Diagnostic value comparison of CellDetect, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and cytology in urothelial carcinoma

被引:10
|
作者
Shang, Donghao [1 ]
Liu, Yuting [2 ]
Xu, Xiuhong [1 ]
Chen, Zhenghao [1 ]
Wang, Daye [2 ]
机构
[1] Capital Med Univ, Friendship Hosp, Dept Urol, Beijing 100050, Peoples R China
[2] Capital Med Univ, Dept Pathol, Beijing 100069, Peoples R China
关键词
Urothelial carcinoma (UC); CellDetect; Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH); Cytology; TRANSITIONAL-CELL CARCINOMA; EAU GUIDELINES; E-CADHERIN; BLADDER; BIOMARKERS;
D O I
10.1186/s12935-021-02169-3
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a novel CellDetect staining technique, compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and urine cytology, in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Methods A total of 264 patients with suspicious UC were enrolled in this study. All tissue specimens were collected by biopsy or surgery. Urine specimen was obtained for examinations prior to the surgical procedure. CellDetect staining was carried out with CellDetect kit, and FISH was performed with UroVysion detection kit, according to the manufacturer's instructions. For urine cytology, all specimens were centrifuged using the cytospin method, and the slides were stained by standard Papanicolaou stain. Results In this study, there were 128 cases of UC and 136 cases of non-UC, with no significant difference in gender and age between the two groups. Results for sensitivity of CellDetect, FISH, and urine cytology were 82.8%, 83.6%, and 39.8%, respectively. The specificity of the three techniques were 88.2%, 90.4%, and 86.0%, respectively. The sensitivity of CellDetect and FISH are significantly superior compared to the conventional urine cytology; however, there was no significant difference in specificity among three staining techniques. In addition, the sensitivity of CellDetect in lower urinary tract UC, upper urinary tract UC, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) were 83.3%, 81.8%, 83.5%, and 72.0%, respectively. The screening ability of CellDetect has no correlation with tumor location and the tumor stage. The sensitivity of CellDetect in low-grade UC and high-grade UC were 51.6 and 92.8%. Thus, screening ability of CellDetect in high-grade UC is significantly superior compared to that in low-grade UC. Conclusions CellDetect and FISH show equal value in diagnosing UC, both are superior to conventional urine cytology. Compared to FISH, CellDetect is cost effective, easy to operate, with extensive clinical application value to monitor recurrence of UC, and to screen indetectable UC.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Diagnostic value comparison of CellDetect, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and cytology in urothelial carcinoma
    Donghao Shang
    Yuting Liu
    Xiuhong Xu
    Zhenghao Chen
    Daye Wang
    Cancer Cell International, 21
  • [2] A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma
    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
  • [3] Comparison of Urine Cytology and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Upper Urothelial Tract Samples
    Reynolds, Jordan P.
    Voss, Jesse S.
    Kipp, Benjamin R.
    Karnes, R. Jeffrey
    Nassar, Aziza
    Clayton, Amy C.
    Henry, Michael R.
    Sebo, Thomas J.
    Zhang, Jun
    Halling, Kevin C.
    CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, 2014, 122 (06) : 459 - 467
  • [4] A comprehensive comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and cytology for the detection of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Jin, Hongyu
    Lin, Tianhai
    Hao, Jianqi
    Qiu, Shi
    Xu, Hang
    Yu, Ruichao
    Sun, Sheng
    Zhang, Peng
    Liu, Zhenhua
    Yang, Lu
    Liu, Liangren
    Han, Ping
    Wei, Qiang
    MEDICINE, 2018, 97 (52)
  • [5] Diagnostic Value Comparison of Urothelium Carcinoma Among Urine Exfoliated Cells Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) Examination, Computerized Tomography (CT Scan, and Urine Cytologic Examination
    Yang, Tao
    Li, Yan
    Li, Jing
    Liu, Junjiang
    Deng, Xinna
    Wang, Gang
    MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2018, 24 : 5788 - 5792
  • [6] Cost-Effectiveness of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Patients with Atypical Cytology for the Detection of Urothelial Carcinoma
    Gayed, Bishoy A.
    Seideman, Casey
    Lotan, Yair
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 190 (04) : 1181 - 1186
  • [7] COMBINE CYTOLOGY AND FLUORESCENT IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION (FISH) OF SPUTUM CELLS FOR EARLY DETECTION OF LUNG CANCER
    Gilad, Avi
    Kaplan, Tal
    Daniely, Michal
    Levi, Tali
    Fink, Gershon
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2011, 6 (06) : S1386 - S1387
  • [8] Fluorescence in situ hybridization in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma
    Bubendorf, Lukas
    ANNALES DE PATHOLOGIE, 2010, 30 : S117 - S118
  • [9] Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization for Detecting Urothelial Carcinoma A Clinicopathologic Study
    Caraway, Nancy P.
    Khanna, Abha
    Fernandez, Ricardo L.
    Payne, Linda
    Bassett, Roland L., Jr.
    Zhang, Hua-Zhong
    Kamat, Ashish
    Katz, Ruth L.
    CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, 2010, 118 (05) : 259 - 268
  • [10] Comparison of urinary cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the detection of urothelial neoplasia: An analysis of discordant results
    McHale, Teresa
    Ohori, N. Paul
    Cieply, Kathy M.
    Sherer, Carol
    Bastacky, Sheldon I.
    DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY, 2019, 47 (04) : 282 - 288