Urinary markers of bladder carcinoma

Dey, Pranab

doi:10.1016/j.cccn.2003.11.008

Cited by 77 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although none of these tests have proven to be powerful enough to replace cystoscopy, they are all more sensitive than cytology. [8][9][10] Their high sensitivity and high NPV suggest that they could be used as part of a surveillance regimen to increase the interval between cystoscopies. Despite this, urologists have been slow to adopt the use of these markers as an adjunct to existing surveillance and detection strategies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomarkers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer

Budman

Kassouf

Steinberg

2013

CUAJ

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men and the ninth most common cancer in women in Canada. Early detection of tumours is essential for improved prognosis and long-term survival. The standard method for detection and surveillance is cystoscopy together with urine cytology. Cystoscopy is relatively sensitive but is expensive and invasive. Urinary cytology is a noninvasive method that has poor sensitivity but high specificity; it is relied on for the detection of carcinoma in situ. Currently, several urinary based bladder tumour biomarkers with USFDA/Health Canada approval are available commercially, but none have been widely adopted by urologists despite their offering high sensitivity and/or specificity. We present here a review of recent studies evaluating 7 commercial biomarker assays for the detection and/or surveillance of bladder cancer.Results: Sensitivity and specificity ranges, respectively, for each marker were reported as follows: BTA Stat (Polymedco), 52.5%–78.0% and 69.0%–87.1%; BTA Trak (Polymedco), 51%–100% and 73%–92.5%; cytology, 12.1%–84.6% and 78.0%–100%; hematuria dipstick, 47.0%–92.6% and 51.0%–84.0%; NMP22 Bladder Cancer Test (Matritech), 34.6%–100% and 60.0%–95.0%; NMP22 BladderChek (Matritech), 49.5%–65.0% and 40.0%–89.8%;ImmunoCyt/uCyt+ (DiagnoCure), 63.3%–84.9% and 62.0%–78.1%; ImmunoCyt/uCyt+ and cytology, 81.0%–89.3% and 61.0%–77.7%; and UroVysion (Abbott Molecular)/florescence in situ hybridization, 68.6%–100% and 65.0%–96.0%.Conclusion: We find that no currently available bladder cancer urinary marker is sensitive enough to eliminate the need for cystoscopy. In addition, cytology remains integral to the detection of occult cancer. However, owing to their relatively high sensitivities, these markers may be used to extend the period between cystoscopies in the surveillance of patients with transitional cell carcinoma. Further study is required to determine which markers, alone or in panel, would best accomplish this.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomarkers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer

Budman

Kassouf

Steinberg

2013

CUAJ

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several potential biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis for bladder cancer, including nuclear matrix protein-22 (NMP-22), human complement factor H-related protein, telomerase, fibrin degradation product, and hyaluronic acid (Dey, 2004). Among these, only two biomarkers, NMP-22 and human complement factor H-related protein, are in clinical use.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among these, only two biomarkers, NMP-22 and human complement factor H-related protein, are in clinical use. Although these two markers are in clinical use, sensitivity and specificity of these markers are not perfect (van Rhijn et al, 2005); NMP-22 staining shows false-positivity reactions in patients with haematuria, and the BTA stat/BTA TRAK assay, which detects human complement factor H-related protein, shows false-positivity reactions in patients with urinary tract inflammation, recent genitourinary tumours and in cases of bladder stone (Dey, 2004). Cytology is still the most accurate diagnosis method, although sensitivity is not enough high (van Rhijn et al, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

UHRF1 is a novel molecular marker for diagnosis and the prognosis of bladder cancer

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer is the second most common cancer of the urinary system. Early diagnosis of this tumour and estimation of risk of future progression after initial transuretherial resection have a significant impact on prognosis. Although there are several molecular markers for the diagnosis and prognosis for this tumour, their accuracy is not ideal. Previous reports have shown that UHRF1 (ubiquitin-like with PHD and ring-finger domains 1) is essential for cellular proliferation. In this study, we examined whether UHRF1 can be a novel molecular marker of bladder cancer. METHODS: We performed real-time TaqMan quantitative reverse transcription -PCR and immunohistochemistry to examine expression levels of UHRF1 in bladder and kidney cancers. RESULTS: Significant overexpression of UHRF1 was observed in bladder cancer. The overexpression was correlated with the stage and grade of the cancer. Although UHRF1 expression in muscle-invasive cancer was greater than in non-invasive (pTa) or superficially invasive (pT1) cancers, UHRF1 could still be detected by immunohistochemistry in these early-stage cancers. Overexpression of UHRF1 in bladder cancer was associated with increased risk of progression after transurethral resection. High expression of UHRF1 in kidney cancer was also observed. But the increased levels of UHRF1 in kidney cancer were less significant compared with those in bladder cancer. CONCLUSION: Our result indicates that an immunohistochemistry-based UHRF1 detection in urine sediment or surgical specimens can be a sensitive and cancer-specific diagnostic and/or prognosis method, and may greatly improve the current diagnosis based on cytology.

show abstract

“…However, cytological interpretation can be problematic; low cellular yields, atypia, degenerative changes, urinary tract infections, stones and intravesical instillations hamper a correct diagnosis. Because the current two biomarker tests in clinical use, NMP-22 detection and BTA stat/BTA TRAK assay, can be hampered by existence of bleeding, inflammation, recent genitourinary tumours, and bladder stone (Dey, 2004), these markers have not improved the traditional cytology-based bladder cancer diagnosis largely. Thus, cytology is still the mainstay for diagnosing bladder cancer.…”

Section: Uhrf1 Is a Possible Marker Of Bladder Cancers And Upper Tracmentioning

confidence: 99%

UHRF1 is a Potential Molecular Marker for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Bladder Cancer

Unoki¹

2012

Bladder Cancer - From Basic Science to Robotic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urinary markers of bladder carcinoma

Cited by 77 publications

References 48 publications

Biomarkers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer

Biomarkers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer

UHRF1 is a novel molecular marker for diagnosis and the prognosis of bladder cancer

UHRF1 is a Potential Molecular Marker for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Bladder Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About