surveillance. However, it has limited value for upper tract tumor surveillance. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Fluorescence in situ hybridization is gaining popularity for transitional cell carcinoma screening. We determined the accuracy of fluorescence in situ hybridization for identifying upper tract transitional cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of our upper tract transitional cell carcinoma database from 2005 to 2008 identified 35 patients with upper tract transitional cell carcinoma who submitted voided urine specimens for fluorescence in situ hybridization at commercial laboratory during a routine office visit. Each patient was evaluated endoscopically in the operating room within 3 months of sampling. Suspicious lesions were biopsied and treated. Transitional cell carcinoma in the lower or upper tract was proved by direct visualization, positive biopsy or upper tract cytology read as positive or highly suspicious for malignancy. RESULTS: Of the patients 35 satisfied study inclusion criteria. A total of 67 fluorescence in situ hybridization specimens were submitted. Upper tract transitional cell carcinoma was identified on 51 operative evaluations, of which 23 showed concurrent bladder tumor. For all encounters the sensitivity of fluorescence in situ hybridization was 56% and specificity was 80%. Sensitivity for low and high grade lesions was 68% and 67%, respectively. Only upper tract tumors were noted in 28 patients, in whom there were 2 false-positive and 13 false-negative voided fluorescence in situ hybridization results. In these cases sensitivity was 54% and specificity was 78% compared to the 18% sensitivity and 100% specificity of bladder cytology. Sensitivity for low and high grade upper tract transitional cell carcinoma was 60% and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Voided fluorescence in situ hybridization has become an adjunct for bladder transitional cell carcinoma surveillance. However, it has limited value for upper tract tumor surveillance. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: M Rink; M Adam; J Hansen; F K Chun; S A Ahyai; M Remzi; T Schlomm; O Engel; R Heuer; C Eichelberg; M Fisch; R Dahlem; S F Shariat Journal: Urologe A Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Thomas F Chromecki; Karim Bensalah; Mesut Remzi; Grégory Verhoest; Eugene K Cha; Douglas S Scherr; Giacomo Novara; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Victor M Schuettfort; Benjamin Pradere; Fahad Quhal; Hadi Mostafaei; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Keiichiro Mori; Reza Sari Motlagh; Michael Rink; David D'Andrea; Mohammad Abufaraj; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2020-10-09
Authors: Stephanie Kriebel; Doris Schmidt; Stefan Holdenrieder; Diane Goltz; Glen Kristiansen; Rudolf Moritz; Christian Fisang; Stefan C Müller; Jörg Ellinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240