BACKGROUND: Urine cytology has been used for screening of bladder cancer but has been limited by its low sensitivity. UroVysion is a multiprobe fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay that detects common chromosome abnormalities in bladder cancers. For this study, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of multiprobe FISH and urine cytology in detecting urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) in the same urine sample. METHODS: In total, 1835 cases with the following criteria were selected: valid results from both the multiprobe FISH assay and urine cytology in the same urine sample, histologic and/or cystoscopic follow-up within 4 months of the original tests, or at least 3 years of clinical follow-up information. The results of FISH and cytology were correlated with clinical outcomes derived from a combination of histologic, cystoscopic, and clinical follow-up information. RESULTS: Of 1835 cases, 1045 cases were from patients undergoing surveillance of recurrent UCC, and 790 were for hematuria. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value in detecting UCC were 61.9%, 89.7%, 53.9%, and 92.4%, respectively, for FISH and 29.1%, 96.9%, 64.4%, and 87.5%, respectively, for cytology. The performance of both FISH and cytology generally was better in the surveillance population and in samples with high-grade UCC. In 95 of 296 cases with atypical cytology that were proven to have UCC, 61 cases, mostly high-grade UCC, were positive using the multiprobe FISH assay. CONCLUSIONS: The UroVysion multiprobe FISH assay was more sensitive than urine cytology in detecting UCC, but it produced more false-positive results. The current data suggest that the use of FISH as a reflex test after an equivocal cytologic diagnosis may play an effective role in detecting UCC.
BACKGROUND: Urine cytology has been used for screening of bladder cancer but has been limited by its low sensitivity. UroVysion is a multiprobe fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay that detects common chromosome abnormalities in bladder cancers. For this study, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of multiprobe FISH and urine cytology in detecting urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) in the same urine sample. METHODS: In total, 1835 cases with the following criteria were selected: valid results from both the multiprobe FISH assay and urine cytology in the same urine sample, histologic and/or cystoscopic follow-up within 4 months of the original tests, or at least 3 years of clinical follow-up information. The results of FISH and cytology were correlated with clinical outcomes derived from a combination of histologic, cystoscopic, and clinical follow-up information. RESULTS: Of 1835 cases, 1045 cases were from patients undergoing surveillance of recurrent UCC, and 790 were for hematuria. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value in detecting UCC were 61.9%, 89.7%, 53.9%, and 92.4%, respectively, for FISH and 29.1%, 96.9%, 64.4%, and 87.5%, respectively, for cytology. The performance of both FISH and cytology generally was better in the surveillance population and in samples with high-grade UCC. In 95 of 296 cases with atypical cytology that were proven to have UCC, 61 cases, mostly high-grade UCC, were positive using the multiprobe FISH assay. CONCLUSIONS: The UroVysion multiprobe FISH assay was more sensitive than urine cytology in detecting UCC, but it produced more false-positive results. The current data suggest that the use of FISH as a reflex test after an equivocal cytologic diagnosis may play an effective role in detecting UCC.
Authors: Christopher J VandenBussche; Srividya Sathiyamoorthy; Christopher L Owens; Frances H Burroughs; Dorothy L Rosenthal; Hui Guan Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Benjamin R Kipp; R Jeffrey Karnes; Shannon M Brankley; Aaron R Harwood; V Shane Pankratz; Thomas J Sebo; Michael M Blute; Michael M Lieber; Horst Zincke; Kevin C Halling Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marieta I Toma; Martin G Friedrich; Stefan H Hautmann; K Thorsten Jäkel; Andreas Erbersdobler; Angelika Hellstern; Hartwig Huland Journal: World J Urol Date: 2004-02-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Dorothy L Rosenthal; Christopher J Vandenbussche; Frances H Burroughs; Srividya Sathiyamoorthy; Hui Guan; Christopher Owens Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Johannes Mischinger; Lutz Philipp Guttenberg; Jörg Hennenlotter; Georgios Gakis; Stefan Aufderklamm; Steffen Rausch; Eva Neumann; Jens Bedke; Stefan Kruck; Christian Schwentner; Arnulf Stenzl; Tilman Todenhöfer Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Maria Frantzi; Agnieszka Latosinska; Leif Flühe; Marie C Hupe; Elena Critselis; Mario W Kramer; Axel S Merseburger; Harald Mischak; Antonia Vlahou Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Raphael B M Aggio; Ben de Lacy Costello; Paul White; Tanzeela Khalid; Norman M Ratcliffe; Raj Persad; Chris S J Probert Journal: J Breath Res Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.262
Authors: Fei Ye; Li Wang; Mireia Castillo-Martin; Russell McBride; Matthew D Galsky; Jun Zhu; Paolo Boffetta; David Y Zhang; Carlos Cordon-Cardo Journal: Am J Clin Exp Urol Date: 2014-04-05