Ancillary Studies in Urinary Cytology
In the last two decades, different markers and diagnostic assays have been developed to overcome limitations of urinary cytology and improve the timely detection of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Among ancillary tests that can be used on cytological preparations, namely cell-based tests UroVysion® Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (U-FISH; Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) and ImmunoCyt/UCyt+® (uCyt; Diagnocure Inc, Quebec, Canada) have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for diagnosis of UC in patients with hematuria and/or monitoring for tumor recurrence in patients previously diagnosed with UC. The pre-analytical procedures, technique, and evaluation of U-FISH including imaging and automation are described, followed by discussion on the performance of the assay. U-FISH is used for the determination of neoplasia after an interpretation of atypical urinary cytology or finding residual neoplastic cells after intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) treatment. This seems to be the most important indication. uCyt is another promising diagnostic assay; however, further validation studies are needed.
Most commonly used liquid- or non-cytology-based urine tests are the BTA and the NMP22 (Bladder Check). Both were approved by the FDA for detection of UC in symptomatic patients and for monitoring of patients with a history of UC.
No single ancillary test is being recommended as part of the routine evaluation in the Guidelines of the American Urological Association and the European Association of Urology at this time.The classification in The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology lays the ground for prospective studies in search of cost-effective combinations of urine cytology with ancillary testing to improve diagnosis and clinical outcome of UC.
KeywordsUrothelial carcinoma Atypical Urine cytology Ancillary testing Marker Biomarker FISH UroVysion Immunocyt NMP22 BTA
- 11.Kipp BR, Halling KC, Campion MB, Wendel AJ, Karnes RJ, Zhang J, et al. Assessing the value of reflex fluorescence in situ hybridization testing in the diagnosis of bladder cancer when routine urine cytological examination is equivocal. J Urol. 2008;179:1296–301. discussion 301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Savic S, Zlobec I, Thalmann GN, Engeler D, Schmauss M, Lehmann K, et al. The prognostic value of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the follow-up of nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer after intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin therapy. Int J Cancer. 2009;124:2899–904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Lotan Y, Bensalah K, Ruddell T, Shariat SF, Sagalowsky AI, Ashfaq R. 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. 2008;179:2164–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Seideman C, Canter D, Kim P, Cordon B, Weizer A, Oliva I, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the role of UroVysion FISH assay in surveillance of patients with bladder cancer: does FISH positivity anticipate recurrence? World J Urol. 2014. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1452-9. Epub ahead of print.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Skacel M, Fahmy M, Brainard JA, Pettay JD, Biscotti CV, Liou LS, et al. Multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assay detects transitional cell carcinoma in the majority of patients with bladder cancer and atypical or negative urine cytology. J Urol. 2003;169:2101–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Yoder BJ, Skacel M, Hedgepeth R, Babineau D, Ulchaker JC, Liou LS, et al. 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. 2007;127:295–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Yang M, Zheng Z, Zhuang Z, Zhao X, Xu Z, Lin H. ImmunoCyt and cytology for diagnosis of bladder carcinoma: a meta analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127:758–64.Google Scholar
- 37.Piaton E, Daniel L, Verriele V, Dalifard I, Zimmermann U, Renaudin K, et al. Improved detection of urothelial carcinomas with fluorescence immunocytochemistry (uCyt+ assay) and urinary cytology: results of a French Prospective Multicenter Study. Lab Invest. 2003;83:845–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Mowatt G, Zhu S, Kilonzo M, Boachie C, Fraser C, Griffiths TR, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of photodynamic diagnosis and urine biomarkers (FISH, ImmunoCyt, NMP22) and cytology for the detection and follow-up of bladder cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:1–331. iii-iv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Soloway MS, Briggman V, Carpinito GA, Chodak GW, Church PA, Lamm DL, et al. Use of a new tumor marker, urinary NMP22, in the detection of occult or rapidly recurring transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract following surgical treatment. J Urol. 1996;156(2 Pt 1):363–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 58.Zuiverloon TC, van der Aa MN, van der Kwast TH, Steyerberg EW, Lingsma HF, Bangma CH, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 mutation analysis on voided urine for surveillance of patients with low-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:3011–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar