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
  • [41] The utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in residual urine cytology specimens with an equivocal diagnosis
    Kipp, B. R.
    Campion, M. B.
    Zieman, A. H.
    Plagge, A. M.
    Wendel, A. J.
    Hang, J.
    Sebo, T. J.
    Halling, K. C.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2007, 87 : 73A - 73A
  • [42] Comparison of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization, NMP22 BladderChek, and Urinary Liquid-Based Cytology in the Detection of Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma
    Li, Hong-xia
    Wang, Ming-rong
    Zhao, Huan
    Cao, Jian
    Li, Chang-ling
    Pan, Qin-Jing
    DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY, 2013, 41 (10) : 852 - 857
  • [43] 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)
  • [44] Plasmacytoid Urothelial Carcinoma-Diagnostic Challenge in Cytology
    Molek, Koraljka Rajkovic
    Seili-Bekafigo, Irena
    Stemberger, Christophe
    Jonjic, Nives
    Dordevic, Gordana
    Duletic-Nacinovic, Antica
    DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY, 2013, 41 (04) : 369 - 373
  • [46] COMPARISON OF SELECTIVE UPPER TRACT FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION (FISH) TESTING COMPARED TO BLADDER URINE FISH IN THE EVALUATION OF UPPER TRACT UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA (UTTCC)
    Johannes, J. R.
    Bibbo, M.
    Bajaj, R.
    Bagley, D.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2010, 24 : A321 - A321
  • [47] A comparison of extension cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures
    Rojas-Pedraza, Omar
    HernaNdez-Guerrero, Angelica I.
    Alonso-Larraga, Juan Octavio
    Sobrino-Cossio, Sergio R.
    Del Rio, Margarita Ibarra
    ValdeZ-Mendieta, Hortencia-Yanet
    Cruz-VelaZquez, Judith
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2008, 67 (05) : AB168 - AB168
  • [48] Re: Cost-Effectiveness of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Patients with Atypical Cytology for the Detection of Urothelial Carcinoma Reply
    Gayed, B. A.
    Seideman, C.
    Lotan, Y.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 191 (05): : 1472 - 1473
  • [49] Applications of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) in environmental microbiology
    Souza, Joao V. B.
    Junior, Roberto Moreira Da Silva
    Koshikene, Daniela
    Silva, Erica S.
    JOURNAL OF FOOD AGRICULTURE & ENVIRONMENT, 2007, 5 (3-4): : 408 - 411
  • [50] The value of urinary cytology in the diagnostic of high grade urothelial tumors
    Niedworok, C.
    Rembrink, V.
    Hakenberg, O. W.
    Boergermann, C.
    Rossi, R.
    Schneider, T.
    Becker, M.
    Szarvas, T.
    von Ostau, C.
    Swoboda, A.
    Ruebben, H.
    vom Dorp, F.
    UROLOGE, 2009, 48 (09): : 1018 - +