You have accessJournal of UrologyUrothelial Cancer: Markers + Natural History & Pathophysiology1 Apr 2011366 FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION ASSAY AS AN ADJUNCTIVE TEST FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF URINARY TRACT CARCINOMA IN CASE OF EQUIVOCAL CYTOLOGY Pieter Visser, Esther T. Kok, Bob T. Merks, and J.L.H. Ruud Bosch Pieter VisserPieter Visser Utrecht, Netherlands More articles by this author , Esther T. KokEsther T. Kok Utrecht, Netherlands More articles by this author , Bob T. MerksBob T. Merks Utrecht, Netherlands More articles by this author , and J.L.H. Ruud BoschJ.L.H. Ruud Bosch Utrecht, Netherlands More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.452AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Urinary cytology in combination with cystoscopy is commonly used for the diagnosis of urinary tract carcinoma. Unfortunately, cytology has a poor sensitivity for low grade tumors and frequently reports atypical findings. This can cause a dilemma for the clinician and may be a reason for further investigation. Therefore the Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH; UroVysion®) assay might be helpful. The aim of this study is to investigate the value of FISH in the primary detection of urothelial cell carcinoma in general and more specifically when urinary cytology is equivocal. METHODS Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for 160 patients, who were screened for primary urothelial cell carcinoma between September 2007 and October 2009. Patients in whom both cytology and FISH assay was performed were included in the study. All urine samples were interpreted by an experienced cytopathologist. The differences in sensitivity and specificity between cytology and FISH were calculated using a McNemar test. Clinical stage of carcinoma was classified according to the TNM staging system and the tumor grade was assigned according to the WHO guidelines. Carcinoma was diagnosed by cystoscopy and histologically confirmed. RESULTS In total 160 patients were included. After exclusion of uninformative FISH assays, 138 patients remained (71% men vs 29% women) with a mean age of 65 years. In 44 patients (31.4%) urothelial cell carcinoma was diagnosed. The sensitivity and specificity of FISH and cytology was 73% and 45% (p = 0.021), and 83% and 96% (p = 0.008), respectively. The positive and negative predictive value of FISH and cytology was 67% and 86%, and 87% and 82%, respectively. In 84 of the 160 patients, cytology was equivocal, although urothelial cell carcinoma was later diagnosed in 22 of these cases. In these 22 patients, the related FISH detected a Ta tumor in 4 cases, a T1 tumor in 2 cases, a T2 tumor in 2 cases and CIS in one case. The related FISH was negative in 9 (41%; Ta; 5 times; T1; one time; T2; 2 times) and uninformative in 4 cases (18%). CONCLUSIONS Although the specificity of FISH compared to cytology is lower, it has a significantly higher sensitivity. Therefore, a FISH assay is beneficial as an adjunctive test for the detection of urothelial cell carcinoma, particularly when cytology is equivocal. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e149 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Pieter Visser Utrecht, Netherlands More articles by this author Esther T. Kok Utrecht, Netherlands More articles by this author Bob T. Merks Utrecht, Netherlands More articles by this author J.L.H. Ruud Bosch Utrecht, Netherlands More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract