PMID- 11025767
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20001121
LR  - 20191210
IS  - 0022-5347 (Print)
IS  - 0022-5347 (Linking)
VI  - 164
IP  - 5
DP  - 2000 Nov
TI  - A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection 
      of urothelial carcinoma.
PG  - 1768-75
AB  - PURPOSE: We determine the relative sensitivities of cytology and fluorescence in 
      situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS 
      AND METHODS: A mixture of fluorescent labeled probes to the centromeres of 
      chromosomes 3, 7 and 17, and band 9p21 (P16/CDKN2A gene) was used to assess 
      urinary cells for chromosomal abnormalities indicative of malignancy. A total of 
      280 urine specimens from 265 patients, including 150 with a history of urothelial 
      carcinoma and 115 without a history of urothelial carcinoma, were analyzed. FISH 
      analysis was performed without prior knowledge of clinical findings, that is 
      biopsy, cystoscopy and cytology results. A positive result was defined as 5 or 
      more urinary cells with gains of 2 or more chromosomes. RESULTS: A total of 75 
      biopsies showed urothelial carcinoma at FISH analysis among the 265 patients. The 
      sensitivity of urine cytology for pTa (36 cases), pTis (18) and pT1-pT4 (15) 
      tumors was 47%, 78% and 60%, respectively, for an overall sensitivity of 58%. The 
      sensitivity of FISH for pTa (37 cases), pTis (17) and pT1-pT4 (19) tumors was 
      65%, 100% and 95%, respectively, for an overall sensitivity of 81%. FISH was 
      significantly more sensitive than cytology for pTis (p = 0.046), pT1-pT4 (p = 
      0.025), grade 3 (p = 0.003) and all tumors (p = 0.001). The specificity of 
      cytology and FISH among patients without cystoscopic evidence of urothelial 
      carcinoma and no history of urothelial carcinoma was 98% and 96%, respectively (p 
      = 0.564). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of FISH for the detection of urothelial 
      carcinoma is superior to that of cytology, and the specificity of FISH and 
      cytology for urothelial carcinoma are not significantly different. Further 
      prospective studies are required but FISH has the potential to improve 
      significantly the management of urothelial carcinoma.
FAU - Halling, K C
AU  - Halling KC
AD  - Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Urology, and Biostatistics, 
      Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
FAU - King, W
AU  - King W
FAU - Sokolova, I A
AU  - Sokolova IA
FAU - Meyer, R G
AU  - Meyer RG
FAU - Burkhardt, H M
AU  - Burkhardt HM
FAU - Halling, A C
AU  - Halling AC
FAU - Cheville, J C
AU  - Cheville JC
FAU - Sebo, T J
AU  - Sebo TJ
FAU - Ramakumar, S
AU  - Ramakumar S
FAU - Stewart, C S
AU  - Stewart CS
FAU - Pankratz, S
AU  - Pankratz S
FAU - O'Kane, D J
AU  - O'Kane DJ
FAU - Seelig, S A
AU  - Seelig SA
FAU - Lieber, M M
AU  - Lieber MM
FAU - Jenkins, R B
AU  - Jenkins RB
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Evaluation Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PL  - United States
TA  - J Urol
JT  - The Journal of urology
JID - 0376374
SB  - IM
MH  - Centromere
MH  - Disease Progression
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - *In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence
MH  - Male
MH  - Sensitivity and Specificity
MH  - Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/diagnosis
MH  - Urine/cytology
MH  - Urologic Neoplasms/*diagnosis
EDAT- 2000/10/12 11:00
MHDA- 2001/02/28 10:01
CRDT- 2000/10/12 11:00
PHST- 2000/10/12 11:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2001/02/28 10:01 [medline]
PHST- 2000/10/12 11:00 [entrez]
AID - S0022-5347(05)67104-2 [pii]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Urol. 2000 Nov;164(5):1768-75.