Improved filter method for urine sediment detection of urothelial carcinoma by fluorescence in situ hybridization

被引:0
作者
Meiers, Isabelle
Singh, Harpreet
Hossain, Deloar
Lang, Kevin
Liu, Lina
Qian, Junqi
Verhest, Alain P.
Bostwick, David G.
机构
[1] Bostwick Labs, Glen Allen, VA 23060 USA
[2] Inst Jules Bordet, Dept Pathol, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R446 [实验室诊断]; R-33 [实验医学、医学实验];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Context.-Fluorescence in situ hybridization ( FISH) of voided urine sediment is a sensitive and specific test for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. The time required for slide preparation using the conventional cytospin method is lengthy. Objective.-To present an alternative to the conventional cytospin method. Design.-We compared the results of an improved filter monolayer method with published results of the conventional cytospin method. A total of 624 patients with cytology and FISH analyses were followed with cystoscopy and/or bladder biopsy. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis was performed on 624 cases using fluorescence-labeled probes to the pericentromeric regions of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17 and band 9p21; cytology was also performed in all cases. Results.-A total of 217 (34.7%) of 624 patients had follow-up bladder biopsies, and 170 of these (78.3%) had urothelial carcinoma. The sensitivity for cancer detection was higher for FISH than for urine cytology (92.9% [158/170] for FISH vs 72.9% [124/170] for urine cytology, P = <5%). The specificity was equivalent for FISH and urine cytology (97.5% [443/454] for FISH vs 92.2% [419/454] for cytology). The sensitivity for FISH was better ( 92.9% vs 81%), and there was no significant difference in specificity (97.5% vs 96%) between the filter method and the conventional cytospin method. Unlike the conventional cytospin method, the filter method did not require multiple centrifugation and decantation steps or investment in dedicated equipment. Conclusions.-The improved filter method was faster, easier, and less expensive than published results with the conventional cytospin method with better sensitivity and equivalent specificity.
引用
收藏
页码:1574 / 1577
页数:4
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
Bastacky S, 1999, CANCER CYTOPATHOL, V87, P118, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990625)87:3<118::AID-CNCR4>3.0.CO
[2]  
2-N
[3]   Quantitative molecular urinary cytology by fluorescence in situ hybridization:: a tool for tailoring surveillance of patients wit superficial bladder cancer? [J].
Bollmann, V ;
Heller, H ;
Bánkfalvi, A ;
Griefingholt, H ;
Bollmann, R .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2005, 95 (09) :1219-1225
[4]   CYTOLOGY, FLOW-CYTOMETRY, IMAGE-ANALYSIS, AND INTERPHASE CYTOGENETICS BY FLUORESCENCE IN-SITU HYBRIDIZATION IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF TRANSITIONAL-CELL CARCINOMA IN BLADDER WASHES - A COMPARATIVE-STUDY [J].
CAJULIS, RS ;
HAINES, GK ;
FRIASHIDVEGI, D ;
MCVARY, K ;
BACUS, JW .
DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY, 1995, 13 (03) :214-223
[5]   Current use and questions concerning intravesical bladder cancer group for superficial bladder cancer [J].
Dalbagni, G ;
Herr, HW .
UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2000, 27 (01) :137-+
[6]   Evaluation and follow-up strategies for superficial bladder cancer [J].
Donat, SM .
UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2003, 30 (04) :765-+
[7]   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
[8]   SUPERFICIAL BLADDER-CANCER - PROGRESSION AND RECURRENCE [J].
HENEY, NM ;
AHMED, S ;
FLANAGAN, MJ ;
FRABLE, W ;
CORDER, MP ;
HAFERMANN, MD ;
HAWKINS, IR .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1983, 130 (06) :1083-1086
[9]   Cancer statistics, 2007 [J].
Jemal, Ahmedin ;
Siegel, Rebecca ;
Ward, Elizabeth ;
Murray, Taylor ;
Xu, Jiaquan ;
Thun, Michael J. .
CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2007, 57 (01) :43-66
[10]  
JUNKER K, 2002, J UROLOGY, V167, pA657