The Journal of urology · 2002
A comparison of BTA stat, hemoglobin dipstick, telomerase and Vysis UroVysion assays for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Halling Kevin C, King Walter, Sokolova Irina A, Karnes R Jeffrey, Meyer Reid G, Powell Eric L, Sebo Thomas J, Cheville John C, Clayton Amy C, Krajnik Kelly L, Ebert Thomas A, Nelson Robert E, Burkhardt Haleh M, Ramakumar Sanjay, Stewart Christopher S, Pankratz Vernon S, Lieber Michael M, Blute Michael L, Zincke Horst, Seelig Steven A, Jenkins Robert B, O'Kane Dennis J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We determine the sensitivity and specificity of various assays for the detection of urothelial carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 280 voided urine specimens from 265 patients were obtained immediately before cystoscopy for BTA stat, (Bard Diagnostic, Redmond, Washington) hemoglobin dipstick, (Bayer, Elkhart, Indiana) telomerase and UroVysion (Vysis, a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois) analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 265 patients 75 had biopsy proven urothelial carcinoma, and the sensitivity of the assays was determined from these patients. From most sensitive to least sensitive, the overall sensitivity of UroVysion (73 cases), BTA stat (72), hemoglobin dipstick (73) and telomerase (70) was 81%, 78%, 74%, and 46%, respectively. Each of the first 3 tests was statistically significantly more sensitive than the telomerase assay (p <0.05). However, the differences in overall sensitivity of UroVysion, BTA stat and hemoglobin dipstick were not statistically significant. The specificity of the tests was calculated for 80 of the 265 patients in this study who had no history of urothelial carcinoma and negative cystoscopy findings despite common urological complaints. From most specific to least specific, the specificity of UroVysion, telomerase, BTA stat and hemoglobin dipstick was 96%, 91%, 74% and 51%, respectively. UroVysion and telomerase were statistically significantly (p <0.01) more specific than the BTA stat and hemoglobin dipstick assays, and all of the assays were more specific than hemoglobin dipstick testing (p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that UroVysion is the most sensitive and specific assay among those tested for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Telomerase testing had good specificity but poor sensitivity. The BTA stat and hemoglobin dipstick tests had good sensitivity but relatively poor specificity. UroVysion is a promising new assay for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine specimens. However, further studies are needed to explore the role of the various assays in the treatment of patients with superficial urothelial carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 280 voided urine specimens from 265 patients were obtained immediately before cystoscopy for BTA stat, (Bard Diagnostic, Redmond, Washington) hemoglobin dipstick, (Bayer, Elkhart, Indiana) telomerase and UroVysion (Vysis, a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois) analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 265 patients 75 had biopsy proven urothelial carcinoma, and the sensitivity of the assays was determined from these patients. From most sensitive to least sensitive, the overall sensitivity of UroVysion (73 cases), BTA stat (72), hemoglobin dipstick (73) and telomerase (70) was 81%, 78%, 74%, and 46%, respectively. Each of the first 3 tests was statistically significantly more sensitive than the telomerase assay (p <0.05). However, the differences in overall sensitivity of UroVysion, BTA stat and hemoglobin dipstick were not statistically significant. The specificity of the tests was calculated for 80 of the 265 patients in this study who had no history of urothelial carcinoma and negative cystoscopy findings despite common urological complaints. From most specific to least specific, the specificity of UroVysion, telomerase, BTA stat and hemoglobin dipstick was 96%, 91%, 74% and 51%, respectively. UroVysion and telomerase were statistically significantly (p <0.01) more specific than the BTA stat and hemoglobin dipstick assays, and all of the assays were more specific than hemoglobin dipstick testing (p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that UroVysion is the most sensitive and specific assay among those tested for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Telomerase testing had good specificity but poor sensitivity. The BTA stat and hemoglobin dipstick tests had good sensitivity but relatively poor specificity. UroVysion is a promising new assay for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine specimens. However, further studies are needed to explore the role of the various assays in the treatment of patients with superficial urothelial carcinoma.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorBiopsyCarcinoma, Transitional CellCystoscopyFemaleHemoglobinometryHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsReagent StripsSensitivity and SpecificityTelomeraseUrinary BladderUrinary Bladder Neoplasms