DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Fluorescence-in-situ-hybridization in the Surveillance of Urothelial Cancers: Can Use of Cystoscopy or Ureteroscopy be Deferred?

  • Ho, Christopher Chee Kong (Urology Unit, Department of Surgery, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre) ;
  • Tan, Wei Phin (Thomas Jefferson University) ;
  • Pathmanathan, Rajadurai (Department of Pathology, Sime Darby Medical Centre Subang Jaya) ;
  • Tan, Wei Keith (University of Bristol) ;
  • Tan, Hui Meng (Department of Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya)
  • Published : 2013.07.30

Abstract

Background: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing may be useful to screen for bladder carcinoma or dysplasia by detecting aneuploidy chromosomes 3, 7, 17 and deletion of the chromosome 9p21 locus in urine specimens. This study aimed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of FISH in a multi-ethnic population in Asia. Materials and Methods: Patients with haematuria and/or past history of urothelial cancer on follow-up had their voided urine tested with FISH. Patients then underwent cystoscopy/ureteroscopy and any lesions seen were biopsied. The histopathological reports of the bladder or ureteroscopic mucosal biopsies were then compared with the FISH test results. Results: Two hundred sixty patients were recruited. The sensitivity and specificity of the FISH test was 89.2% and 83.4% respectively. The positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were 47.1% and 97.9%. By excluding patients who had positive deletion of chromosome 9, the overall results of the screening test improved: sensitivity 84.6%; specificity 96.4%; PPV 75.9% and NPV 97.9%. Conclusions: UroVysion FISH has a high specificity of detecting urothelial cancer or dysplasia when deletion of chromosome 9 is excluded. Negative UroVysion FISH-tests may allow us to conserve health resources and minimize trauma by deferring cystoscopic or ureteroscopic examination.

Keywords

Fluorescence-in-situ-hybridization;urothelial;cancer;UroVysion;Asia

References

  1. Babjuk M, Soukup V, Pesl M, et al (2008). Urinary cytology and quantitative BTA and UBC tests in surveillance of patients with pTapT1 bladder urothelial carcinoma. Urology, 71, 718-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.12.021
  2. Banek S, Schwentner C, Tager D, et al (2012). Prospective evaluation of fluorescence-in situ-hybridization to detect bladder cancer: results from the UroScreen-Study. Urol Oncol, [Epub ahead of print].
  3. Brown FM (2000). Urine cytology. Is it still the gold standard for screening? Urol Clin North Am, 27, 25-37 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70231-7
  4. Bubendorf L, Piaton E (2012). UroVysion$^{(R)}$ multiprobe FISH in the triage of equivocal urinary cytology cases. Ann Pathol, 32, 438-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annpat.2012.09.208
  5. Dimashkieh H, Wolff DJ, Smith TM, et al (2013). Evaluation of urovysion and cytology for bladder cancer detection: a study of 1835 paired urine samples with clinical and histologic correlation. Cancer Cytopathol, [Epub ahead of print].
  6. Grossman HB, Messing E, Soloway M, et al (2005). Detection of bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA, 293, 810-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.7.810
  7. Grossman HB, Soloway M, Messing E, et al (2006). Surveillance for recurrent bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA, 295, 299-305. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.3.299
  8. Hajdinjak T (2008). UroVysion FISH test for detecting urothelial cancers: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and comparison with urinary cytology testing. Urol Oncol, 26, 645-51
  9. Halling KC, King W, Sokolova IA, et al (2002). A comparison of BTA stat, hemoglobin dipstick, telomerase and Vysis FISH assays for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Urol, 167, 2001-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65072-0
  10. Hentschel S, Pritzkuleit R, Schmid-Hopfner S, et al (2011). Epidemiologis- che Krebsregistrierung in Deutschland. Onkologie, 17, 97-106 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00761-010-1939-y
  11. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG (2003). Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and metaanalyses. Urology, 61, 109-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02136-2
  12. Lotan Y, Svatek RS, Malats N (2008). Screening for bladder cancer : a perspective. World J Urol, 26, 13-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0223-2
  13. Mowatt G, Zhu S, Kilonzo M, et al (2010). Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of photodynamic diagnosis and urine biomarkers (FISH, ImmunoCyt, NMP22) and cytology for the detection and follow-up of bladder cancer. Health Technol Assess, 14, 1-331.
  14. Papanikolaou GN, Marshall VF (1945). Urine sediment smears as a diagnostic procedure in cancers of the urinary tract. Science, 101, 519-20. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.101.2629.519
  15. Raitanen MP (2008). The role of BTA Test in follow-up of patients with bladder cancer: results from FinnBladder studies. World J Urol, 26, 45-50 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0230-3
  16. Rathert P, Roth S (1991). Urinzytologie. In "Praxis und Atlas". Springer, Berlin pp 1-515.
  17. Sarosdy MF, Schellhammer P, Bokinsky G, et al (2002). Clinical evaluation of a multi-target fluorescent in situ hybridization assay for detection of bladder cancer. J Urol, 168, 1950-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64270-X
  18. Schmitz-Drager BJ, Beiche B, Tirsar LA, et al (2007). Immunocytology in the assessment of patients with asymptomatic microhaematuria. Eur Urol, 51, 1582-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.046
  19. Schwarz S, Rechenmacher M, Filbeck T, et al (2008). Value of multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in the differential diagnosis of flat urothelial lesions. J Clin Pathol, 61, 272-7.
  20. Sherman AB, Koss LG, Adams SE (1984). Interobserver and intraobserver differences in the diagnosis of urothelial cells. Anal Quant Cytol, 6, 112-20.
  21. Steffens J, Nagel R (1988). Tumours of the renal pelvis and ureter. Observations in 170 patients. Bri J Urol, 61, 277-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.1988.tb13957.x
  22. Van der Poel HG, Van Balken MR, Schamhart DH, et al (1998). Bladder wash cytology, quantitative cytology, and the qualitative BTA test in patients with superficial bladder cancer. Urology, 51, 44-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00496-2
  23. Van Rhijn BWG, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast HG (2009). Cytology and urinary markers for the diagnosis of bladder cancer. Eur Urol, 8, 536-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eursup.2009.06.008
  24. Volpe A, Racioppi M, D'Agostino D, et al (2008). Bladder tumor markers: a review of the literature. Int J Biol Markers, 23, 249-61.
  25. Vrooman OPJ, Witjes JA (2008). Urinary markers in bladder cancer. Eur Urol, 53, 909-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.006
  26. Vysis (2010). Produktinformation$^{(R)}$ Vysis: FISH Bladder Cancer Recurrence Kit. Vysis Inc., Abbott Park, IL.

Cited by

  1. Can Reproductive Characteristics Predict Bladder Cancer in Women with Haematuria? vol.14, pp.9, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.9.5107
  2. Bladder Cancer Biomarkers: Review and Update vol.15, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.6.2395
  3. Two-tiered subdivision of atypia on urine cytology can improve patient follow-up and optimize the utility of UroVysion vol.124, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21630
  4. Biomarkers for precision medicine in bladder cancer vol.22, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-016-1068-8
  5. FISH assay for the diagnosis of malignant effusions using two cutoff strategies vol.7, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1442
  6. Clinical evaluation of two consecutive UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization tests to detect intravesical recurrence of bladder cancer: a prospective blinded comparative study in Japan pp.1437-7772, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-1311-6