You Luo1, Dong-Li She1, Hu Xiong1, Li Yang1, Sheng-Jun Fu1. 1. Gansu Nephro-Urological Clinical Center, Institute of Urology, Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Disease of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of liquid-based cytology (LBC) in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma. METHOD: Diagnostic studies were searched for the diagnostic value of LBC in urothelial carcinoma in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM and CNKI. The latest retrieval date was September 2014. The data were extracted and the quality of the included studies was independently assessed by 2 reviewers. Stata 13 software was used to perform the statistical analysis. The research was conducted in compliance with the PRISMA statement. RESULT: Nineteen studies, which included 8293 patients, were evaluated. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of LBC were 0.58 (0.51-0.65) and 0.96 (0.93-0.98), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 31 (18-56) and the area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.83 (0.80-0.86). The post-test probability was 80% when a positive diagnosis was made. Compared with high grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC), the sensitivity of detecting low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC) was significantly lower, risk ratio of sensitivity was 0.54 (0.43-0.66), P<0.001. However, no significant sensitivity improvement was observed with LBC when compared with traditional cytospin cytology, risk ratio was 1.03 (0.94-1.14), P = 0.524. CONCLUSION: Despite LBC having a pooled 58% positive rate for urothelial carcinoma diagnosis in our meta-analysis, no significant improvement in sensitivity was observed based on the studies evaluated. Further research is needed to validate these findings.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of liquid-based cytology (LBC) in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma. METHOD: Diagnostic studies were searched for the diagnostic value of LBC in urothelial carcinoma in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM and CNKI. The latest retrieval date was September 2014. The data were extracted and the quality of the included studies was independently assessed by 2 reviewers. Stata 13 software was used to perform the statistical analysis. The research was conducted in compliance with the PRISMA statement. RESULT: Nineteen studies, which included 8293 patients, were evaluated. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of LBC were 0.58 (0.51-0.65) and 0.96 (0.93-0.98), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 31 (18-56) and the area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.83 (0.80-0.86). The post-test probability was 80% when a positive diagnosis was made. Compared with high grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC), the sensitivity of detecting low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC) was significantly lower, risk ratio of sensitivity was 0.54 (0.43-0.66), P<0.001. However, no significant sensitivity improvement was observed with LBC when compared with traditional cytospin cytology, risk ratio was 1.03 (0.94-1.14), P = 0.524. CONCLUSION: Despite LBC having a pooled 58% positive rate for urothelial carcinoma diagnosis in our meta-analysis, no significant improvement in sensitivity was observed based on the studies evaluated. Further research is needed to validate these findings.
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: Eu Chang Hwang; Seong Hoon Park; Seung Il Jung; Dong Deuk Kwon; Kwangsung Park; Soo Bang Ryu; Chang Soo Park Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: O Raisi; C Magnani; N Bigiani; E Cianciavicchia; R D'Amico; U Muscatello; C Ghirardini Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2011-05-04 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: K Saeb-Parsy; A Wilson; C Scarpini; M Corcoran; S Chilcott; M McKean; B Thottakam; B Rai; G Nabi; D Rana; M Perera; K Stewart; R A Laskey; D E Neal; N Coleman Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Leon-Gordian Koepke; Annika Heuer; Martin Stangenberg; Marc Dreimann; Lutz Welker; Carsten Bokemeyer; André Strahl; Anne Marie Asemissen; Lennart Viezens Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-01-26