A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma

Kevin C. Halling, Walter King, Irina A. Sokolova, Reid G. Meyer, Haleh M. Burkhardt, Amy C. Halling, John Cheville, Thomas J. Sebo, Sanjay Ramakumar, Christopher S. Stewart, Shane Pankratz, Dennis J. O'Kane, Steven A. Seelig, Michael M. Lieber, Robert Brian Jenkins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

301 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1768-1775
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume164
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization
Cell Biology
Carcinoma
p16 Genes
Neoplasms
Urine
Biopsy
Chromosomes, Human, Pair 17
Cystoscopy
Chromosomes, Human, Pair 3
Chromosomes, Human, Pair 7
Centromere
Fluorescent Dyes
Chromosome Aberrations
Chromosomes
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Bladder
  • Carcinoma
  • Cytology
  • Fluorescence
  • In situ hybridization
  • Urothelium

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Halling, K. C., King, W., Sokolova, I. A., Meyer, R. G., Burkhardt, H. M., Halling, A. C., ... Jenkins, R. B. (2000). A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Journal of Urology, 164(5), 1768-1775.

A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. / Halling, Kevin C.; King, Walter; Sokolova, Irina A.; Meyer, Reid G.; Burkhardt, Haleh M.; Halling, Amy C.; Cheville, John; Sebo, Thomas J.; Ramakumar, Sanjay; Stewart, Christopher S.; Pankratz, Shane; O'Kane, Dennis J.; Seelig, Steven A.; Lieber, Michael M.; Jenkins, Robert Brian.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 164, No. 5, 2000, p. 1768-1775.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Halling, KC, King, W, Sokolova, IA, Meyer, RG, Burkhardt, HM, Halling, AC, Cheville, J, Sebo, TJ, Ramakumar, S, Stewart, CS, Pankratz, S, O'Kane, DJ, Seelig, SA, Lieber, MM & Jenkins, RB 2000, 'A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma', Journal of Urology, vol. 164, no. 5, pp. 1768-1775.
Halling KC, King W, Sokolova IA, Meyer RG, Burkhardt HM, Halling AC et al. A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Journal of Urology. 2000;164(5):1768-1775.
Halling, Kevin C. ; King, Walter ; Sokolova, Irina A. ; Meyer, Reid G. ; Burkhardt, Haleh M. ; Halling, Amy C. ; Cheville, John ; Sebo, Thomas J. ; Ramakumar, Sanjay ; Stewart, Christopher S. ; Pankratz, Shane ; O'Kane, Dennis J. ; Seelig, Steven A. ; Lieber, Michael M. ; Jenkins, Robert Brian. / A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. In: Journal of Urology. 2000 ; Vol. 164, No. 5. pp. 1768-1775.
@article{b93dd3c5e0184c0d8791908f9a45cebe,
title = "A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Bladder, Carcinoma, Cytology, Fluorescence, In situ hybridization, Urothelium",
author = "Halling, {Kevin C.} and Walter King and Sokolova, {Irina A.} and Meyer, {Reid G.} and Burkhardt, {Haleh M.} and Halling, {Amy C.} and John Cheville and Sebo, {Thomas J.} and Sanjay Ramakumar and Stewart, {Christopher S.} and Shane Pankratz and O'Kane, {Dennis J.} and Seelig, {Steven A.} and Lieber, {Michael M.} and Jenkins, {Robert Brian}",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "164",
pages = "1768--1775",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma

AU - Halling, Kevin C.

AU - King, Walter

AU - Sokolova, Irina A.

AU - Meyer, Reid G.

AU - Burkhardt, Haleh M.

AU - Halling, Amy C.

AU - Cheville, John

AU - Sebo, Thomas J.

AU - Ramakumar, Sanjay

AU - Stewart, Christopher S.

AU - Pankratz, Shane

AU - O'Kane, Dennis J.

AU - Seelig, Steven A.

AU - Lieber, Michael M.

AU - Jenkins, Robert Brian

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - 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.

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.

KW - Bladder

KW - Carcinoma

KW - Cytology

KW - Fluorescence

KW - In situ hybridization

KW - Urothelium

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033790972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033790972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11025767

AN - SCOPUS:0033790972

VL - 164

SP - 1768

EP - 1775

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 5

ER -