Analytical and clinical evaluation of a new urinary tumor marker: bladder tumor fibronectin in diagnosis and follow-up of bladder cancer.

Department of Biochemistry, Marmara University School of Medicine, Haydarpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey.
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.96). 09/2003; 41(8):1069-74. DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2003.165
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bladder cancer is the fourth most common malignant neoplasm in men and the tenth most common in women. Cystoscopy presents the gold standard for detection and monitoring of bladder cancer. However, it is an invasive and expensive procedure. Therefore, development of biomarkers for the purposes of screening, diagnosis and prediction of the prognosis in bladder cancer is required. Bladder tumor fibronectin is one of the new urinary tumor markers. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of urinary bladder tumor fibronectin in detecting and monitoring bladder cancer. A total of 75 patients with the diagnosis of bladder cancer, 20 patients with the diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia, 7 patients with the diagnosis of prostate cancer between the years 1996-2000, and 28 age-matched healthy individuals, were enrolled in the study. The patients were diagnosed by cystoscopy, with histopathological evaluation of the tumor, as having superficial or invasive bladder cancer. Patients were followed-up clinically with data pertinent to disease recurrence and progression. Bladder tumor fibronectin (BTF; ng/ml) was determined by solid phase, two-site chemiluminescent immunometric commercial diagnostic assay developed for the Immulite automated immunoassay system (Diagnostic Products Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, USA). All measured values were normalized by urinary creatinine, and the obtained data were evaluated by receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis. Optimal cut-off was established at 43.4 ng/mg. This cut-off rendered overall sensitivities of 72% and specificity of 82.1%. The analytical evaluation of the BTF test displayed promising results in terms of a non-invasive in vitro test in the diagnosis of bladder cancer. Although it was not satisfactory in prediction of recurrence or progression of the disease, it correlated well with the stage, one of the most reliable prognostic factors. In conclusion, the urinary bladder tumor fibronectin test warrants further clinical evaluation.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Bladder tumor fibronectin (BTF) has been related as a promising biomarker for the early diagnosis of bladder tumor. The meta-analysis was used to establish the diagnostic value of bladder tumor fibronectin in diagnosing bladder tumor. METHODS: Relevant literatures evaluating the value of BTF in the diagnosis of bladder tumor were searched in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Technology of Chongqing (VIP), and Wan Fang Data. Summary estimates were used to evaluate the value of BTF in the diagnosis of bladder tumor by using the Meta-DiSc and STATA 11.0 statistical software. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 5 studies (649 patients, 291 controls). The summary estimates revealed that the pooled sensitivity was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 74%-85.1%) and specificity was 80% (95%CI 74%-84%). In addition, the area under the summary ROC curve (AUC) was 0.86 (95%CI 0.82-0.89). CONCLUSION: BTF is a potential marker for the diagnosis of bladder tumor, and more prospective studies are needed in the future.
    Clinical biochemistry 06/2013; 46(15). DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.05.064 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Although several cancer biomarkers are now in use, few have the necessary sensitivity and specificity to eliminate the need for invasive diagnostic procedures. With the expansion of proteomics, new technologies have been used to study various cancers, resulting in the discovery of several potential urine biomarkers. Urine is an ideal medium for the detection of biomarkers because of the non-invasive means of collecting samples and demonstrated shedding of cells, proteins, enzymes, nucleic acids and metabolic products into urine during various pathological processes. Objective: To review the contemporary literature regarding urinary protein markers of cancer. Methods: A PubMed search for 'urinary protein biomarkers of cancer' revealed 4679 scientific publications. The search was limited to studies published over the last 5 years and reviewed pertinent findings regarding biomarker evaluation and discovery. Results: Several urinary protein biomarkers have been described for urologic, gynecologic, gastrointestinal and neurologic tumors. Some have been selected for use in clinical practice, whereas others have been abandoned owing to inconclusive follow-up studies. Conclusion: Several potential urinary protein markers for cancer exist, yet multi-institutional, prospective trials are needed to validate results before implementation in clinical scenarios.
    Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics 05/2009; 3(3):263-273. DOI:10.1517/17530050902824811
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose/Objectives: To review the clinical use of tumor markers in select cancers and highlight future directions in tumor marker development. Data Sources: Guidelines from national and international societies, scientific literature, and Internet resources. Data Synthesis: Tumor markers are important tools in the management of cancer. Sequencing of the human genome has led to new tumor marker development in the fields of proteomics and DNA microarray technologies. Conclusions: Tumor marker technology is expanding rapidly; almost a dozen tumor markers currently are being used in the oncology arena, with many more in development. The use of tumor markers can be controversial, particularly because guidelines have not been established for all of the markers. Implications for Nursing: Oncology nurses need to be well versed in the use of tumor markers to educate and counsel patients with cancer.
    Oncology nursing forum 09/2005; 32(5):1013-1025. DOI:10.1188/05.ONF.1013-1025 · 2.83 Impact Factor