No influence of smoking status on the performance of urine markers for the detection of bladder cancer
- 130 Downloads
The performance of urinary markers for detecting bladder cancer (BC) is influenced by various factors. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the influence of smoking habits on the performance of four commonly used urine markers.
Urine samples of 723 patients with suspected BC were analysed using urine cytology, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), immunocytology (uCyt+ test), and quantitative nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) immunoassay. The smoking habits of all patients were recorded and a cystoscopy performed within 2 weeks after urinary marker testing. Rates of false negative and false positive results were compared between non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers by contingency analyses.
We included 723 patients in this study, 431 (59.6%) of which were non-smokers, 215 former smokers (29.7%), and 77 (10.7%) current smokers. 148 patients (20.5%) had a tumour at the time of urinary marker testing. Respective rates of false positive test results among non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers were: 16.3, 19.1, and 11.5% (p = 0.81) for urine cytology; 36.8, 42.0, and 32.7% for the uCyt+ test (p = 0.88); 18.0, 19.1, and 13.5% for FISH (p = 0.66); and 69.5, 71.6, and 71.2% for NMP22 (p = 0.67). Respective rates of false negatives among non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers were: 31.4, 15.1, and 28.0% for cytology (p = 0.34); 21.4, 22.6, and 16.0% for uCyt+ test (p = 0.67); 24.3, 13.2, and 28.0% for FISH (p = 0.88); and 10.0, 18.9, and 8.0% for NMP22 (p = 0.80).
Our results strongly suggest that smoking habits do not affect performance characteristics of urinary markers in the diagnostics of BC.
KeywordsBladder cancer Cytology Fluorescence in situ hybridisation Immunocytology Nuclear matrix protein 22 Smoking status
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. In the study a retrospective chart review but no specific study-related investigations were performed in the cohort. Therefore, in accordance with the ethics committee no informed consent was obtained in the framework of the study.
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest.
- Kehinde EO, Al-Mulla F, Kapila K, Anim JT (2011) Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of urine cytology, urinary nuclear matrix protein-22 and multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in the detection of bladder cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 45(2):113–121. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365599.2010.533694 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kipp BR, Tanasescu M, Else TA, Bryant SC, Karnes RJ, Sebo TJ, Halling KC (2009) Quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization and its ability to predict bladder cancer recurrence and progression to muscle-invasive bladder cancer. J Mol Diagn 11(2):148–154. https://doi.org/10.2353/jmoldx.2009.080096 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Kipp BR, Tyner HL, Campion MB, Voss JS, Karnes RJ, Sebo TJ, Zhang J (2008) Chromosomal alterations detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization in urothelial carcinoma and rarer histologic variants of bladder cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 130(4):552–559. https://doi.org/10.1309/DFJUHY3WPC9GUU2W CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Layfield LJ, Elsheikh TM, Fili A, Nayar R, Shidham V (2004) Review of the state of the art and recommendations of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for urinary cytology procedures and reporting: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Practice Guidelines Task Force. Diagn Cytopathol 30(1):24–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.10401 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sokolova IA, Halling KC, Jenkins RB, Burkhardt HM, Meyer RG, Seelig SA, King W (2000) The development of a multitarget, multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Mol Diagn 2(3):116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1525-1578(10)60625-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Todenhofer T, Hennenlotter J, Kuhs U, Tews V, Gakis G, Aufderklamm S, Schwentner C (2012) Influence of urinary tract instrumentation and inflammation on the performance of urine markers for the detection of bladder cancer. Urology 79(3):620–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.067 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Todenhofer T, Hennenlotter J, Tews V, Gakis G, Aufderklamm S, Kuehs U, Schwentner C (2013) Impact of different grades of microscopic hematuria on the performance of urine-based markers for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Urol Oncol 31(7):1148–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.10.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wang-Sattler R, Yu Y, Mittelstrass K, Lattka E, Altmaier E, Gieger C, Illig T (2008) Metabolic profiling reveals distinct variations linked to nicotine consumption in humans—first results from the KORA study. PLoS One 3(12):e3863. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003863 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Zeng C (2000). NuMA: a nuclear protein involved in mitotic centrosome function. Microsc Res Tech 49(5):467–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0029(20000601)49:5<467::AID-JEMT9>3.0.CO;2-V CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zhang ZF, Shu XM, Cordon-Cardo C, Orlow I, Lu ML, Millon TV, Scher H (1997) Cigarette smoking and chromosome 9 alterations in bladder cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 6(5):321–326Google Scholar