OBJECTIVE: To test whether a noninvasive urine-based multianalyte diagnostic readout assay that uses protein and DNA biomarkers can risk stratify patients with hematuria into those who are or are not likely to have bladder cancer and those who should receive standard care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, observational, multicenter, single-assessment study was conducted between June 12, 2009, and April 15, 2011. Eligible patients presented with hematuria and as part of their evaluation underwent cystoscopy. Urine samples were analyzed for the presence of mutant FGFR3 and quantified matrix metalloproteinase 2 and the hypermethylation of TWIST1 and NID2. A patient's chance of having (positive predictive value [PPV]) or not having (negative predictive value [NPV]) cancer was determined by FGFR3 alone or by all 4 biomarkers, respectively. RESULTS: Cystoscopy/biopsy diagnosed 690 of 748 patients as negative and 58 as positive for bladder cancer. Of 21 patients identified by FGFR3 as highly likely to have cancer, 20 were also positive by cystoscopy/biopsy, resulting in a PPV of 95.2% (20 of 21), with specificity of 99.9% (689 of 690). The 4-marker combination identified 395 patients as having a low likelihood of cancer. Of these, 56.2% (388 of 690) also had negative biopsy/cystoscopy findings, resulting in an NPV of 98.2% (388 of 395). In total, 416 of the 748 patients with hematuria (55.6%) were identified with extremely high NPV and PPV to have or not have bladder cancer. CONCLUSION: This multianalyte assay accurately stratified patients with high confidence into those who likely do or do not have bladder cancer. This test was developed to enhance and not to eliminate referrals for urologic evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To test whether a noninvasive urine-based multianalyte diagnostic readout assay that uses protein and DNA biomarkers can risk stratify patients with hematuria into those who are or are not likely to have bladder cancer and those who should receive standard care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, observational, multicenter, single-assessment study was conducted between June 12, 2009, and April 15, 2011. Eligible patients presented with hematuria and as part of their evaluation underwent cystoscopy. Urine samples were analyzed for the presence of mutant FGFR3 and quantified matrix metalloproteinase 2 and the hypermethylation of TWIST1 and NID2. A patient's chance of having (positive predictive value [PPV]) or not having (negative predictive value [NPV]) cancer was determined by FGFR3 alone or by all 4 biomarkers, respectively. RESULTS: Cystoscopy/biopsy diagnosed 690 of 748 patients as negative and 58 as positive for bladder cancer. Of 21 patients identified by FGFR3 as highly likely to have cancer, 20 were also positive by cystoscopy/biopsy, resulting in a PPV of 95.2% (20 of 21), with specificity of 99.9% (689 of 690). The 4-marker combination identified 395 patients as having a low likelihood of cancer. Of these, 56.2% (388 of 690) also had negative biopsy/cystoscopy findings, resulting in an NPV of 98.2% (388 of 395). In total, 416 of the 748 patients with hematuria (55.6%) were identified with extremely high NPV and PPV to have or not have bladder cancer. CONCLUSION: This multianalyte assay accurately stratified patients with high confidence into those who likely do or do not have bladder cancer. This test was developed to enhance and not to eliminate referrals for urologic evaluation.
Authors: Cecilia A Fernández; Matthew F Wszolek; Kevin R Loughlin; John A Libertino; Ian C Summerhayes; Anthony P Shuber Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Tahlita C M Zuiverloon; Madelon N M van der Aa; Theo H van der Kwast; Ewout W Steyerberg; Hester F Lingsma; Chris H Bangma; Ellen C Zwarthoff Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Andrew H Feifer; Jordan Steinberg; Simon Tanguay; Armen G Aprikian; Fadi Brimo; Wassim Kassouf Journal: Urology Date: 2010-02-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Alan M Nieder; Yair Lotan; Geoffrey R Nuss; Joshua P Langston; Sachin Vyas; Murugesan Manoharan; Mark S Soloway Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2008-12-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Peter J Wild; Thomas Fuchs; Robert Stoehr; Dieter Zimmermann; Simona Frigerio; Barbara Padberg; Inbal Steiner; Ellen C Zwarthoff; Maximilian Burger; Stefan Denzinger; Ferdinand Hofstaedter; Glen Kristiansen; Thomas Hermanns; Hans-Helge Seifert; Maurizio Provenzano; Tullio Sulser; Volker Roth; Joachim M Buhmann; Holger Moch; Arndt Hartmann Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ralph Madeb; Dragan Golijanin; Joy Knopf; Matthew Davis; Changyong Feng; Anne Fender; Laura Stephenson; Edward M Messing Journal: Urology Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Lucie C Kompier; Madelon N M van der Aa; Irene Lurkin; Marcel Vermeij; Wim J Kirkels; Chris H Bangma; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Ellen C Zwarthoff Journal: J Pathol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Sharon Waisbrod; Anastasios Natsos; Marian Severin Wettstein; Karim Saba; Thomas Hermanns; Christian Daniel Fankhauser; Alexander Müller Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Annie Wai Yeeng Chai; Arthur Kwok Leung Cheung; Wei Dai; Josephine Mun Yee Ko; Joseph Chok Yan Ip; Kwok Wah Chan; Dora Lai-Wan Kwong; Wai Tong Ng; Anne Wing Mui Lee; Roger Kai Cheong Ngan; Chun Chung Yau; Stewart Yuk Tung; Victor Ho Fun Lee; Alfred King-Yin Lam; Suja Pillai; Simon Law; Maria Li Lung Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-11-29
Authors: Anouk E Hentschel; Emma E van der Toom; André N Vis; Johannes C F Ket; Judith Bosschieter; Martijn W Heymans; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Renske D M Steenbergen; Jakko A Nieuwenhuijzen Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-08-16 Impact factor: 5.588