Utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization as a non-invasive technique in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma

被引:67
作者
Marin-Aguilera, Mercedes
Menqual, Lourdes
Ribal, Maria Jose
Musquera, Mireia
Ars, Elisabet
Villauicencio, Humberto
Alyaba, Ferran
Alcaraz, Antonio
机构
[1] Univ Barcelona, Dept Urol, IDIBAPS, Hosp Clin Barcelona, E-08036 Barcelona, Spain
[2] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Fdn Puigvert, Mol Biol Lab, Dept Pathol, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain
[3] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Fdn Puigvert, Mol Biol Lab, Dept Urol, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain
关键词
carcinoma; transitional cell; in situ hybridization; fluorescence; pelvic neoplasms; ureteral neoplasms; urinary tract; urine;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.045
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
Objectives: To assess the clinical utility of a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay as a non-invasive method for diagnosing and monitoring urothelial carcinoma (UC) in the upper urinary tract (UUT). Methods: Urine specimens from 30 consecutive patients with UUT UC and 19 healthy controls were analyzed by means of cytology and FISH. For FISH analysis, labelled probes to chromosomes 3, 7, 9, and 17 were used to assess chromosomal abnormalities indicative of malignancy. Sensitivity and specificity of both techniques were determined and compared. The frequency of chromosomal aberrations of malignant cells from UUT was also determined. Results: Overall sensitivity for FISH was significantly higher than the corresponding value for urine cytology (76.7% vs. 36%, respectively, p = 0.0056). Specificities for FISH and cytology were 94.7% and 100%, respectively (p = ns). The positive and negative predictive values for FISH were 95.8% and 72%, whereas for cytology they were 100% and 54%, respectively. Of the genetically altered nuclei counted, 67%, 54%, and 43% presented polysomy in chromosomes 3, 7, and 17, respectively, and 21% presented a homozygous deletion of chromosome 9. Conclusions: FISH assay of chromosomes 3, 7, 9, and 17 performed on exfoliated cells from voided urine specimens has greater sensitivity than cytology for detecting UUT UC whilst maintaining a similar specificity. The non-invasive nature of this method and its higher sensitivity could contribute to improving the current diagnosis of UUT UC. (c) 2006 European Association of Urology.
引用
收藏
页码:409 / 415
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 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]  
Bubendorf L, 2001, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V116, P79
[4]   Promoter hypermethylation is associated with tumor location, stage, and subsequent progression in transitional cell carcinoma [J].
Catto, JWF ;
Azzouzi, AR ;
Rehman, I ;
Feeley, KM ;
Cross, SS ;
Amira, N ;
Fromont, G ;
Sibony, M ;
Cussenot, O ;
Meuth, M ;
Hamdy, FC .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2005, 23 (13) :2903-2910
[5]   URINARY CYTODIAGNOSIS CAN IT HAVE A DIFFERENT PROGNOSTIC IMPLICATION THAN A DIAGNOSTIC-TEST [J].
CHOW, NH ;
TZAI, TS ;
CHENG, HL ;
CHAN, SH ;
LIN, JSN .
UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 1994, 53 (01) :18-23
[6]   Cytogenetic analysis of upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinomas [J].
Fadl-Elmula, I ;
Gorunova, L ;
Mandahl, N ;
Elfving, P ;
Lundgren, R ;
Rademark, C ;
Heim, S .
CANCER GENETICS AND CYTOGENETICS, 1999, 115 (02) :123-127
[7]   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
[8]   Vysis® UroVysion for the detection of urothelial carcinoma [J].
Halling, KC .
EXPERT REVIEW OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2003, 3 (04) :507-519
[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]  
Hartmann A, 2002, CANCER RES, V62, P6796