PMID- 24604675
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20140812
LR  - 20150910
IS  - 1934-6638 (Electronic)
IS  - 1934-662X (Linking)
VI  - 122
IP  - 6
DP  - 2014 Jun
TI  - Comparison of urine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization in upper 
      urothelial tract samples.
PG  - 459-67
LID - 10.1002/cncy.21414 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: The cytologic diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma (UC) of the upper 
      urothelial tract (UT) is challenging. Using the UroVysion probe set adds 
      diagnostic value for the detection of bladder cancer in voided urine. In 
      instrumented UT specimens, the authors encountered positive UT cytology and 
      fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) cases that did not demonstrate 
      subsequent UT carcinoma. METHODS: The performance of cytology and FISH in the 
      presence or absence of concomitant bladder cancer within 2 years was compared in 
      61 patients (112 samples) from 2003 through 2009. The mean follow-up was 3.2 
      years. The authors also compared the performance of near-tetrasomy versus 
      hypertetrasomy. Biopsy confirmation of UTUC in 21 patients was considered the 
      gold standard. RESULTS: Cytology alone was found to be poorly sensitive (38%) but 
      highly specific (89%) for the detection of UTUC. FISH was found to increase the 
      sensitivity of cytology and decrease specificity. Tetrasomy FISH resulted in many 
      false-positive cases. Other false-positive FISH results were likely due to the 
      presence of bladder cancer cells contaminating the UT specimen. CONCLUSIONS: 
      Caution should be used when evaluating instrumented urine specimens of the UT 
      from patients with a previous history of bladder carcinoma, and tetrasomy FISH 
      results should not be interpreted as abnormal because it significantly lowers the 
      specificity of the test. The combination of cytology and FISH appears to have 
      good specificity while maintaining good sensitivity in evaluating UTUC when using 
      modified scoring criteria for the appropriate patient population.
CI  - (c) 2014 American Cancer Society.
FAU - Reynolds, Jordan P
AU  - Reynolds JP
AD  - Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
FAU - Voss, Jesse S
AU  - Voss JS
FAU - Kipp, Benjamin R
AU  - Kipp BR
FAU - Karnes, R Jeffrey
AU  - Karnes RJ
FAU - Nassar, Aziza
AU  - Nassar A
FAU - Clayton, Amy C
AU  - Clayton AC
FAU - Henry, Michael R
AU  - Henry MR
FAU - Sebo, Thomas J
AU  - Sebo TJ
FAU - Zhang, Jun
AU  - Zhang J
FAU - Halling, Kevin C
AU  - Halling KC
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20140306
PL  - United States
TA  - Cancer Cytopathol
JT  - Cancer cytopathology
JID - 101499453
SB  - IM
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Aged, 80 and over
MH  - Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/*diagnosis/genetics/urine
MH  - *Chromosome Aberrations
MH  - *Cytodiagnosis
MH  - Female
MH  - Follow-Up Studies
MH  - Humans
MH  - In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence/*methods
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Prognosis
MH  - Ureteral Neoplasms/*diagnosis/genetics/urine
MH  - Urine/*cytology
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - UroVysion
OT  - renal pelvis
OT  - ureter
OT  - ureteral washings
OT  - ureteroscopy
EDAT- 2014/03/08 06:00
MHDA- 2014/08/13 06:00
CRDT- 2014/03/08 06:00
PHST- 2013/10/23 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2014/01/21 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2014/01/30 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2014/03/08 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2014/03/08 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2014/08/13 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1002/cncy.21414 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Cancer Cytopathol. 2014 Jun;122(6):459-67. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21414. Epub 2014 Mar 
      6.