Emanuela Trenti1, Carolina D'Elia2, Christine Mian2, Christine Schwienbacher2, Esther Hanspeter2, Alexander Pycha3, Mona Kafka4, Stephan Degener5, Hansjörg Danuser3, Stephan Roth5, Armin Pycha1,6. 1. Department of Urology, Central Hospital of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy. 2. Department of Pathology, Central Hospital of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, Lucerne Canton Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland. 4. Department of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 5. Department of Urology, Helios-Klinikum Wuppertal, Witten Herdecke University, Wuppertal, Germany. 6. Medical School, Sigmund Freud Private University, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Bladder EpiCheck test in the follow-up of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and to compare it with the accuracy of urinary cytology, cystoscopy, and/or histology. METHODS: In total, 243 patients were enrolled in the current study. Patients were evaluated by voided urine cytology, by the Bladder EpiCheck test, and by white-light cystoscopy. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity was 33.3% for cytology, 62.3% for Bladder EpiCheck, and 66.7% for the 2 tests combined. The sensitivity of cytology increased from 7.7% in low-grade (LG) tumors to 66.6% in high-grade (HG) tumors; whereas, for the Bladder EpiCheck test, the sensitivity was 46.1% in LG tumors and 83.3% in HG tumors. Combined cytology and Bladder EpiCheck testing yielded an overall sensitivity of 56.4% for LG tumors and 90% for HG tumors. Overall specificity was 98.6% for cytology, 86.3% for Bladder EpiCheck, and 85.6% for the 2 tests combined. The positive predictive value was 92% for cytology and 68.2% for Bladder EpiCheck. For the 2 tests combined, it was 68.6%. The negative predictive value was similar for the 2 tests: 75.8% for cytology, 82.9% for Bladder EpiCheck, and 84.5% for the 2 tests combined. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of the Bladder EpiCheck test was significantly higher than that of cytology. The test performed very well in terms of specificity but could not reach the high value of cytology. The positive predictive value was higher for Bladder EpiCheck, whereas the negative predictive value was approximately the same for both tests.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Bladder EpiCheck test in the follow-up of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and to compare it with the accuracy of urinary cytology, cystoscopy, and/or histology. METHODS: In total, 243 patients were enrolled in the current study. Patients were evaluated by voided urine cytology, by the Bladder EpiCheck test, and by white-light cystoscopy. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity was 33.3% for cytology, 62.3% for Bladder EpiCheck, and 66.7% for the 2 tests combined. The sensitivity of cytology increased from 7.7% in low-grade (LG) tumors to 66.6% in high-grade (HG) tumors; whereas, for the Bladder EpiCheck test, the sensitivity was 46.1% in LG tumors and 83.3% in HG tumors. Combined cytology and Bladder EpiCheck testing yielded an overall sensitivity of 56.4% for LG tumors and 90% for HG tumors. Overall specificity was 98.6% for cytology, 86.3% for Bladder EpiCheck, and 85.6% for the 2 tests combined. The positive predictive value was 92% for cytology and 68.2% for Bladder EpiCheck. For the 2 tests combined, it was 68.6%. The negative predictive value was similar for the 2 tests: 75.8% for cytology, 82.9% for Bladder EpiCheck, and 84.5% for the 2 tests combined. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of the Bladder EpiCheck test was significantly higher than that of cytology. The test performed very well in terms of specificity but could not reach the high value of cytology. The positive predictive value was higher for Bladder EpiCheck, whereas the negative predictive value was approximately the same for both tests.
Authors: Renske D M Steenbergen; Jakko A Nieuwenhuijzen; Anouk E Hentschel; Irene J Beijert; Judith Bosschieter; Paul C Kauer; André N Vis; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 6.551
Authors: Karla B Peña; Francesc Riu; Anna Hernandez; Carmen Guilarte; Joan Badia; David Parada Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-03 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Rui Batista; Nuno Vinagre; Sara Meireles; João Vinagre; Hugo Prazeres; Ricardo Leão; Valdemar Máximo; Paula Soares Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2020-01-13
Authors: Matteo Ferro; Evelina La Civita; Antonietta Liotti; Michele Cennamo; Fabiana Tortora; Carlo Buonerba; Felice Crocetto; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Gian Maria Busetto; Francesco Del Giudice; Ottavio de Cobelli; Giuseppe Carrieri; Angelo Porreca; Amelia Cimmino; Daniela Terracciano Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-03-23