Literature DB >> 22806451

Influence of age on false positive rates of urine-based tumor markers.

M Horstmann1, T Todenhöfer, J Hennenlotter, S Aufderklamm, J Mischinger, U Kuehs, G Gakis, A Stenzl, C Schwentner.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Several influencing factors on false positive rates (FPRs) of urine-based tumor markers in the detection of urothelial cancer (UC) have been identified. We evaluated age as a possible influencing factor.
METHODS: Urinary cytology (Cyt), UroVysion (FISH), ImmunoCyt (uCyt+) and NMP22 were determined in 1,554 patients suspicious for UC of the bladder before cystoscopy and in case of cancer detection before TURB. Additionally, upper urinary tract imaging was performed. Maker sensitivity, specificity and FPRs were evaluated in the entire cohort and in subgroups divided by age into <50, ≥ 50-70 and ≥ 70 years. Contingency tables and the Cochrane Armitage tests were used for statistical comparisons.
RESULTS: UC was found in 377 and no UC in 1,177 (75 %) patients. A total of 336 patients were diagnosed with UC of the bladder and 41 with UC of the upper urinary tract. Overall sensitivity and specificity for Cyt were 82 and 82 %: for FISH, 73 and 79 % and for uCyt+, 79 and 75 %, respectively. For NMP22, regardless of the exclusion criteria they were 72 and 34 % and after exclusion of urinary tract infection (UTI) or prior to manipulation 46 and 86 %, respectively. Significantly higher FPRs were found with increasing age for Cyt (p = 0.001), a trend to higher FPRs for uCyt+ (p = 0.11) and almost no difference for FISH (p = 0.63). For NMP22, differences became significant after exclusion of patients with UTI or prior manipulation (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study give evidence that false positive rates of Cyt and NMP22 increase with age indicating that age should be respected for their correct interpretation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22806451     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-012-0906-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  30 in total

1.  Nuclear matrix protein-22: a prospective evaluation in a population at risk for bladder cancer. Results from the UroScreen study.

Authors:  Severine Huber; Christian Schwentner; Dirk Taeger; Beate Pesch; Michael Nasterlack; Gabriele Leng; Thomas Mayer; Katarzyna Gawrych; Nadin Bonberg; Martin Pelster; Georg Johnen; Heike Bontrup; Harald Wellhäusser; Hans-Georg Bierfreund; Christian Wiens; Christian Bayer; Friedhelm Eberle; Bernd Scheuermann; Mattias Kluckert; Gerhard Feil; Thomas Brüning; Arnulf Stenzl
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  uCyt+/ImmunoCyt in the detection of recurrent urothelial carcinoma: an update on 1991 analyses.

Authors:  Christine Mian; Klaus Maier; Evi Comploj; Michele Lodde; Lucas Berner; Lukas Lusuardi; Salvatore Palermo; Fabio Vittadello; Armin Pycha
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-02-25       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Urine markers for detection and surveillance of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Derya Tilki; Maximilian Burger; Guido Dalbagni; H Barton Grossman; Oliver W Hakenberg; Juan Palou; Oliver Reich; Morgan Rouprêt; Shahrokh F Shariat; Alexandre R Zlotta
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Influence of renal excretory function on the performance of urine based markers to detect bladder cancer.

Authors:  Tilman Todenhöfer; Jörg Hennenlotter; Marc Witstruk; Georgios Gakis; Stefan Aufderklamm; Ursula Kuehs; Arnulf Stenzl; Christian Schwentner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Multiprobe fluorescence in situ hybridization (UroVysion) for the detection of urothelial carcinoma - FISHing for the right catch.

Authors:  Lukas Bubendorf
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 2.319

6.  Should we screen for bladder cancer in a high-risk population?: A cost per life-year saved analysis.

Authors:  Yair Lotan; Robert S Svatek; Arthur I Sagalowsky
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Detection of bladder cancer from the urine using fluorescence in situ hybridization technique.

Authors:  Péter Riesz; Gábor Lotz; Csilla Páska; Attila Szendrôi; Attila Majoros; Zsuzsanna Németh; Péter Törzsök; Tibor Szarvas; Ilona Kovalszky; Zsuzsa Schaff; Imre Romics; András Kiss
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2007-10-07       Impact factor: 3.201

8.  Institutional variability in the accuracy of urinary cytology for predicting recurrence of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Authors:  Pierre I Karakiewicz; Serge Benayoun; Craig Zippe; Gerson Lüdecke; Hans Boman; Marta Sanchez-Carbayo; Roberto Casella; Christine Mian; Martin G Friedrich; Sanaa Eissa; Hideyuki Akaza; Hartwig Huland; Hans Hedelin; Raina Rupesh; Naoto Miyanaga; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Michael J Marberger; Shahrokh F Shariat
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2006-03-17       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  UroVysion FISH test for detecting urothelial cancers: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and comparison with urinary cytology testing.

Authors:  Tine Hajdinjak
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 3.498

10.  Point-of-Care Tests for Bladder Cancer: The Influencing Role of Hematuria.

Authors:  Joerg Hennenlotter; Severine Huber; Tilman Todenhöfer; Ursula Kuehs; David Schilling; Stefan Aufderklamm; Georgios Gakis; Christian Schwentner; Arnulf Stenzl
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2011-11-22
View more
  8 in total

1.  Aurora A Kinase as a diagnostic urinary marker for urothelial bladder cancer.

Authors:  Michela de Martino; Shahrokh F Shariat; Sebastian L Hofbauer; Ilaria Lucca; Christopher Taus; Helene G Wiener; Andrea Haitel; Martin Susani; Tobias Klatte
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-02-23       Impact factor: 4.226

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.  Elevated TRIP13 drives cell proliferation and drug resistance in bladder cancer.

Authors:  Sicheng Lu; Mengjie Guo; Zhimin Fan; Ying Chen; Xuqin Shi; Chunyan Gu; Ye Yang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 4.060

4.  Urinary tumor markers could predict survival in bladder carcinoma.

Authors:  Ragaa H M Salama; Tahia H Selem; Mohammed El-Gammal; Abd-Elmoneim A Elhagagy; Sally M Bakar
Journal:  Indian J Clin Biochem       Date:  2012-10-02

Review 5.  The role of urine markers, white light cystoscopy and fluorescence cystoscopy in recurrence, progression and follow-up of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Ilhan Karaoglu; Antoine G van der Heijden; J Alfred Witjes
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Performance of Urinary Markers for Detection of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Is Upper Tract Urine More Accurate than Urine from the Bladder?

Authors:  Simone Bier; Jörg Hennenlotter; Michael Esser; Sarah Mohrhardt; Steffen Rausch; Christian Schwentner; Moritz Maas; Susanne Deininger; Simon Walz; Jens Bedke; Arnulf Stenzl; Tilman Todenhöfer
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 3.434

7.  Comparison of the diagnostic performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and their combination model in bladder carcinoma detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qindong Liang; Guangjie Zhang; Wuxian Li; Jing Wang; Shangchun Sheng
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2018-12-31       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  The diagnostic accuracy of urine-based tests for bladder cancer varies greatly by patient.

Authors:  Ajay Gopalakrishna; Thomas A Longo; Joseph J Fantony; Richmond Owusu; Wen-Chi Foo; Rajesh Dash; Brant A Inman
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 2.264

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.