Comparison of multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization in urine with other noninvasive tests for detecting bladder cancer

被引:67
作者
Friedrich, MG
Toma, MI
Hellstern, A
Pantel, K
Weisenberger, DJ
Noldus, J
Huland, H
机构
[1] Univ Hamburg, Univ Hosp Hamburg Eppendorf, Dept Urol, Hamburg, Germany
[2] Univ Hamburg, Univ Hosp Hamburg Eppendorf, Inst Tumour Biol, Hamburg, Germany
关键词
FISH; noninvasive detection; bladder carcinoma;
D O I
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2003.04528.x
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
To present a single-centre study investigating aneuploidy at chromosomes 3, 7, 17 and 9p21 (e.g. loss at 9p21) using a multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) system, as identifying genetic alterations in urine specimens is a promising approach for the noninvasive detection of bladder cancer. Urine samples from 103 patients were evaluated, including those from 46 with histologically confirmed urothelial carcinoma, two with other urological malignancies, and 55 who acted as controls. The urine samples were taken before any manipulation. The validity of FISH (Urovision, Vysis, Downers Grove, Ill, USA) was compared with other noninvasive urine tests, including the BTA-Stat test, the nuclear matrix protein (NMP)-22 test, and immunocytology against 486p3/12 and LewisX. Those evaluating the tests were unaware of the clinical and histopathological data. FISH was considered positive if five or more urinary cells had gains of two or more chromosomes. The threshold for the urine tests were 10 U/mL (NMP-22), 30% positive cells (486p3/12), or 5% positive cells, respectively (LewisX). The sensitivity was 69% (FISH), 67% (BTA-Stat), 69% (486p3/12), 96% (LewisX) and 71% (NMP22), respectively; the respective specificity was 89%, 78%, 76%, 33% and 66%. Multitarget FISH had a better specificity than the other urine markers but because of its inadequate sensitivity it does not seem to be powerful enough to replace endoscopy. Optimizing the marker panel could provide a higher sensitivity.
引用
收藏
页码:911 / 914
页数:4
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
Badalament R A, 1988, Semin Urol, V6, P22
[2]   Four bladder tumor markers have a disappointingly low sensitivity for small size and low grade recurrence [J].
Boman, H ;
Hedelin, H ;
Holmäng, S .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 167 (01) :80-83
[3]  
Bubendorf L, 2001, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V116, P79
[4]  
Christensen M, 2000, INT J CANCER, V85, P614, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(20000301)85:5<614::AID-IJC3>3.0.CO
[5]  
2-D
[6]   Are false-positive urine markers for the detection of bladder carcinoma really wrong or do they predict tumor recurrence? [J].
Friedrich, MG ;
Hellstern, A ;
Toma, MI ;
Hammerer, P ;
Huland, H .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2003, 43 (02) :146-150
[7]   Detection of loss of heterozygosity in the p53 tumor-suppressor gene with PCR in the urine of patients with bladder cancer [J].
Friedrich, MG ;
Erbersdobler, A ;
Schwaibold, H ;
Conrad, S ;
Huland, E ;
Huland, H .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 163 (03) :1039-1042
[8]   A comparison of BTA stat, hemoglobin dipstick, telomerase and vysis urovysion assays for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine [J].
Halling, KC ;
King, W ;
Sokolova, IA ;
Karnes, RJ ;
Meyer, RG ;
Powell, EL ;
Sebo, TJ ;
Cheville, JC ;
Clayton, AC ;
Krajnik, KL ;
Ebert, TA ;
Nelson, RE ;
Burkhardt, HM ;
Ramakumar, S ;
Stewart, CS ;
Pankratz, VS ;
Lieber, MM ;
Blute, ML ;
Zincke, H ;
Seelig, SA ;
Jenkins, RB ;
O'Kane, DJ .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 167 (05) :2001-2006
[9]   A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma [J].
Halling, KC ;
King, W ;
Sokolova, IA ;
Meyer, RG ;
Burkhardt, HM ;
Halling, AC ;
Cheville, JC ;
Sebo, TJ ;
Ramakumar, S ;
Stewart, CS ;
Pankratz, S ;
O'Kane, DJ ;
Seelig, SA ;
Lieber, MM ;
Jenkins, RB .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 164 (05) :1768-1775
[10]   Noninvasive detection and prediction of bladder cancer by fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of exfoliated urothelial cells in voided urine [J].
Ishiwata, S ;
Takahashi, S ;
Homma, Y ;
Tanaka, Y ;
Kameyama, S ;
Hosaka, Y ;
Kitamura, T .
UROLOGY, 2001, 57 (04) :811-815