Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization for Detecting Urothelial Carcinoma: a Clinicopathologic Study

Overview

Journal Cancer Cytopathol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2010 Jul 29

PMID 20665656

Citations 19

Authors

Nancy P Caraway

Abha Khanna

Ricardo L Fernandez

Linda Payne

Roland L Bassett Jr

Hua-Zhong Zhang

Ashish Kamat

Ruth L Katz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Because urothelial carcinoma (UC) is associated with a significantly high risk of disease recurrence and progression, patients with UC require long-term surveillance. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been shown to be more sensitive than cytology in the detection of UC. The current study evaluated the use of FISH for detecting UC.

Methods: A pathology database was used to identify patients who had urine cytology and FISH performed at the study institution between 2004 and 2006. Urinary specimens were analyzed using UroVysion FISH probes for abnormalities in centromeric chromosomes 3, 7, and 17 and locus-specific 9p21. FISH results were correlated with cytologic findings and a minimal clinical follow-up of 24 months.

Results: A total of 1006 consecutive urinary specimens from 600 patients (448 men and 152 women) who were monitored for recurrent UC (915 specimens) or evaluated for urinary symptoms (91 specimens) were identified. On FISH analysis, 669 specimens were found to be negative for UC and 272 specimens were positive for UC. Sixty-five (6%) specimens were insufficient for FISH analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of FISH for UC were 58% and 66%, respectively, and 59% and 63%, respectively, when FISH and cytology results were combined. Factors contributing to decreased FISH sensitivity included the paucity or absence of tumor cells, low-grade tumors, degenerated cells, method of specimen collection, type of specimen, and obscuring inflammatory cells or lubricant.

Conclusions: UroVysion FISH appeared to have good sensitivity and specificity for detecting UC in urinary specimens. It is important to correlate the FISH results with the cytologic findings.

Citing Articles

New Trends and Future Perspectives in the Diagnosis of Urothelial Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

Panagiotis M, Ioannis G, Vasilleios K, Nikolaos P, Ioannis S, Sotirios C Medicina (Kaunas). 2025; 61(1).

PMID: 39859052 PMC: 11767069. DOI: 10.3390/medicina61010071.

Diagnostic performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aalami A, Aalami F Int J Clin Oncol. 2022; 27(10):1605-1615.

PMID: 35856125 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-022-02216-7.

Performance characteristics of urinary cytology in patients presenting with gross and microscopic hematuria.

Pan T, Lehman E, Raman J Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2021; 9(5):384-389.

PMID: 34796254 PMC: 8595085.

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

Shang D, Liu Y, Xu X, Chen Z, Wang D Cancer Cell Int. 2021; 21(1):465.

PMID: 34488763 PMC: 8419965. DOI: 10.1186/s12935-021-02169-3.

Educational Case: Bladder Urothelial Cell Carcinoma TNM Stage, Prognosis and Management.

Quarles J, Richmond J, Swamy V, Pandey J Acad Pathol. 2021; 8:23742895211022256.

PMID: 34263024 PMC: 8246495. DOI: 10.1177/23742895211022256.

References

Sarosdy M, Kahn P, Ziffer M, Love W, Barkin J, Abara E . Use of a multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assay to diagnose bladder cancer in patients with hematuria. J Urol. 2006; 176(1):44-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00576-3. View

Wojcik E, Bassler Jr T, Orozco R . DNA ploidy in seminal vesicle cells. A potential diagnostic pitfall in urine cytology. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1999; 21(1):29-34. View

Laudadio J, Keane T, Reeves H, Savage S, Hoda R, Lage J . Fluorescence in situ hybridization for detecting transitional cell carcinoma: implications for clinical practice. BJU Int. 2005; 96(9):1280-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05826.x. View

Grossman H, Soloway M, Messing E, Katz G, Stein B, Kassabian V . Surveillance for recurrent bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA. 2006; 295(3):299-305. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.3.299. View

Junker K, Fritsch T, Hartmann A, Schulze W, Schubert J . Multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization (M-FISH) on cells from urine for the detection of bladder cancer. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2006; 114(3-4):279-83. DOI: 10.1159/000094214. View

Glas A, Roos D, Deutekom M, Zwinderman A, Bossuyt P, Kurth K . Tumor markers in the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer. A systematic review. J Urol. 2003; 169(6):1975-82. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000067461.30468.6d. View

Halling K, Kipp B . Bladder cancer detection using FISH (UroVysion assay). Adv Anat Pathol. 2008; 15(5):279-86. DOI: 10.1097/PAP.0b013e3181832320. View

Hajdinjak T . UroVysion FISH test for detecting urothelial cancers: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and comparison with urinary cytology testing. Urol Oncol. 2008; 26(6):646-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2007.06.002. View

Sharma S, Zippe C, Pandrangi L, Nelson D, Agarwal A . Exclusion criteria enhance the specificity and positive predictive value of NMP22 and BTA stat. J Urol. 1999; 162(1):53-7. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199907000-00014. View

10.

Constantinou M, Binka-Kowalska A, Borkowska E, Zajac E, Jalmuzna P, Matych J . Application of multiplex FISH, CGH and MSSCP techniques for cytogenetic and molecular analysis of transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) cells in voided urine specimens. J Appl Genet. 2006; 47(3):273-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF03194636. View

11.

Sullivan P, Nooraie F, Sanchez H, Hirschowitz S, Levin M, Rao P . Comparison of ImmunoCyt, UroVysion, and urine cytology in detection of recurrent urothelial carcinoma: a "split-sample" study. Cancer. 2009; 117(3):167-73. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20026. View

12.

Willebrand E, Savikko J, Merenmies J, Jalanko H . Human polyoma virus in kidney transplants: SV40 T-antigen demonstration in the urine. Transplant Proc. 2005; 37(2):945-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.12.073. View

13.

Kipp B, Karnes R, Brankley S, Harwood A, Pankratz V, Sebo T . Monitoring intravesical therapy for superficial bladder cancer using fluorescence in situ hybridization. J Urol. 2005; 173(2):401-4. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000149825.83180.a4. View

14.

Black P, Brown G, Dinney C . Molecular markers of urothelial cancer and their use in the monitoring of superficial urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(35):5528-35. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.0895. View

15.

Sokolova I, Halling K, Jenkins R, Burkhardt H, Meyer R, Seelig S . The development of a multitarget, multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Mol Diagn. 2001; 2(3):116-23. PMC: 1906906. DOI: 10.1016/S1525-1578(10)60625-3. View

16.

Savic S, Zlobec I, Thalmann G, Engeler D, Schmauss M, Lehmann K . The prognostic value of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the follow-up of nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer after intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy. Int J Cancer. 2009; 124(12):2899-904. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.24258. View

17.

Halling K, King W, Sokolova I, Karnes R, Meyer R, Powell E . A comparison of BTA stat, hemoglobin dipstick, telomerase and Vysis UroVysion assays for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Urol. 2002; 167(5):2001-6. View

18.

Riesz P, Lotz G, Paska C, Szendroi A, Majoros A, Nemeth Z . Detection of bladder cancer from the urine using fluorescence in situ hybridization technique. Pathol Oncol Res. 2007; 13(3):187-94. DOI: 10.1007/BF02893498. View

19.

Svatek R, Sagalowsky A, Lotan Y . Economic impact of screening for bladder cancer using bladder tumor markers: a decision analysis. Urol Oncol. 2006; 24(4):338-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2005.11.025. View

20.

Sarosdy M, Schellhammer P, Bokinsky G, Kahn P, Chao R, Yore L . Clinical evaluation of a multi-target fluorescent in situ hybridization assay for detection of bladder cancer. J Urol. 2002; 168(5):1950-4. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64270-X. View