Advertisement

Urine Cytology and Emerging Biomarkers

  • Jungyo Suh
Chapter

Abstract

About 70% of bladder cancer diagnosis has non-muscle invasive character; however, 31–78% of them experiences recurrence and 1–45% of them progression within 5 years. For this reason, close monitoring for early detection of recurrence is essential in following up of NMIBC patients. Current gold standard for surveillance of NMIBC is based on visual inspection through cystoscopy and concurrent urine cytology examination. Urine cytology offers high specificity (83–99%) and sensitivity (84%) in high-grade lesion of UCC; however it affords only 16% of sensitivity for low-grade lesion. To overcome this limitation of urine cytology, many novel urine-based biomarkers have been developed, and some of them successfully settle on clinical practice. NMP22 (nuclear matrix protein 22), BTA (bladder tumor antigen), FDP (fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products), UroVysion (FISH), and ImmunoCyt are currently FDA (Food and Drug Administration)-approved biomarkers for detection of UCC in bladder. Most of these novel biomarkers show higher sensitivity but lower specificity than conventional urine cytology. Thus, a study for finding another useful marker and improving shortcoming of currently available biomarkers is actively on progress.

Keywords

Urine cytology The Paris system for reporting urothelial malignancy Biomarker Urothelial carcinoma 

References

  1. 1.
    Raitanen MP, Aine R, Rintala E, Kallio J, Rajala P, Juusela H, et al. Differences between local and review urinary cytology in diagnosis of bladder cancer. An interobserver multicenter analysis. Eur Urol. 2002;41:284–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00006-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yafi FA, Brimo F, Steinberg J, Aprikian AG, Tanguay S, Kassouf W. Prospective analysis of sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology and other urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:66e25–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and meta-analyses. Urology. 2003;61:109–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02136-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alberto P, Margarita A. Correlation between the cytology of urine sediment in fresh sample and smears stained by Papanicolaou and Giemsa methods. J Cytol. 2014;31:25.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9371.130666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Viswanath S, Zelhof B, Ho E, Sethia K, Mills R. Is routine urine cytology useful in the haematuria clinic? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90:153–5.  https://doi.org/10.1308/003588408X242006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ok BG, Ji YS, Ko YH, Song PH. Usefulness of urine cytology as a routine work-up in the detection of recurrence in patients with prior non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: practicality and cost-effectiveness. Korean J Urol. 2014;55:650–5.  https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.10.650.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keller AK, Jensen JB. Voided urine versus bladder washing cytology for detection of urothelial carcinoma: which is better? Scand J Urol. 2017;51:290–2.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1310130.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang ML, Rosenthal DL, VandenBussche CJ. The cytomorphological features of low-grade urothelial neoplasms vary by specimen type. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124:552–64.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21716.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from mars and pathologists are from venus: clinician interpretation of pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1040–6.  https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-9985(2000)124<1040:CAFMAP>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Layfield LJ, Elsheikh TM, Fili A, Nayar R, Shidham V. 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. 2004;30:24–30.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.10401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barkan GA, Wojcik EM, Nayar R, Savic-Prince S, Quek ML, Kurtycz DFI, et al. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology: the quest to develop a standardized terminology. Acta Cytol. 2016;60:185–97.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000446270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassan M, Solanki S, Kassouf W, Kanber Y, Caglar D, Auger M, et al. Impact of implementing the Paris system for reporting urine cytology in the performance of urine cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;146:384–90.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqw127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cowan ML, Rosenthal DL, VandenBussche CJ. Improved risk stratification for patients with high-grade urothelial carcinoma following application of the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125:427–34.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21843.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bertsch EC, Siddiqui MT, Ellis CL. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology improves correlation with surgical pathology biopsy diagnoses of the lower urinary tract. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018;46:221–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.23878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang Y, Auger M, Kanber Y, Caglar D, Brimo F. Implementing the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology results in a decrease in the rate of the “atypical” category and an increase in its prediction of subsequent high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(3):207–14.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21958.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parker J, Spiess PE. Current and emerging bladder Cancer urinary biomarkers. Sci World J. 2011;11:1103–12.  https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2011.104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carpinito GA, Stadler WM, Briggman JV, Chodak GW, Church PA, Lamm DL, et al. Urinary nuclear matrix protein as a marker for transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract. J Urol. 1996;156:1280–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jamshidian H, Kor K, Djalali M. Urine concentration of nuclear matrix protein 22 for diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of bladder. Urol J. 2008;5:243–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chou R, Gore JL, Buckley D, Fu R, Gustafson K, Griffin JC, et al. Urinary biomarkers for diagnosis of bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:922–31.  https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-0997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmitz-Dräger BJ, Todenhöfer T, van Rhijn B, Pesch B, Hudson MA, Chandra A, et al. Considerations on the use of urine markers in the management of patients with low−/intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:1061–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.10.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang SS, Boorjian SA, Chou R, Clark PE, Daneshmand S, Konety BR, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: AUA/SUO guideline. J Urol. 2016;196:1021–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Urology P, Nordwest H, Hospital A. A comparison of urinary nuclear matrix protein-22 and bladder tumour antigen tests with voided urinary cytology in detecting and following bladder cancer: the prognostic value of false-positive results. BJU Int. 2001;88(7):692–701.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frantzi M, Latosinska A, Flühe L, Hupe MC, Critselis E, Kramer MW, et al. Developing proteomic biomarkers for bladder cancer: towards clinical application. Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12:317–30.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2015.100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lu J, Getz G, Miska EA, Alvarez-saavedra E, Lamb J, Peck D, et al. MicroRNA expression profiles classify human cancers. Nature. 2005;435:834–48.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03702.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mantripragada K, Caley M, Stephens P, Jones C, Kluwe L, Guha A, et al. Telomerase activity is a biomarker for high grade malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors in neurofibromatosis type 1 individuals. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2008;47:238–46.  https://doi.org/10.1002/gcc.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang J, Zhao H, Gao Y, Zhang W. Secretory miRNAs as novel cancer biomarkers. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1826;2012:32–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2012.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanke M, Hoefig K, Merz H, et al. A robust methodology to study urine microRNA as tumor marker: microRNA-126 and microRNA-182 are related to urinary bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2010;28:655–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.01.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Snowdon J, Boag S, Feilotter H, Izard J, Siemens DR. A pilot study of urinary microRNA as a biomarker for urothelial cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7:28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yamada Y, Enokida H, Kojima S, Kawakami K, Chiyomaru T, Yoshino H, et al. MiR-96 and miR-183 detection in urine serve as potential tumor markers of urothelial carcinoma: correlation with stage and grade, and comparison with urinary cytology. Cancer Sci. 2010;102:522–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01816.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang G, Chan ES, Kwan BC, Li PK, Yip SK, Szeto C, et al. Expression of microRNAs in the urine of patients with bladder cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2012;10(2):106–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2012.01.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yun SJ, Jeong P, Kim W, Kim TAEH, Lee Y, Song PH, et al. Cell-free microRNAs in urine as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of bladder cancer. Int J Oncol. 2012;41:1871–8.  https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2012.1622.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cheng Y, Deng X, Yang X, Li P, Zhang X, Li P, Tao J, Lu Q, Wang Z. Urine microRNAs as biomarkers for bladder cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2015;8:2089–96.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mlcochova H, Hezova R, Stanik M, Slaby O. Urine microRNAs as potential noninvasive biomarkers in urologic cancers. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.04.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Têtu B, Tiguert R, Harel F, Fradet Y. ImmunoCyt/uCyt+™ improves the sensitivity of urine cytology in patients followed for urothelial carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:83–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    He H, Han C, Hao LIN, Zang G. ImmunoCyt test compared to cytology in the diagnosis of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis. Oncol Lett. 2016;12:83–8.  https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.4556.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chee C, Ho K, Tan WP, Pathmanathan R, Tan K, Tan HM. Fluorescence-in-situ-hybridization in the surveillance of urothelial cancers: can use of cystoscopy or ureteroscopy be deferred? Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:4057–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Black PC, Brown GA, Dinney CP. Molecular markers of urothelial cancer and their use in the monitoring of superficial urothelial Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;24:5528–35.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.08.0895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1309/ADJL7E810U1H42BJ.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hajdinjak T, Ph D. UroVysion FISH test for detecting urothelial cancers: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and comparison with urinary cytology testing. Urol Oncol. 2008;26:646–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2007.06.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hautmann SH, Iii GPH, Bono AV, Getzenberg RH, Goebell P, Schmitz-dräger BJ, et al. Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: international consensus panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology. 2005;66:35–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.08.064.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Whitson J, Berry A, Carroll P, Konety B. A multicolour fluorescence in situ hybridization test predicts recurrence in patients with high-risk superficial bladder tumours undergoing intravesical therapy. BJU Int. 2009;104:336–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08375.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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 erin therapy. Int J Cancer. 2009;124:2899–904.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jungyo Suh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologySeoul National University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations