Does urinary cytology have a role in haematuria investigations?
Aged
Carcinoma, Transitional Cell
/ complications
False Negative Reactions
False Positive Reactions
Female
Hematuria
/ etiology
Humans
Kidney Neoplasms
/ complications
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Grading
Neoplasm Staging
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Ultrasonography
Ureteral Neoplasms
/ complications
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
/ complications
Urine
/ cytology
Urography
#BladderCancer
#blcsm
#utuc
biomarker
cytology
diagnosis
haematuria
investigations
urine
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
14
7
2018
medline:
21
8
2019
entrez:
14
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of urinary cytology to diagnose bladder cancer and upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) as well as the outcome of patients with a positive urine cytology and normal haematuria investigations in patients in a multicentre prospective observational study of patients investigated for haematuria. The DETECT I study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02676180) recruited patients presenting with haematuria following referral to secondary case at 40 hospitals. All patients had a cystoscopy and upper tract imaging (renal bladder ultrasound [RBUS] and/ or CT urogram [CTU]). Patients, where urine cytology were performed, were sub-analysed. The reference standard for the diagnosis of bladder cancer and UTUC was histological confirmation of cancer. A positive urine cytology was defined as a urine cytology suspicious for neoplastic cells or atypical cells. Of the 3 556 patients recruited, urine cytology was performed in 567 (15.9%) patients from nine hospitals. Median time between positive urine cytology and endoscopic tumour resection was 27 (IQR: 21.3-33.8) days. Bladder cancer was diagnosed in 39 (6.9%) patients and UTUC in 8 (1.4%) patients. The accuracy of urinary cytology for the diagnosis of bladder cancer and UTUC was: sensitivity 43.5%, specificity 95.7%, positive predictive value (PPV) 47.6% and negative predictive value (NPV) 94.9%. A total of 21 bladder cancers and 5 UTUC were missed. Bladder cancers missed according to grade and stage were as follows: 4 (19%) were ≥ pT2, 2 (9.5%) were G3 pT1, 10 (47.6%) were G3/2 pTa and 5 (23.8%) were G1 pTa. High-risk cancer was confirmed in 8 (38%) patients. There was a marginal improvement in sensitivity (57.7%) for high-risk cancers. When urine cytology was combined with imaging, the diagnostic performance improved with CTU (sensitivity 90.2%, specificity 94.9%) superior to RBUS (sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 96.7%). False positive cytology results were confirmed in 22 patients, of which 12 (54.5%) had further invasive tests and 5 (22.7%) had a repeat cytology. No cancer was identified in these patients during follow-up. Urine cytology will miss a significant number of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and high-risk disease. Our results suggest that urine cytology should not be routinely performed as part of haematuria investigations. The role of urine cytology in select cases should be considered in the context of the impact of a false positive result leading to further potentially invasive tests conducted under general anaesthesia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30003675
doi: 10.1111/bju.14459
pmc: PMC6334509
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02676180']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
74-81Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M025411/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Investigateurs
A N Sridhar
(AN)
B W Lamb
(BW)
F Ocampo
(F)
H McBain
(H)
K Baillie
(K)
K Middleton
(K)
H Knight
(H)
S Maher
(S)
B Pathmanathan
(B)
A Harmathova
(A)
S Pelluri
(S)
J Pati
(J)
A Cossons
(A)
C Scott
(C)
S Madaan
(S)
S Bradfield
(S)
N Wakeford
(N)
None Dann
J Cook
(J)
M Cornwell
(M)
R Mills
(R)
None Thomas
S Reyner
(S)
G Vallejera
(G)
P Adeniran
(P)
S Masood
(S)
N Whotton
(N)
K Dent
(K)
S Pearson
(S)
J Hatton
(J)
M Newton
(M)
E Hheeney
(E)
K Green
(K)
S Evans
(S)
M Rogers
(M)
K Gupwell
(K)
S Ley
(S)
A Brown
(A)
J McGrath
(J)
N Lunt
(N)
P Hill
(P)
A Inclair
(A)
A Paredes-Guerra
(A)
B Holbrook
(B)
E Ong
(E)
H Wardle
(H)
D Wilson
(D)
A Bayles
(A)
R Fennelly
(R)
M Tribbeck
(M)
K Ames
(K)
J A Taylor
(JA)
E Edmunds
(E)
J Moore
(J)
S Mckinley
(S)
T Nolan
(T)
A Peed
(A)
A Tunnicliff
(A)
G Fossey
(G)
A Williams
(A)
M George
(M)
I Hutchins
(I)
R Einosas
(R)
A Richards
(A)
A Henderson
(A)
B Appleby
(B)
L Kehoe
(L)
L Gladwell
(L)
S Drakeley
(S)
J A Davies
(JA)
R Krishnan
(R)
H Roberts
(H)
C Main
(C)
S Jain
(S)
J Dumville
(J)
N Wilkinson
(N)
J Taylor
(J)
F Thomas
(F)
K Goulden
(K)
C Vinod
(C)
E Green
(E)
C Waymont
(C)
J Rogers
(J)
A Grant
(A)
V Carter
(V)
H Heap
(H)
C Lomas
(C)
P Cooke
(P)
L Scarratt
(L)
T Hodgkiss
(T)
D Johnstone
(D)
J Johnson
(J)
J Allsop
(J)
J Rothwell
(J)
K Connolly
(K)
J Cherian
(J)
S Ridgway
(S)
M Coulding
(M)
H Savill
(H)
J Mccormick
(J)
M Clark
(M)
G Collins
(G)
K Jewers
(K)
S Keith
(S)
G Bowen
(G)
J Hargreaves
(J)
K Riley
(K)
A Rees
(A)
S Williams
(S)
S Dukes
(S)
A Goffe
(A)
R Mistry
(R)
J Chadwick
(J)
S Cocks
(S)
R Hull
(R)
A Oftus
(A)
Y Baird
(Y)
S Moore
(S)
S Greenslade
(S)
J Margalef
(J)
I Chadbourn
(I)
M Harris
(M)
P Clitheroe
(P)
S Connolly
(S)
S Hodgkinson
(S)
H Haydock
(H)
E Storr
(E)
L Cogley
(L)
S Natale
(S)
W Lovegrove
(W)
K Slack
(K)
D Nash
(D)
K Smith
(K)
J Walsh
(J)
A M Guerdette
(AM)
M Hill
(M)
B Taylor
(B)
E Sinclair
(E)
M Perry
(M)
M Debbarma
(M)
D Hewitt
(D)
R Sriram
(R)
A Power
(A)
J Cannon
(J)
L Devereaux
(L)
A Thompson
(A)
K Atkinson
(K)
L Royle
(L)
J Madine
(J)
K MacLean
(K)
Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.
Références
J Urol. 2012 Dec;188(6 Suppl):2473-81
pubmed: 23098784
J Urol. 2018 Nov;200(5):973-980
pubmed: 29702097
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2022 Mar-Apr;11(2):62-66
pubmed: 35094954
BMJ. 2009 Jan 16;338:a3021
pubmed: 19151065
Can Urol Assoc J. 2008 Jun;2(3):212-21
pubmed: 18682775
Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 Jan;121(1):9-14
pubmed: 23192885
Cancer Treat Rev. 2016 Jun;47:22-31
pubmed: 27231966
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jan;14(4):1-331, iii-iv
pubmed: 20082749
J Urol. 2004 Jan;171(1):324-6
pubmed: 14665906
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Oct;15(10):1240-1267
pubmed: 28982750
Urology. 2003 Jan;61(1):109-18; discussion 118
pubmed: 12559279
Eur Urol. 2002 Mar;41(3):284-9
pubmed: 12180229
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jun;198(6):1256-65
pubmed: 22623537
Cancer Treat Rev. 2018 Sep;69:39-52
pubmed: 29902678
Eur Urol. 2017 Mar;71(3):447-461
pubmed: 27324428
Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 Jul;121(7):387-91
pubmed: 23536358
Eur Urol. 2018 Jul;74(1):10-14
pubmed: 29653885
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1021-9
pubmed: 27317986
Acta Cytol. 1985 Sep-Oct;29(5):810-6
pubmed: 3863429
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;24(6):1747-1753
pubmed: 28074325
BJU Int. 2012 Jul;110(1):84-94
pubmed: 22122739
Cancer. 1999 Jun 25;87(3):118-28
pubmed: 10385442
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005 Apr;31(3):304-8
pubmed: 15780568
Clin Exp Nephrol. 2014 Oct;18(5):679-89
pubmed: 25135634
Can Urol Assoc J. 2009 Feb;3(1):77-80
pubmed: 19293985
Science. 1945 May 18;101(2629):519-20
pubmed: 17775845
BMC Cancer. 2017 Nov 15;17(1):767
pubmed: 29141603
Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):106-119
pubmed: 26996659
Am J Clin Pathol. 2009 Nov;132(5):785-93
pubmed: 19846822
J Urol. 2013 Apr;189(4):1255-8
pubmed: 23079371
BJU Int. 2017 Dec;120(6):755-765
pubmed: 29168333