Comparison of the efficacy of urine cytology, nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the diagnosis of bladder cancer

Won Tae Kim, Kyeongmee Park, Namhoon Cho, Won Sik Ham, Jin Sun Lee, Hee Jeong Ju, Yong Uk Kwon, Youngdeuk Choi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: We compared the efficacy of urine cytology, nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: Washing urine samples from 156 patients were evaluated for the detection of bladder cancer. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 was 106 patients with bladder cancer, group 2 was 30 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate without bladder cancer, and group 3 had gross hematuria without bladder cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH were compared. NMP22 positivity was defined as ≥10U/ml. FISH was done with the UroVysion® system and FISH positivity was defined as ≥2 abnormal urothelial cells with an abnormal signal from any out of 4 probes. Results: The overall sensitivity of urine cytology, NMP22, and FISH was 60.4%, 75.5%, and 84.9%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall specificity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH was 96.7%, 83.3%, and 93.3%, respectively (p=0.168). In group 3, the false-positive rates of cytology, NMP22, and FISH were 20.0%, 55.0%, and 10.0%, respectively. In these patients with gross hematuria, the false-positive rate with NMP22 was significantly higher than with cytology or FISH (p=0.004). The sensitivity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH in low-grade bladder cancer patients was 25.9%, 51.9%, and 77.8%, respectively, and that in pTa-1 bladder cancer patients was 40.6%, 65.6%, and 78.1%, respectively. In low-grade or in pTa-1 patients, the sensitivity of the three diagnostic tools was significantly different (low grade; p K 0.001, pTa-1; p < 0.001). Conclusions: FISH is more sensitive in low-grade bladder cancer than is urine cytology and can be used as a diagnostic tool for the detection of primary and recurrent bladder cancer. NMP22 was affected by gross hematuria and thus has limitations for screening of bladder cancer. However, it can be used to follow-up bladder cancer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)6-11
Number of pages6
JournalKorean Journal of Urology
Volume50
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Cell Biology
Urine
Hematuria
nuclear matrix protein 22
Transurethral Resection of Prostate
Prostatic Hyperplasia
Sensitivity and Specificity

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cite this

@article{bf44d5bed14949539f4168b16cf0694d,
title = "Comparison of the efficacy of urine cytology, nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the diagnosis of bladder cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: We compared the efficacy of urine cytology, nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: Washing urine samples from 156 patients were evaluated for the detection of bladder cancer. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 was 106 patients with bladder cancer, group 2 was 30 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate without bladder cancer, and group 3 had gross hematuria without bladder cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH were compared. NMP22 positivity was defined as ≥10U/ml. FISH was done with the UroVysion{\circledR} system and FISH positivity was defined as ≥2 abnormal urothelial cells with an abnormal signal from any out of 4 probes. Results: The overall sensitivity of urine cytology, NMP22, and FISH was 60.4{\%}, 75.5{\%}, and 84.9{\%}, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall specificity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH was 96.7{\%}, 83.3{\%}, and 93.3{\%}, respectively (p=0.168). In group 3, the false-positive rates of cytology, NMP22, and FISH were 20.0{\%}, 55.0{\%}, and 10.0{\%}, respectively. In these patients with gross hematuria, the false-positive rate with NMP22 was significantly higher than with cytology or FISH (p=0.004). The sensitivity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH in low-grade bladder cancer patients was 25.9{\%}, 51.9{\%}, and 77.8{\%}, respectively, and that in pTa-1 bladder cancer patients was 40.6{\%}, 65.6{\%}, and 78.1{\%}, respectively. In low-grade or in pTa-1 patients, the sensitivity of the three diagnostic tools was significantly different (low grade; p K 0.001, pTa-1; p < 0.001). Conclusions: FISH is more sensitive in low-grade bladder cancer than is urine cytology and can be used as a diagnostic tool for the detection of primary and recurrent bladder cancer. NMP22 was affected by gross hematuria and thus has limitations for screening of bladder cancer. However, it can be used to follow-up bladder cancer.",
author = "Kim, {Won Tae} and Kyeongmee Park and Namhoon Cho and Ham, {Won Sik} and Lee, {Jin Sun} and Ju, {Hee Jeong} and Kwon, {Yong Uk} and Youngdeuk Choi",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4111/kju.2009.50.1.6",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "6--11",
journal = "Korean Journal of Urology",
issn = "2005-6737",
publisher = "Korean Urological Association",
number = "1",

}

Comparison of the efficacy of urine cytology, nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the diagnosis of bladder cancer. / Kim, Won Tae; Park, Kyeongmee; Cho, Namhoon; Ham, Won Sik; Lee, Jin Sun; Ju, Hee Jeong; Kwon, Yong Uk; Choi, Youngdeuk.

In: Korean Journal of Urology, Vol. 50, No. 1, 01.01.2009, p. 6-11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the efficacy of urine cytology, nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the diagnosis of bladder cancer

AU - Kim, Won Tae

AU - Park, Kyeongmee

AU - Cho, Namhoon

AU - Ham, Won Sik

AU - Lee, Jin Sun

AU - Ju, Hee Jeong

AU - Kwon, Yong Uk

AU - Choi, Youngdeuk

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Purpose: We compared the efficacy of urine cytology, nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: Washing urine samples from 156 patients were evaluated for the detection of bladder cancer. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 was 106 patients with bladder cancer, group 2 was 30 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate without bladder cancer, and group 3 had gross hematuria without bladder cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH were compared. NMP22 positivity was defined as ≥10U/ml. FISH was done with the UroVysion® system and FISH positivity was defined as ≥2 abnormal urothelial cells with an abnormal signal from any out of 4 probes. Results: The overall sensitivity of urine cytology, NMP22, and FISH was 60.4%, 75.5%, and 84.9%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall specificity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH was 96.7%, 83.3%, and 93.3%, respectively (p=0.168). In group 3, the false-positive rates of cytology, NMP22, and FISH were 20.0%, 55.0%, and 10.0%, respectively. In these patients with gross hematuria, the false-positive rate with NMP22 was significantly higher than with cytology or FISH (p=0.004). The sensitivity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH in low-grade bladder cancer patients was 25.9%, 51.9%, and 77.8%, respectively, and that in pTa-1 bladder cancer patients was 40.6%, 65.6%, and 78.1%, respectively. In low-grade or in pTa-1 patients, the sensitivity of the three diagnostic tools was significantly different (low grade; p K 0.001, pTa-1; p < 0.001). Conclusions: FISH is more sensitive in low-grade bladder cancer than is urine cytology and can be used as a diagnostic tool for the detection of primary and recurrent bladder cancer. NMP22 was affected by gross hematuria and thus has limitations for screening of bladder cancer. However, it can be used to follow-up bladder cancer.

AB - Purpose: We compared the efficacy of urine cytology, nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: Washing urine samples from 156 patients were evaluated for the detection of bladder cancer. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 was 106 patients with bladder cancer, group 2 was 30 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate without bladder cancer, and group 3 had gross hematuria without bladder cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH were compared. NMP22 positivity was defined as ≥10U/ml. FISH was done with the UroVysion® system and FISH positivity was defined as ≥2 abnormal urothelial cells with an abnormal signal from any out of 4 probes. Results: The overall sensitivity of urine cytology, NMP22, and FISH was 60.4%, 75.5%, and 84.9%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall specificity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH was 96.7%, 83.3%, and 93.3%, respectively (p=0.168). In group 3, the false-positive rates of cytology, NMP22, and FISH were 20.0%, 55.0%, and 10.0%, respectively. In these patients with gross hematuria, the false-positive rate with NMP22 was significantly higher than with cytology or FISH (p=0.004). The sensitivity of cytology, NMP22, and FISH in low-grade bladder cancer patients was 25.9%, 51.9%, and 77.8%, respectively, and that in pTa-1 bladder cancer patients was 40.6%, 65.6%, and 78.1%, respectively. In low-grade or in pTa-1 patients, the sensitivity of the three diagnostic tools was significantly different (low grade; p K 0.001, pTa-1; p < 0.001). Conclusions: FISH is more sensitive in low-grade bladder cancer than is urine cytology and can be used as a diagnostic tool for the detection of primary and recurrent bladder cancer. NMP22 was affected by gross hematuria and thus has limitations for screening of bladder cancer. However, it can be used to follow-up bladder cancer.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=59349118548&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=59349118548&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4111/kju.2009.50.1.6

DO - 10.4111/kju.2009.50.1.6

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:59349118548

VL - 50

SP - 6

EP - 11

JO - Korean Journal of Urology

JF - Korean Journal of Urology

SN - 2005-6737

IS - 1

ER -