Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 33, Issue 9, pp 1309–1313 | Cite as

Multicenter evaluation of the role of UroVysion FISH assay in surveillance of patients with bladder cancer: does FISH positivity anticipate recurrence?

  • Casey Seideman
  • Daniel Canter
  • Philip Kim
  • Billy Cordon
  • Alon Weizer
  • Irma Oliva
  • Jianyu Rao
  • Brant A. Inman
  • Michael Posch
  • Harry Herr
  • Yair Lotan
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The significance of a positive UroVysion FISH assay is uncertain in patients with normal cystoscopy. This multicenter study evaluates the clinical significance of a positive FISH assay in patients with no visible tumor and excluding those with a positive cytology.

Methods

A multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with a history of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder identified 664 patients with a FISH assay after excluding those with cystoscopic evidence of a tumor and/or positive cytology. Our primary end point was cancer recurrence, defined by biopsy. Progression was defined as recurrence with a tumor stage ≥T2. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s exact test as a one-tailed test and Chi-square test with significance at 0.05, using SPSS® version 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Of the 664 patients in this study, tumor stage was Ta (363, 55 %), T1 (183, 28 %), and CIS (109, 16 %) and most were high grade (440 pts, 66 %). The median follow-up was 26 months (3–104 months), and 277 (41.7 %) patients were recurred. In patients who were FISH positive, mean time to recurrence was 12.6 months, compared to 17.9 months if FISH negative (p = 0.03). In univariate analysis, atypical cytology, positive FISH, cystoscopic findings (atypical vs. normal), and previous intravesical therapy were associated with recurrence (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, pathologic stage, cystoscopic findings, and cytology were independently associated with recurrence (p < 0.05). Progression to ≥T2 disease occurred in 34 (5.1 %) patients in this cohort. On multivariate analysis, only initial T stage and FISH result were found to be independent predictors of progression (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Patients with a positive FISH and atypical cytology are more likely to recur even in the absence of visible tumor. FISH positivity may portend a higher risk for progression. These findings require prospective validation.

Keywords

Bladder cancer Surveillance FISH 

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics for Hispanics/Latinos, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62(5):283–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneeweiss S, Kriegmair M, Stepp H (1999) Is everything all right if nothing seems wrong? a simple method of assessing the diagnostic value of endoscopic procedures when a gold standard is absent. J Urol 161(4):1116–1119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Svatek RS, Lee D, Lotan Y (2005) Correlation of office-based cystoscopy and cytology with histologic diagnosis: how good is the reference standard? Urology 66(1):65–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raitanen MP, Aine R, Rintala E et al (2002) Differences between local and review urinary cytology in diagnosis of bladder cancer. An interobserver multicenter analysis. Eur Urol 41(3):284–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halling KC, King W, Sokolova IA et al (2000) A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 164(5):1768–1775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lokeshwar VB, Habuchi T, Grossman HB et al (2005) Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: international consensus panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology 66(6 Suppl 1):35–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Babjuk M, Oosterlinck W, Sylvester R, Kaasinen E, Bohle A, Palou-Redorta J (2008) EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol 54(2):303–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hajdinjak T (2008) UroVysion FISH test for detecting urothelial cancers: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and comparison with urinary cytology testing. Urol Oncol 26(6):646–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG (2003) Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and meta-analyses. Urology 61(1):109–118 discussion 118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sarosdy MF, Schellhammer P, Bokinsky G et al (2002) Clinical evaluation of a multi-target fluorescent in situ hybridization assay for detection of bladder cancer. J Urol 168(5):1950–1954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoder BJ, Skacel M, Hedgepeth R et al (2007) Reflex UroVysion testing of bladder cancer surveillance patients with equivocal or negative urine cytology: a prospective study with focus on the natural history of anticipatory positive findings. Am J Clin Pathol 127(2):295–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scher H, Bahnson R, Cohen S et al (1998) NCCN urothelial cancer practice guidelines. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Oncology (Williston Park) 12(7A):225–271Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schlomer BJ, Ho R, Sagalowsky A, Ashfaq R, Lotan Y (2010) Prospective validation of the clinical usefulness of reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in patients with atypical cytology for the detection of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 183(1):62–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lotan Y, Bensalah K, Ruddell T, Shariat SF, Sagalowsky AI, Ashfaq R (2008) Prospective evaluation of the clinical usefulness of reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in patients with atypical cytology for the detection of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 179(6):2164–2169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burger M, Grossman HB, Droller M et al (2013) Photodynamic diagnosis of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer with hexaminolevulinate cystoscopy: a meta-analysis of detection and recurrence based on raw data. Eur Urol 64(5):846–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herr HW, Donat SM (2011) Reduced bladder tumour recurrence rate associated with narrow-band imaging surveillance cystoscopy. BJU Int 107(3):396–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Casey Seideman
    • 1
  • Daniel Canter
    • 2
  • Philip Kim
    • 3
  • Billy Cordon
    • 3
  • Alon Weizer
    • 4
  • Irma Oliva
    • 5
  • Jianyu Rao
    • 5
  • Brant A. Inman
    • 6
  • Michael Posch
    • 1
  • Harry Herr
    • 3
  • Yair Lotan
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Departments of UrologyMemorial Sloan KetteringNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of UrologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineUCLALos AngelesUSA
  6. 6.Department of UrologyDukeDurhamUSA
  7. 7.UT Southwestern Department of UrologyDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations