Diagnostic value of Xpert® BC Detection, Bladder Epicheck®, Urovysion® FISH and cytology in the detection of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma.
Upper urinary tract
Urinary cytology
Urinary markers
Urothelial carcinoma
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
received:
15
11
2022
accepted:
26
02
2023
medline:
18
5
2023
pubmed:
18
3
2023
entrez:
17
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Following the current guidelines, diagnosis and staging for upper urinary tract tumours (UTUC) can be performed with Computed Tomography, urography, ureterorenoscopy (URS) and selective cytology. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the Xpert®-BC-Detection and the Bladder-Epicheck®-test in the detection of UTUC and compare it with cytology and the Urovysion®-FISH test using histology and URS as gold standard. A total of 97 analyses were collected through selective catheterization of the ureter before URS to test for cytology, Xpert®-BC-Detection, Bladder-Epicheck® and Urovysion®-FISH. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated using histology results/URS as reference. Overall sensitivity was 100% for Xpert®-BC-Detection, 41.9% for cytology, 64.5% for Bladder-Epicheck® and 87.1% for Urovysion®-FISH. The sensitivity of Xpert®-BC-Detection was 100% in both, LG and HG tumours, sensitivity of cytology increased from 30.8% in LG to 100% in HG, for Bladder-Epicheck® from 57.7% in LG to 100% in HG and of Urovysion®-FISH from 84.6% in LG to 100% in HG tumours. Specificity was 4.5% for Xpert®-BC-Detection, 93.9% for cytology, 78.8% for Bladder-Epicheck® and 81.8% for Urovysion®-FISH. PPV was 33% for Xpert®-BC-Detection, 76.5% for cytology, 58.8% for Bladder-Epicheck® and 69.2% for Urovysion®FISH. NPV was 100% for Xpert®-BC-Detection, 77.5% for cytology, 82.5% for Bladder-Epicheck® and 93.1% for Urovysion®FISH. Bladder-Epicheck® and Urovysion®FISH along with cytology could be a helpful ancillary method in the diagnosis and follow-up of UTUC while due to its low specificity Xpert®-BC Detection seems to be of limited usefulness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36929411
doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04350-x
pii: 10.1007/s00345-023-04350-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1323-1328Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Burger M et al (2022) EAU Guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. In: EAU Guidelines. Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam. ISBN: 978–94–92671–16–5
Schoenthaler M, Buchholz N, Farin E et al (2014) The Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS): a multicentric video-based evaluation of inter-rater reliability. World J Urol 32(4):1033–1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1185-1
doi: 10.1007/s00345-013-1185-1
pubmed: 24135917
Smith AK, Stephenson AJ, Lane BR et al (2011) Inadequacy of biopsy for diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: implication for conservative management. Urology 78:82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.02.038
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.02.038
pubmed: 21550642
D’Elia C, Trenti E, Krause PH, Pycha A, Mian C, Schwienbacher C et al (2022) Xpert bladder cancer detection as a diagnostic tool in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: preliminary results. Ther Adv Urol 14:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872221090320
doi: 10.1177/17562872221090320
Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI (eds) (2016) The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Springer International Publishing
Mian C, Mazzoleni G, Vikoler S et al (2010) Fluorescence in situ hybridisation in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract tumours. Eur Urol 58(2):288–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.026
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.026
pubmed: 20471154
Sassa N, Iwata H, Kato M, Murase Y, Nishikimi T, Hattori R et al (2019) Diagnostic utility of Urovysion combined with conventional cytology for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Am J Clin Pathol 151:469–478. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqy170
doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqy170
pubmed: 30668617
Alaami AH, Aalami F (2022) Diagnostic performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Oncol 27(19):1605–1615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-022-02216-7
doi: 10.1007/s10147-022-02216-7
Pierconti F, Martini M, Fiorentino V, Cenci T, Racioppi M, Foschi N et al (2021) Upper urothelial tract high-grade carcinoma:comparison of urine cytology and DNA methylation analysis in urinary samples. Hum Pathol 118:42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2021.09.007
doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2021.09.007
pubmed: 34582934
Territo A, Gallioli A, Diana P, Boissier R, Fontana M, Gaya JM et al (2022) DNA methylation urine biomarker test in diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: results from a single-center prospective clinical trial. J Urol 208:569–579. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002748
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002748
Messer J, Shariat SF, Brien JC et al (2011) Urinary cytology has a poor performance for predicting invasive or high-grade upper-tract urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int 108(5):701–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09899.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09899.x
pubmed: 21320275
Malm C, Grahn A, Jaremko G, Tribukait B, Brehmer M (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: how samples are collected matters. Scand J Urol 51(2):137–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1295102
doi: 10.1080/21681805.2017.1295102
pubmed: 28385123