Comparative Study of ProEx C Immunocytochemistry and UroVysion Fluorescent In-situ Hybridization Assays on Urine Cytology Specimens

Overview

Journal Cytojournal

Date 2015 Feb 17

PMID 25685171

Citations 4

Authors

Sue Chang

Elaine Smith

Mary Levin

Jian-Yu Rao

Neda A Moatamed

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Detection of urothelial carcinoma (UC) by urine cytology can be challenging. Recently, ProEx C has been studied as a marker to improve detection of UC. ProEx C is an assay targeting expression of topoisomerase IIa and minichromosome maintenance protein-2 and is currently utilized to assist in diagnoses of the gynecological specimens. In this study, we compared the utility of ProEx C and UroVysion in urine specimens.

Materials And Methods: Twenty-seven urine specimens with UroVysion assay analysis and surgical biopsy follow-up were selected. The smears were stained with ProEx C. ProEx C and UroVysion assay results were separated into two categories based on surgical biopsy follow-up (benign or neoplastic). Surgical biopsy diagnoses were used as the gold standard for comparative evaluation of the two assays. The surgical follow-up was 9 benign, 2 low grade, and 16 high grade UCs.

Results: The sensitivity was 88.9% for ProEx C and 55.6% for UroVysion, while the specificity was 77.8% for ProEx C and 44.4% for UroVysion. Positive predictive value was 88.9% for ProEx C and 66.7% for UroVysion. Negative predictive value was 77.8% and 33.3% for ProEx C and UroVysion, respectively. Using the two-tailed paired t-test, P value of 0.033 was obtained when ProEx C stain was compared with the UroVysion assay.

Conclusion: ProEx C immunocytochemistry has a more favorable performance than fluorescent in-situ hybridization with a significant difference between the two assays using paired two-tail t-test (P = 0.0033).

Citing Articles

MCM4 expression is associated with high-grade histology, tumor progression and poor prognosis in urothelial carcinoma.

Kobayashi G, Hayashi T, Sentani K, Uraoka N, Fukui T, Kido A Diagn Pathol. 2023; 18(1):106.

PMID: 37737200 PMC: 10515259. DOI: 10.1186/s13000-023-01392-y.

Clinicopathological significance of claspin overexpression and its efficacy as a novel biomarker for the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma.

Kobayashi G, Hayashi T, Sentani K, Babasaki T, Sekino Y, Inoue S Virchows Arch. 2021; 480(3):621-633.

PMID: 34842980 DOI: 10.1007/s00428-021-03239-7.

Diagnostic significance of dual immunocytochemical staining of p53/cytokeratin20 on liquid-based urine cytology to detect urothelial carcinoma.

Choi S, Kim K, Suh K, Yeo M Cytojournal. 2020; 17:3.

PMID: 32256669 PMC: 7111538. DOI: 10.25259/Cytojournal_88_2019.

ProEx C as Diagnostic Marker for Detection of Urothelial Carcinoma in Urinary Samples: A Review.

Botti G, Malzone M, La Mantia E, Montanari M, Vanacore D, Rossetti S Int J Med Sci. 2017; 14(6):554-559.

PMID: 28638271 PMC: 5479124. DOI: 10.7150/ijms.17890.

References

Zellweger T, Benz G, Cathomas G, Mihatsch M, Sulser T, Gasser T . Multi-target fluorescence in situ hybridization in bladder washings for prediction of recurrent bladder cancer. Int J Cancer. 2006; 119(7):1660-5. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.21704. 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

Bubendorf L, Grilli B, Sauter G, Mihatsch M, Gasser T, Dalquen P . Multiprobe FISH for enhanced detection of bladder cancer in voided urine specimens and bladder washings. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 116(1):79-86. DOI: 10.1309/K5P2-4Y8B-7L5A-FAA9. View

Halling K, Kipp B . Fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnostic cytology. Hum Pathol. 2007; 38(8):1137-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2007.04.015. View

Siegel R, DeSantis C, Virgo K, Stein K, Mariotto A, Smith T . Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62(4):220-41. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21149. View

Burger M, Denzinger S, Hartmann A, Wieland W, Stoehr R, Obermann E . Mcm2 predicts recurrence hazard in stage Ta/T1 bladder cancer more accurately than CK20, Ki67 and histological grade. Br J Cancer. 2007; 96(11):1711-5. PMC: 2359908. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603784. View

Wojcik E, Brownlie R, Bassler T, Miller M . Superficial urothelial (umbrella) cells. A potential cause of abnormal DNA ploidy results in urine specimens. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2000; 22(5):411-5. View

Stoeber K, Swinn R, Prevost A, Halsall I, Dilworth S, Marr J . Diagnosis of genito-urinary tract cancer by detection of minichromosome maintenance 5 protein in urine sediments. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94(14):1071-9. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/94.14.1071. View

Badr R, Walts A, Chung F, Bose S . BD ProEx C: a sensitive and specific marker of HPV-associated squamous lesions of the cervix. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008; 32(6):899-906. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31815bbb69. View

10.

Moatamed N, Apple S, Bennett C, Aronson W, Klisak I, Shirley B . Exclusion of the uniform tetraploid cells significantly improves specificity of the urine FISH assay. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011; 41(3):218-25. DOI: 10.1002/dc.21831. 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.

Ferra S, Denley R, Herr H, Dalbagni G, Jhanwar S, Lin O . Reflex UroVysion testing in suspicious urine cytology cases. Cancer. 2009; 117(1):7-14. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20016. View

13.

Li H, Li M, Li C, Ma J, Wang M, Rao J . ImmunoCyt and cytokeratin 20 immunocytochemistry as adjunct markers for urine cytologic detection of bladder cancer: a prospective study. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2010; 32(1):45-52. View

14.

Tetu B . Diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma from urine. Mod Pathol. 2009; 22 Suppl 2:S53-9. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2008.193. View

15.

Desai S, Lim S, Jimenez R, Chun T, Keane T, McKenney J . Relationship of cytokeratin 20 and CD44 protein expression with WHO/ISUP grade in pTa and pT1 papillary urothelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol. 2001; 13(12):1315-23. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.3880241. View

16.

Khalbuss W, Goodison S . Immunohistochemical detection of hTERT in urothelial lesions: a potential adjunct to urine cytology. Cytojournal. 2006; 3:18. PMC: 1557857. DOI: 10.1186/1742-6413-3-18. View

17.

Moatamed N, Vergara-Lluri M, Lu D, Apple S, Kerkoutian S, Rao J . Utility of ProEx C in the histologic evaluation of the neoplastic and nonneoplastic urothelial lesions. Hum Pathol. 2013; 44(11):2509-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2013.06.011. View

18.

Moatamed N, Rao J, Alexanian S, Cobarrubias M, Levin M, Lu D . ProEx C as an adjunct marker to improve cytological detection of urothelial carcinoma in urinary specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013; 121(6):320-8. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21264. View

19.

David O, Cabay R, Pasha S, Dietrich R, Leach L, Guo M . The role of deeper levels and ancillary studies (p16(Ink4a) and ProExC) in reducing the discordance rate of Papanicolaou findings of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and follow-up cervical biopsies. Cancer. 2009; 117(3):157-66. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20020. View

20.

Vergara-Lluri M, Hu E, Rao J, Levin M, Apple S, Moatamed N . Comparative evaluation of ProEx C and ImmunoCyt/uCyt assays in atypical urine cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014; 138(9):1215-22. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2013-0433-OA. View