The current status of molecular biomarkers in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder

Kerr, Preston; Freedland, Stephen J.; Williams, Stephen B.

doi:10.1080/14737159.2019.1665509

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some noninvasive examinations have been applied to UC detection and screening, the recurrence of UC such as urine cytology and biomarkers, still show low sensitivity to UC diagnosis [ 21 , 22 ]. Therefore, novel examination and diagnosis innovations are needed for patients with UC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic value comparison of CellDetect, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and cytology in urothelial carcinoma

Shang

Liu

et al. 2021

Cancer Cell Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a novel CellDetect staining technique, compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and urine cytology, in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Methods A total of 264 patients with suspicious UC were enrolled in this study. All tissue specimens were collected by biopsy or surgery. Urine specimen was obtained for examinations prior to the surgical procedure. CellDetect staining was carried out with CellDetect kit, and FISH was performed with UroVysion detection kit, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For urine cytology, all specimens were centrifuged using the cytospin method, and the slides were stained by standard Papanicolaou stain. Results In this study, there were 128 cases of UC and 136 cases of non-UC, with no significant difference in gender and age between the two groups. Results for sensitivity of CellDetect, FISH, and urine cytology were 82.8%, 83.6%, and 39.8%, respectively. The specificity of the three techniques were 88.2%, 90.4%, and 86.0%, respectively. The sensitivity of CellDetect and FISH are significantly superior compared to the conventional urine cytology; however, there was no significant difference in specificity among three staining techniques. In addition, the sensitivity of CellDetect in lower urinary tract UC, upper urinary tract UC, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) were 83.3%, 81.8%, 83.5%, and 72.0%, respectively. The screening ability of CellDetect has no correlation with tumor location and the tumor stage. The sensitivity of CellDetect in low-grade UC and high-grade UC were 51.6 and 92.8%. Thus, screening ability of CellDetect in high-grade UC is significantly superior compared to that in low-grade UC. Conclusions CellDetect and FISH show equal value in diagnosing UC, both are superior to conventional urine cytology. Compared to FISH, CellDetect is cost effective, easy to operate, with extensive clinical application value to monitor recurrence of UC, and to screen indetectable UC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic value comparison of CellDetect, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and cytology in urothelial carcinoma

Shang

Liu

et al. 2021

Cancer Cell Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although some noninvasive examinations have been applied to UC detection and screening the recurrence of UC, such as urine cytology and biomarkers, many studies still show low sensitivity of UC diagnosis [21,22]. Therefore, novel examination and diagnosis innovations are needed for patients with UC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Value Comparison of CellDetect, Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) and Cytology in Urothelial Carcinoma

Shang¹,

Liu

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To evaluate clinical effectiveness of a novel CellDetect method, when compared with Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH), and urine cytology, in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Methods A total of 264 patients with suspicious UC were enrolled in this study, all tissue specimens were collected by biopsy or surgery. Urine was obtained for examinations prior to the surgical procedure, CellDetect staining was carried out with CellDetect kit and FISH was performed with UroVysion detection kit according to the manufacturer's instructions. All urine cytology specimens were centrifuged and obtained by cytospin method, the slides were stained by standard Papanicolaou method.Results There were 128 cases of UC and 136 cases of non-UC in this study, with no significant difference in gender and age between the two groups. Our results indicated that the sensitivity of CellDetect, FISH, and urine cytology was 82.8%, 83.6%, and 39.8%, respectively. In addition, the specificity of the three examinations was 88.2%, 90.4%, and 86.0%, respectively. The sensitivity of CellDetect and FISH are significantly superior compared to conventional urine cytology, however, there was no significant difference in specificity among three staining techniques. In addition, the sensitivity of CellDetect in lower urinary tract UC, upper urinary tract UC, NMIBC, and MIBC was 83.3%, 81.8%, 83.5%, and 72.0%, respectively, the screening ability of CellDetect has no correlation with tumor location and stage. Sensitivity of CellDetect in low grade and high grade UC was 51.6% and 92.8%, screening ability of CellDetect in high grade UC is significantly superior compared to that in low grade UC.Conclusions CellDetect and FISH show equal value in diagnosing UC, both are superior to that of conventional urine cytology. Compared to FISH, CellDetect is cost-effective and easier to operate, it has extensive clinical application value in monitoring recurrence of UC and screening of indetectable UC.

show abstract

“…PD-L1 is involved in the molecular mechanism of cervical carcinogenesis by resistance to anti-tumor immunity of intraepithelial neoplasia cells [27,28]. Most of the published studies on PD-L1 concern its identification in invasive or metastatic cancers [29][30][31]; But there are very few published studies on PD-L1 in intraepithelial neoplasia of the cervix. These studies evaluated the expression of PD-L1 in intraepithelial neoplasia of the cervix [32][33][34][35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cervical Neoplasia: Papillomavirus Infection and Resistance to Anti Tumor Immunity

Didier¹,

Véronique²,

Fabrice³

et al. 2020

IJCOCR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The current status of molecular biomarkers in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Diagnostic value comparison of CellDetect, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and cytology in urothelial carcinoma

Diagnostic value comparison of CellDetect, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and cytology in urothelial carcinoma

Diagnostic Value Comparison of CellDetect, Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) and Cytology in Urothelial Carcinoma

Cervical Neoplasia: Papillomavirus Infection and Resistance to Anti Tumor Immunity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About