Urine cytology suspicious for urothelial carcinoma: Prospective follow-up of cases using cytology and urine biomarker-based ancillary techniques.
bladder cancer
cytology
fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique
gene expression
patient monitoring
tumor biomarkers
urine
Journal
Cancer cytopathology
ISSN: 1934-6638
Titre abrégé: Cancer Cytopathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101499453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
received:
20
09
2019
revised:
13
01
2020
accepted:
16
01
2020
pubmed:
23
2
2020
medline:
24
11
2020
entrez:
22
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Urine cytology results that are suspicious for urothelial carcinoma (UC) are challenging. The objective of this study was to elucidate the clinical significance of such results in patients who have a negative cystoscopy. In this prospective study, 83 patients who had urine cytology that was suspicious of UC and a negative cystoscopy underwent a second cystoscopy and urine evaluation by cytology, UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay, FGFR3 (fibroblast growth factor receptor 3) and TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutations and an 8-gene expression classifier (GEC). Results from all techniques were compared with patients' clinical outcomes. The presence of tumor was identified in 41% of patients; of these, 82% had tumors identified at their second evaluation (76% high-grade [HG] tumors), and 18% had tumors identified at a later follow-up (50% were HG tumors). After The Paris System for Reporting urinary Cytology (TPS) reclassification, 53 cytology results still had an indeterminate diagnosis (13 were suspicious for HGUC, and 40 had atypical urothelial cells (AUCs)]. Complete results from second evaluations using urine cytology, cytology-TPS, FISH, and GEC were available for 6 cases that were suspicious for HGUC and 34 cases that had AUCs. The sensitivity of these techniques to detect HG tumors in cases that were suspicious for HGUC was 100%, except for cytology-TPS, for which the sensitivity was 50%. The sensitivity of cytology and cytology-TPS to detect HG tumors in cases with AUCs was 33%, whereas the sensitivity of fluorescence in situ hybridization and GEC in these cases was 83% and 75%, respectively, to detect HG tumors at the second evaluation. The current results indicate the relevant clinical significance of indeterminate urine cytology findings and strongly suggest the use of complementary evaluations by urine biomarker-based, ancillary techniques to elucidate their significance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Urine cytology results that are suspicious for urothelial carcinoma (UC) are challenging. The objective of this study was to elucidate the clinical significance of such results in patients who have a negative cystoscopy.
METHODS
In this prospective study, 83 patients who had urine cytology that was suspicious of UC and a negative cystoscopy underwent a second cystoscopy and urine evaluation by cytology, UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay, FGFR3 (fibroblast growth factor receptor 3) and TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutations and an 8-gene expression classifier (GEC). Results from all techniques were compared with patients' clinical outcomes.
RESULTS
The presence of tumor was identified in 41% of patients; of these, 82% had tumors identified at their second evaluation (76% high-grade [HG] tumors), and 18% had tumors identified at a later follow-up (50% were HG tumors). After The Paris System for Reporting urinary Cytology (TPS) reclassification, 53 cytology results still had an indeterminate diagnosis (13 were suspicious for HGUC, and 40 had atypical urothelial cells (AUCs)]. Complete results from second evaluations using urine cytology, cytology-TPS, FISH, and GEC were available for 6 cases that were suspicious for HGUC and 34 cases that had AUCs. The sensitivity of these techniques to detect HG tumors in cases that were suspicious for HGUC was 100%, except for cytology-TPS, for which the sensitivity was 50%. The sensitivity of cytology and cytology-TPS to detect HG tumors in cases with AUCs was 33%, whereas the sensitivity of fluorescence in situ hybridization and GEC in these cases was 83% and 75%, respectively, to detect HG tumors at the second evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
The current results indicate the relevant clinical significance of indeterminate urine cytology findings and strongly suggest the use of complementary evaluations by urine biomarker-based, ancillary techniques to elucidate their significance.
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
460-469Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Cancer Society.
Références
Babjuk M, Bohle A, Burger M, et al. EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol. 2017;71:447-461.
Smith ZL, Guzzo TJ. Urinary markers for bladder cancer. F1000Prime Rep. 2013;5:21.
Goh AC, Lerner SP. Application of new technology in bladder cancer diagnosis and treatment. World J Urol. 2009;27:301-307.
Hajdinjak T. UroVysion FISH test for detecting urothelial cancers: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and comparison with urinary cytology testing. Urol Oncol. 2008;26:646-651.
Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI, eds. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Springer International Publishing; 2016.
Bertsch EC, Siddiqui MT, Ellis CL. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology improves correlation with surgical pathology biopsy diagnoses of the lower urinary tract. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018;46:221-227.
Cowan ML, Rosenthal DL, VandenBussche CJ. Improved risk stratification for patients with high-grade urothelial carcinoma following application of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125:427-434.
Mowatt G, Zhu S, Kilonzo M, et al. 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. 2010;14:1-133, iii-iv.
Bell MD, Yafi FA, Brimo F, et al. Prognostic value of urinary cytology and other biomarkers for recurrence and progression in bladder cancer: a prospective study. World J Urol. 2016;34:1405-1409.
Yafi FA, Brimo F, Steinberg J, Aprikian AG, Tanguay S, Kassouf W. Prospective analysis of sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology and other urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:66-31.
Marin-Aguilera M, Mengual L, Ribal MJ, et al. Utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization as a non-invasive technique in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007;51:409-415.
Allory Y, Beukers W, Sagrera A, et al. Telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter mutations in bladder cancer: high frequency across stages, detection in urine, and lack of association with outcome. Eur Urol. 2014;65:360-366.
Hurst CD, Platt FM, Knowles MA. Comprehensive mutation analysis of the TERT promoter in bladder cancer and detection of mutations in voided urine. Eur Urol. 2014;65:367-369.
Zuiverloon TC, Tjin SS, Busstra M, Bangma CH, Boeve ER, Zwarthoff EC. Optimization of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer recurrence detection using a urine based FGFR3 mutation assay. J Urol. 2011;186:707-712.
Kavalieris L, O'Sullivan P, Frampton C, et al. Performance characteristics of a multigene urine biomarker test for monitoring for recurrent urothelial carcinoma in a multicenter study. J Urol. 2017;197:1419-1426.
Lotan Y, O'Sullivan P, Raman JD, et al. Clinical comparison of noninvasive urine tests for ruling out recurrent urothelial carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:531.
Pichler R, Fritz J, Tulchiner G, et al. Increased accuracy of a novel mRNA-based urine test for bladder cancer surveillance. BJU Int. 2018;121:29-37.
Mengual L, Burset M, Ribal MJ, et al. Gene expression signature in urine for diagnosing and assessing aggressiveness of bladder urothelial carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:2624-2633.
Mengual L, Ribal MJ, Lozano JJ, et al. Validation study of a noninvasive urine test for diagnosis and prognosis assessment of bladder cancer: evidence for improved models. J Urol. 2014;191:261-269.
Ribal MJ, Mengual L, Lozano JJ, et al. Gene expression test for the non-invasive diagnosis of bladder cancer: a prospective, blinded, international and multicenter validation study. Eur J Cancer. 2016;54:131-138.
Montalbo R, Lozano JJ, Izquierdo L, et al. Ability of a urine gene expression classifier to reduce the number of follow-up cystoscopies in bladder cancer patients. Transl Res. 2019;208:73-84.
Halling KC. Vysis UroVysion for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2003;3:507-519.
Kandimalla R, Masius R, Beukers W, et al. A 3-plex methylation assay combined with the FGFR3 mutation assay sensitively detects recurrent bladder cancer in voided urine. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:4760-4769.
Zuiverloon TC, van der Aa MN, van der Kwast TH, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 mutation analysis on voided urine for surveillance of patients with low-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:3011-3018.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2019. Accessed January 30, 2020. https://www.R-project.org/
Ritchie ME, Phipson B, Wu D, et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Research. 2015;43:e47.
Barkan GA, Wojcik EM, Nayar R, et al. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology: the quest to develop a standardized terminology. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2016;5:177-188.
Sataa S, Yassine N, Ghassen HH, et al. Contemporary management of stage T1 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Tunis Med. 2005;83(suppl 12):87-89.
Chang SS, Boorjian SA, Chou R, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: AUA/SUO guideline. J Urol. 2016;196:1021-1029.
Schlomer BJ, Ho R, Sagalowsky A, Ashfaq R, Lotan Y. Prospective validation of the clinical usefulness of reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in patients with atypical cytology for the detection of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol. 2010;183:62-67.
Kim PH, Sukhu R, Cordon BH, et al. Reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for suspicious urinary cytology in patients with bladder cancer with negative surveillance cystoscopy. BJU Int. 2014;114:354-359.
Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Vrbin CM, Geisinger KR. Urine cytology discrepancies: frequency, causes, and outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:946-953.
Brimo F, Vollmer RT, Case B, Aprikian A, Kassouf W, Auger M. Accuracy of urine cytology and the significance of an atypical category. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132:785-793.