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
  • [31] Computerized Analysis of Cytology and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) in Induced Sputum for Lung Cancer Detection
    Guber, Alexander
    Greif, Joel
    Rona, Roni
    Fireman, Elizabeth
    Madi, Lea
    Kaplan, Tal
    Yemini, Zipi
    Gottfried, Maya
    Katz, Ruth L.
    Daniely, Michal
    CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, 2010, 118 (05) : 269 - 277
  • [33] Voided Urine Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Testing for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Surveillance
    Johannes, James R.
    Nelson, Eric
    Bibbo, Marluce
    Bagley, Demetrius H.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 184 (03) : 879 - 882
  • [34] Prospective Validation of the Clinical Usefulness of Reflex Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Assay in Patients With Atypical Cytology for the Detection of Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder
    Schlomer, Bruce J.
    Ho, Richard
    Sagalowsky, Arthur
    Ashfaq, Raheela
    Lotan, Yair
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 183 (01) : 62 - 67
  • [35] The Utility of Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization for Diagnosis and Surveillance of Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma
    Huang, Jian-Wen
    Mu, Jia-Gui
    Li, Yun-Wei
    Gan, Xiu-Guo
    Song, Lu-Jie
    Gu, Bao-Jun
    Fu, Qiang
    Xu, Yue-Min
    An, Rui-Hua
    UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2014, 11 (06) : 1974 - 1979
  • [36] The Impact of Fluorescence in situ Hybridization on the Staging of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma
    Eismann, Lennert
    Mumm, Jan-Niclas
    Bohn, Lucas
    Wuelfing, Christian
    Knuechel-Clarke, Ruth
    Casuscelli, Jozefina
    Waidelich, Raphaela
    Stief, Christian G.
    Schlenker, Boris
    Rodler, Severin
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2021, 105 (7-8) : 631 - 636
  • [37] UroVysion™ fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) possibly has a high positive rate in carcinoma of non-urothelial lineages
    Ke, Chunjin
    Liu, Xuguang
    Wan, Jie
    Hu, Zhiquan
    Yang, Chunguang
    FRONTIERS IN MOLECULAR BIOSCIENCES, 2023, 10
  • [38] Utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis for detecting upper urinary tract-urothelial carcinoma
    Yu, Jiang
    Xiong, Hui
    Wei, Chunxiao
    Cui, Zilian
    Jin, Xunbo
    Zhang, Jianjun
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2017, 13 (04) : 647 - 650
  • [39] Diagnostic Value of the Nuclear Matrix Protein 22 Test and Urine Cytology in Upper Tract Urothelial Tumors
    Jovanovic, M.
    Soldatovic, I.
    Janjic, A.
    Vuksanovic, A.
    Dzamic, Z.
    Acimovic, M.
    Hadzi-Djokic, J.
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2011, 87 (02) : 134 - 137
  • [40] Diagnostic Value of Urine Cytology in Pharmacologically Forced Diuresis for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Diagnosis and Follow-Up
    Giudici, Nicola
    Blarer, Jennifer
    Sathianathen, Niranjan
    Burkhard, Fiona C.
    Wuethrich, Patrick Y.
    Thalmann, George N.
    Seiler, Roland
    Furrer, Marc A.
    CANCERS, 2024, 16 (04)