PURPOSE: To validate urinary markers for the early detection of bladder cancer (BC) in chemical workers. METHODS: UroScreen was conducted as a validation study for tumor markers within the frame of a health surveillance program of the German Social Accident Insurance for active or retired workers with former exposure to aromatic amines. From 2003 to 2010, 1,609 men took part in voluntary annual screens. Cytology, the quantitative NMP22(®) assay, and UroVysion™ were applied to 7,091 urine samples. RESULTS: Fifteen out of 21 tumors were detected following test positivity. The UroVysion/NMP22 panel detected 14 out of 21 tumors versus 8 tumors with cytology alone (sensitivity 66.7 vs. 44.4 %, specificity 94.5 vs. 98.5 %). The sensitivity of the panel increased to 85.7 % in samples collected ≤12 months before diagnosis and when papillomas were excluded, compared to 58.3 % with cytology. About 3 % of NMP22 tests were false-positive. UroVysion results overlapped with cytology due to the preselection of atypical cells. NMP22 was less and UroVysion more frequently positive in diluted urine samples. Leukocytes confounded NMP22 but not UroVysion. The low incidence of BC in this study population yielded low positive predictive values of the markers and high costs per tumor detected with screening. CONCLUSIONS: UroVysion in combination with NMP22 detected more cases than cytology alone, at the expense of a lower specificity. High costs per detected case resulted from a lower BC incidence than in the past when levels of occupational exposure to aromatic amines were higher. Currently, it cannot be recommended to apply these markers for screening in asymptomatic workers. The increase in sensitivity is not balanced by the high costs of UroVysion and the false-positive tests of NMP22.
PURPOSE: To validate urinary markers for the early detection of bladder cancer (BC) in chemical workers. METHODS:UroScreen was conducted as a validation study for tumor markers within the frame of a health surveillance program of the German Social Accident Insurance for active or retired workers with former exposure to aromatic amines. From 2003 to 2010, 1,609 men took part in voluntary annual screens. Cytology, the quantitative NMP22(®) assay, and UroVysion™ were applied to 7,091 urine samples. RESULTS: Fifteen out of 21 tumors were detected following test positivity. The UroVysion/NMP22 panel detected 14 out of 21 tumors versus 8 tumors with cytology alone (sensitivity 66.7 vs. 44.4 %, specificity 94.5 vs. 98.5 %). The sensitivity of the panel increased to 85.7 % in samples collected ≤12 months before diagnosis and when papillomas were excluded, compared to 58.3 % with cytology. About 3 % of NMP22 tests were false-positive. UroVysion results overlapped with cytology due to the preselection of atypical cells. NMP22 was less and UroVysion more frequently positive in diluted urine samples. Leukocytes confounded NMP22 but not UroVysion. The low incidence of BC in this study population yielded low positive predictive values of the markers and high costs per tumor detected with screening. CONCLUSIONS: UroVysion in combination with NMP22 detected more cases than cytology alone, at the expense of a lower specificity. High costs per detected case resulted from a lower BC incidence than in the past when levels of occupational exposure to aromatic amines were higher. Currently, it cannot be recommended to apply these markers for screening in asymptomatic workers. The increase in sensitivity is not balanced by the high costs of UroVysion and the false-positive tests of NMP22.
Authors: Vinata B Lokeshwar; Tomonori Habuchi; H Barton Grossman; William M Murphy; Stefan H Hautmann; George P Hemstreet; Aldo V Bono; Robert H Getzenberg; Peter Goebell; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger; Jack A Schalken; Yves Fradet; Michael Marberger; Edward Messing; Michael J Droller Journal: Urology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.649
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
Authors: G P Hemstreet; S Yin; Z Ma; R B Bonner; W Bi; J Y Rao; M Zang; Q Zheng; B Bane; N Asal; G Li; P Feng; R E Hurst; W Wang Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-03-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karim Chamie; Christopher S Saigal; Julie Lai; Jan M Hanley; Claude M Setodji; Badrinath R Konety; Mark S Litwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Vinata B Lokeshwar; Grethchen L Schroeder; Marie G Selzer; Stefan H Hautmann; J Timothy Posey; Robert C Duncan; Roger Watson; Lyndon Rose; Steven Markowitz; Mark S Soloway Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yair Lotan; Umberto Capitanio; Shahrokh F Shariat; Georg C Hutterer; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Nadine Bonberg; Beate Pesch; Thomas Behrens; Georg Johnen; Dirk Taeger; Katarzyna Gawrych; Christian Schwentner; Harald Wellhäußer; Matthias Kluckert; Gabriele Leng; Michael Nasterlack; Christoph Oberlinner; Arnulf Stenzl; Thomas Brüning Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jan Gleichenhagen; Christian Arndt; Swaantje Casjens; Carmen Meinig; Holger Gerullis; Irina Raiko; Thomas Brüning; Thorsten Ecke; Georg Johnen Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Georg Johnen; Katarzyna Burek; Irina Raiko; Katharina Wichert; Beate Pesch; Daniel G Weber; Martin Lehnert; Swaantje Casjens; Olaf Hagemeyer; Dirk Taeger; Thomas Brüning Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Guadalupe Aguilar-Madrid; Beate Pesch; Emma S Calderón-Aranda; Katarzyna Burek; Carmina Jiménez-Ramírez; Cuauhtémoc Arturo Juárez-Pérez; María Dolores Ochoa-Vázquez; Luis Torre-Bouscoulet; Leonor Concepción Acosta-Saavedra; Isabel Sada-Ovalle; Jorge García-Figueroa; Isabel Alvarado-Cabrero; Patricia Castillo-González; Alejandra Renata Báez-Saldaña; José Rogelio Pérez-Padilla; Juvencio Osnaya-Juárez; Rosa María Rivera-Rosales; Eric Marco García-Bazán; Yolanda Lizbeth Bautista-Aragón; Elimelec Lazcano-Hernandez; Daniel Alejandro Munguía-Canales; Luis Marcelo Argote-Greene; Dirk Taeger; Daniel Gilbert Weber; Swaantje Casjens; Irina Raiko; Thomas Brüning; Georg Johnen Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 3.738