Urologia · 2023
What is the role of CellDetect® in detecting and monitoring bladder cancer?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Yüksel Ömer, Tosun Çağatay, Gümrükçü Gülistan, Tokuç Emre, Yücebaş Ömer Ergin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Cystoscopy is the gold standard method for diagnosing and monitoring bladder cancer but it is costly, invasive, and operator-dependant. The aim is to compare the diagnostic efficacy of CellDetect® with urine cytology based on cystoscopic findings.
METHODS: A total of 181 patients undergoing cystoscopy for bladder cancer follow-up or any reason were studied with cytology and CellDetect® by taking an urine sample before cystoscopy. Patients who had any kind of bladder procedure in less than 1 month, doubtful cystoscopy results, previous pathology of Tis or carcinoma in situ (CIS), urinary stones, and patients with urinary catheters or bladder diversions were excluded. Cytologic and CellDetect® results were compared based on cystoscopic findings and sensitivity and specifity analyses were done for each method.
RESULTS: For low-grade tumors, the sensitivity of CellDetect® was 66.7% and the sensitivity of cytology was 16.7% with a significant difference (p < 0.05). For high-grade tumors, there were no significant difference between CellDetect® and cytology. Generally, CellDetect® had better sensitivity in both case and control groups.
CONCLUSION: The promising results of CellDetect® particularly in low-grade tumors gives the potential for this novel stain to go widespread. Larger series, meta-analyses, and reviews need to support this topic in order to put CellDetect® into daily practice.
METHODS: A total of 181 patients undergoing cystoscopy for bladder cancer follow-up or any reason were studied with cytology and CellDetect® by taking an urine sample before cystoscopy. Patients who had any kind of bladder procedure in less than 1 month, doubtful cystoscopy results, previous pathology of Tis or carcinoma in situ (CIS), urinary stones, and patients with urinary catheters or bladder diversions were excluded. Cytologic and CellDetect® results were compared based on cystoscopic findings and sensitivity and specifity analyses were done for each method.
RESULTS: For low-grade tumors, the sensitivity of CellDetect® was 66.7% and the sensitivity of cytology was 16.7% with a significant difference (p < 0.05). For high-grade tumors, there were no significant difference between CellDetect® and cytology. Generally, CellDetect® had better sensitivity in both case and control groups.
CONCLUSION: The promising results of CellDetect® particularly in low-grade tumors gives the potential for this novel stain to go widespread. Larger series, meta-analyses, and reviews need to support this topic in order to put CellDetect® into daily practice.