Justin I Friedlander1, Jodi A Antonelli1, Noah E Canvasser1, Monica S C Morgan1, Daniel Mollengarden1, Sara Best2, Margaret S Pearle3. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 2. Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Jane and Charles Pak Center for Mineral Metabolism and Clinical Research, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: Margaret.pearle@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: An accurate urinary predictor of stone recurrence would be clinically advantageous for patients with cystinuria. A proprietary assay (Litholink, Chicago, Illinois) measures cystine capacity as a potentially more reliable estimate of stone forming propensity. The recommended capacity level to prevent stone formation, which is greater than 150 mg/l, has not been directly correlated with clinical stone activity. We investigated the relationship between urinary cystine parameters and clinical stone activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively followed 48 patients with cystinuria using 24-hour urine collections and serial imaging, and recorded stone activity. We compared cystine urinary parameters at times of stone activity with those obtained during periods of stone quiescence. We then performed correlation and ROC analysis to evaluate the performance of cystine parameters to predict stone activity. RESULTS: During a median followup of 70.6 months (range 2.2 to 274.6) 85 stone events occurred which could be linked to a recent urine collection. Cystine capacity was significantly greater for quiescent urine than for stone event urine (mean ± SD 48 ± 107 vs -38 ± 163 mg/l, p <0.001). Cystine capacity significantly correlated inversely with stone activity (r = -0.29, p <0.001). Capacity also correlated highly negatively with supersaturation (r = -0.88, p <0.001) and concentration (r = -0.87, p <0.001). Using the suggested cutoff of greater than 150 mg/l had only 8.0% sensitivity to predict stone quiescence. Decreasing the cutoff to 90 mg/l or greater improved sensitivity to 25.2% while maintaining specificity at 90.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the target for capacity should be lower than previously advised.
PURPOSE: An accurate urinary predictor of stone recurrence would be clinically advantageous for patients with cystinuria. A proprietary assay (Litholink, Chicago, Illinois) measures cystine capacity as a potentially more reliable estimate of stone forming propensity. The recommended capacity level to prevent stone formation, which is greater than 150 mg/l, has not been directly correlated with clinical stone activity. We investigated the relationship between urinary cystine parameters and clinical stone activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively followed 48 patients with cystinuria using 24-hour urine collections and serial imaging, and recorded stone activity. We compared cystine urinary parameters at times of stone activity with those obtained during periods of stone quiescence. We then performed correlation and ROC analysis to evaluate the performance of cystine parameters to predict stone activity. RESULTS: During a median followup of 70.6 months (range 2.2 to 274.6) 85 stone events occurred which could be linked to a recent urine collection. Cystine capacity was significantly greater for quiescent urine than for stone event urine (mean ± SD 48 ± 107 vs -38 ± 163 mg/l, p <0.001). Cystine capacity significantly correlated inversely with stone activity (r = -0.29, p <0.001). Capacity also correlated highly negatively with supersaturation (r = -0.88, p <0.001) and concentration (r = -0.87, p <0.001). Using the suggested cutoff of greater than 150 mg/l had only 8.0% sensitivity to predict stone quiescence. Decreasing the cutoff to 90 mg/l or greater improved sensitivity to 25.2% while maintaining specificity at 90.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the target for capacity should be lower than previously advised.
Authors: Brian H Eisner; David S Goldfarb; Michelle A Baum; Craig B Langman; Gary C Curhan; Glenn M Preminger; John C Lieske; Gyan Pareek; Kay Thomas; Anna L Zisman; Dimitri Papagiannopoulos; Roger L Sur Journal: J Endourol Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Deepa A Malieckal; Frank Modersitzki; Kristin Mara; Felicity T Enders; John R Asplin; David S Goldfarb Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2019-04-13 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Charles C Mikel; David S Goldfarb; Amy Ponte; Katherine Steigelman; Sergey Latyshev Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 2.861