UroVysion FISH test for detecting urothelial cancers: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and comparison with urinary cytology testing

被引:216
作者
Hajdinjak, Tine [1 ]
机构
[1] Maribor Teaching Hosp, Dept Urol, Maribor, Slovenia
关键词
Bladder neoplasms; in Situ hybridization; Fluorescence; Urine; Sensitivity; Specificity; Cytodiagnosis;
D O I
10.1016/j.urolonc.2007.06.002
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 [肿瘤学];
摘要
Objectives: Since the introduction of the UroVysion test for detecting urothelial cancers in urine, its reported performance has varied. This article systematically analyzed reported results. Methods: Articles in English conforming to the Oxford EBM criteria were included, with the evaluation focused oil cancers that were histologically confirmed at the time of testing rather than oil any cancers that might develop later. Where applicable, samples with no cells were reclassified as negative so as to further improve the actual estimation of test performance. Where available, cytology data were also analyzed. Meta-DiSc software was used for the statistical analyses. Results: We identified 14 studies involving 2477 FISH tests. The overall prevalence Of urothelial cancers was 35%. The pooledsensitivity and specificity of all studies were 72% (69%-75%) and 83% (82%-85%), respectively. Cytology data were available from 12 Studies. with the overall sensitivity and specificity being 42% (38%-45%) and 96% (95%-97%). Excluding Ta tumors. the sensitivity was 86% (82%-89%) for UroVysion and 61% (56%-66%) for cytology. The overall performance was higher for UroVysion than for cytology: diagnostic odds ratio, 16.8 and 14.1; AUC, 0.867 (SE 0.021) and 0.626 (SE 0.091). These differences in overall test performance measures almost disappeared when superficial cancer cases were excluded from the analysis. Conclusions: The Published trials Suggest that for a general mix of cases. cytology results are highly specific. However, a negative cytology result does not meaningfully change the post-test probability of the presence of urothelial cancer. UroVysion FISH test results should not be considered to provide conclusive evidence for the presence or absence of urothelial cancer, but both positive and negative results do moderately influence the post-test probability of disease. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:646 / 651
页数:6
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]
Bubendorf L, 2001, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V116, P79
[2]
Application of multiplex FISH, CGH and MSSCP techniques for cytogenetic and molecular analysis of transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) cells in voided urine specimens [J].
Constantinou, Maria ;
Binka-Kowalska, Aleksandra ;
Borkowska, Edyta ;
Zajac, Ewa ;
Jalmuzna, Pawel ;
Matych, Jozef ;
Nawrocka, Agnieszka ;
Kaluzewski, Bogdan .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED GENETICS, 2006, 47 (03) :273-275
[3]
DNA image cytometry and fluorescence in situ hybridization for noninvasive detection of urothelial tumors in voided urine [J].
Dalquen, P ;
Kleiber, B ;
Grilli, B ;
Herzog, M ;
Bubendorf, L ;
Oberholzer, M .
CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, 2002, 96 (06) :374-379
[4]
Statistics notes - Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios [J].
Deeks, JJ ;
Altman, DG .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2004, 329 (7458) :168-169
[5]
Fluorescence in situ hybridization performed on exfoliated urothelial cells in patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder [J].
Degtyar, P ;
Neulander, E ;
Zirkin, H ;
Yusim, I ;
Douvdevani, A ;
Mermershtain, W ;
Kaneti, J ;
Manor, E .
UROLOGY, 2004, 63 (02) :398-401
[6]
Comparison of multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization in urine with other noninvasive tests for detecting bladder cancer [J].
Friedrich, MG ;
Toma, MI ;
Hellstern, A ;
Pantel, K ;
Weisenberger, DJ ;
Noldus, J ;
Huland, H .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2003, 92 (09) :911-914
[7]
Re:: Mecedes!Marin-Aguilera, Lourdes!Mengual, Maria Jose!Ribal 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;51:409-15 and Alan M.!Nieder, Mark S.!Soloway and Harry W.!Herr.: Should we abandon the FISH test?: Eur Urol 2007;51:1469-71 [J].
Hajdinjak, Tine ;
Kokalj-Vokac, Nadja .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2007, 52 (01) :288-289
[8]
A comparison of BTA stat, hemoglobin dipstick, telomerase and vysis urovysion assays for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine [J].
Halling, KC ;
King, W ;
Sokolova, IA ;
Karnes, RJ ;
Meyer, RG ;
Powell, EL ;
Sebo, TJ ;
Cheville, JC ;
Clayton, AC ;
Krajnik, KL ;
Ebert, TA ;
Nelson, RE ;
Burkhardt, HM ;
Ramakumar, S ;
Stewart, CS ;
Pankratz, VS ;
Lieber, MM ;
Blute, ML ;
Zincke, H ;
Seelig, SA ;
Jenkins, RB ;
O'Kane, DJ .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 167 (05) :2001-2006
[9]
A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma [J].
Halling, KC ;
King, W ;
Sokolova, IA ;
Meyer, RG ;
Burkhardt, HM ;
Halling, AC ;
Cheville, JC ;
Sebo, TJ ;
Ramakumar, S ;
Stewart, CS ;
Pankratz, S ;
O'Kane, DJ ;
Seelig, SA ;
Lieber, MM ;
Jenkins, RB .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 164 (05) :1768-1775
[10]
USERS GUIDES TO THE MEDICAL LITERATURE .3. HOW TO USE AN ARTICLE ABOUT A DIAGNOSTIC-TEST .B. WHAT ARE THE RESULTS AND WILL THEY HELP ME IN CARING FOR MY PATIENTS [J].
JAESCHKE, R ;
GUYATT, GH ;
SACKETT, DL ;
GUYATT, G ;
BASS, E ;
BRILLEDWARDS, P ;
BROWMAN, G ;
COOK, D ;
FARKOUH, M ;
GERSTEIN, H ;
HAYNES, B ;
HAYWARD, R ;
HOLBROOK, A ;
JUNIPER, E ;
LEE, H ;
LEVINE, M ;
MOYER, V ;
NISHIKAWA, J ;
OXMAN, A ;
PATEL, A ;
PHILBRICK, J ;
RICHARDSON, WS ;
SAUVE, S ;
SACKETT, D ;
SINCLAIR, J ;
TROUT, KS ;
TUGWELL, P ;
TUNIS, S ;
WALTER, S ;
WILSON, M .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 271 (09) :703-707