Karyometric analysis (Quanticyt) has proved of value as a cytologic marker for bladder cancer. This study was conducted to identify diagnostic and prognostic factors in a high-risk Quanticyt population to predict the prognosis of transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder.
Quanticyt is a karyometric system for quantitative bladder wash cytologic findings based on two nuclear features: the 2c-deviation index (2cDI) and the mean of nuclear shape. Samples are scored as low, intermediate, or high risk. Before 1995, 109 patients with high-risk quantitative bladder wash cytologic findings were identified at our clinic. Four patients with previous invasive tumors were excluded.
Histologically proven malignancy was found in 54 of 105 patients at first high-risk quantitative bladder wash cytologic findings. Invasive TCC was found in 16 patients, and another 10 patients had progression during a median follow-up of 3.7 years. In univariate analysis, the presence of carcinoma in situ (CIS), highest tumor grade, 2cDI, and highest tumor stage were significant predictors of progression. The presence of CIS proved to be the only predictor of progression in the multivariate analysis. A 2cDI of 2.00 c(2) or higher was a significant predictor of CIS, invasive TCC, and progression. At follow-up analysis after negative cystoscopy, 2cDI showed a tendency toward predicting progression.
These data confirm earlier findings that CIS is an important marker of progression. 2cDI as assessed by quantitative cytology is a practical tool to predict CIS, invasive TCC, and subsequent progression. A 2cDI of 2. 00 c(2) can be used to further stratify high-risk quantitative bladder wash cytologic findings.
"Approximately 40 to 80% of Ta-T1 tumors recur after the initial treatment. Many prognostic factors, such as tumor stage, tumor grade, multiplicity, concomitant carcinoma in situ (CIS), and tumor size have been proposed to affect tumor recurrence of non-muscle-invasive bladder carcinomas[6,8-11]. Some reports have suggested the importance of biopsy of bladder mucosa from normal appearing urothelium or from reddish areas at the time of initial treatment for bladder carcinoma as an additional biopsy might improve the diagnostic accuracy for bladder cancer staging and alter the therapeutic option for the tumor[7,8,10,12,13]. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: There seems to be no consensus concerning taking bladder biopsies during transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TUR-BT). We investigate the clinical significance of bladder biopsy with TUR-BT and the relationship between urinary cytology and the biopsy results.
We reviewed a total of 424 patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer treated with TUR-BT between 1998 and 2005. Of the total, 293 patients also underwent a bladder biopsy. Biopsies from suspicious-appearing urothelium (N = 59) and those from normal-appearing urothelium (N = 234) were evaluated separately.
Bladder cancer was observed in 23 cases (39.0%) who underwent a biopsy of suspicious-appearing urothelium. Among these 23 cases, 9 cases with visible tumor resection had carcinoma in situ (CIS) only in the biopsies from suspicious-appearing urothelium. Urinary cytology was negative in 3 of the 9 cases. Bladder cancer was observed in 26 cases (11.1%) who underwent a biopsy of normal-appearing urothelium. Of them, 5 cases with visible tumors had CIS only in the multiple biopsies from normal-appearing urothelium. Urinary cytology was positive in all of the 5 cases. No upstaging or upgrading cases were found in these patients by the addition of these two types of biopsy. Furthermore, therapy was not altered in these patients. With or without bladder biopsy was not a significant factor for tumor recurrence in either the univariate or multivariate analysis.
Based on the results, it is concluded the multiple biopsies from normal-appearing urothelium are not necessary in patients with negative cytology results because of the low detection rate and lack of influence on therapeutic decisions. Meanwhile, biopsy of suspicious-appearing urothelium is needed in patients with negative cytology results in order to detect CIS due to staging properties. This result supports a recent EAU guideline.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Cystoscopy is currently considered the gold standard for the detection of bladder tumors. The role of urine cytology in the initial detection and follow-up of patients is under discussion. New elaborative and rapid assays are available that may circumvent the low sensitivity and poor reproducibility of urine cytology. The methods that have been tested extensively are the nuclear matrix protein (NMP22) assay, the BTA stat assay, and the BTA TRAK enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Both outperform cytology in the detection of low-grade lesions. The specificity of both assays, however, lags behind that of cytology. The data from retrospective analyses are insufficient to justify clinical integration, and the need to replace cystoscopy with these novel assays remains to be proven.
Current Opinion in Urology 10/2001; 11(5):503-9. DOI:10.1097/00042307-200109000-00009 · 2.33 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Bladder cancer is currently diagnosed using cystoscopy and cytology in patients with suspicious signs and symptoms. These same tests are used to monitor patients with a history of bladder cancer for recurrence. The recurrence rate for bladder cancer is high, thus necessitating long-term follow-up. Urine cytology requires an experienced cytopathologist and is costly. It has high specificity, but low sensitivity for low-grade bladder tumors. Recently many non-invasive bladder cancer tests, utilizing markers found in the urine, have been developed. The FDA has approved several of these for the use is bladder cancer diagnosis, and many others are undergoing development and investigation. An ideal bladder cancer test would be non-invasive, highly sensitive and specific, inexpensive, easy to perform, and yield highly reproducible results. Many of the tests reviewed meet some, but not all, of these criteria.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.