Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the ImmunoCyt test and urinary cytology with other urine tests in the detection and surveillance of bladder cancer

  • Free Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite several new urine markers urinary cytology remains the gold standard for the non-invasive detection of bladder carcinoma. The use of monoclonal antibodies against tumor associated antigens offers a promising approach to improve urinary cytology. The aim of this study was to compare fluorescence immunocytology (ImmunoCyt/Ucyt+ test), alone and in combination with the conventional cytology, with other urine markers. Urine samples from 126 patients undergoing cystoscopy were included in the study. Among them, 42 patients had urothelial carcinoma, two dysplasia, two other malignancies, and 78 had no evidence of bladder cancer. Urine samples were taken before any manipulation. We used the ImmunoCyt test and Papanicolaou staining for conventional cytology. The ImmunoCyt slides were examined under a fluorescence microscope. Evaluations of the tests were blinded to clinical and pathological data and were carried out by three independent observers. The results of cytology and ImmunoCyt were compared with the BTAstat, NMP22, Lewis X, 486p3/12, and Urovision tests. The sensitivity for the ImmunoCyt test was 78.3% and for conventional cytology 84.6%. The combination of ImmunoCyt and cytology showed a sensitivity of 89.1%. The specificity was 73.8% for the ImmunoCyt alone, 80.0% for the cytology, and 72.5% for the combination of ImmunoCyt and cytology. Sensitivities for the other tests were 68.8% for (FISH), 66.6% (BTA-Stat), 68.8% (486p3/12), 95.5% (Lewis X), and 71.1% for (NMP22). Specificity was 89.1% for (FISH), 78.2% (BTA-Stat), 76.4% (486p3/12), 32.8% (Lewis X), and 65.5% for (NMP22). Urinary cytology can be improved by immunostaining with monoclonal antibodies against tumor-associated antibodies. The combination of ImmunoCyt with conventional cytology offers a superior sensitivity to other commercial tests. The ImmunoCyt test provides a useful supplement to urinary cytology in the diagnosis of bladder cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Badalament RA, Fair WR, Whitmore WFJr, Melamed MR (1988) The relative value of cytometry and cytology in the management of bladder cancer: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Semin Urol 6:22–30

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Leyh H, Marberger M, Conort P, Sternberg C, Pansadoro V, Pagano F, Bassi P, Boccon-Gibod L, Ravery V, Treiber U, Ishak L (1999) Comparison of the BTA stat test with voided urine cytology and bladder wash cytology in the diagnosis and monitoring of bladder cancer. Eur Urol 35:52–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chautard D, Daver A, Bocquillon V, Verriele V, Colls P, Bertrand G, Soret JY (2000) Comparison of the BTA TRAK test with voided urine cytology in the diagnosis and follow up of bladder tumors. Eur Urol 38:686–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ellis WJ, Blumenstein BA, Ishak LM, Enfield DL (1997) Clinical evaluation if the BTA TRAK assay and comparison to voided urine cytology and the Bard BTA test in patients with recurrent bladder tumors. The Multi Center Study Group. Urology 50:882–887

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pode D, Shapiro A, Wald M, Nativ O, Laufer M, Kaver I (1999) Noninvasive detection of bladder cancer with the BTA stat test. J Urol 161:443–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Casella R, Huber P, Blochlinger A, Stoffel F, Dalquen P, Gasser TC, Lehmann K (2000) Urinary level of nuclear matrix protein 22 in the diagnosis of bladder cancer: experience with 130 patients with biopsy confirmed tumor. J Urol 164:1926–1928

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Landman J, Chang Y, Kavaler E, Droller MJ, Liu BC (1998) Sensitivity and specificity of NMP22, telomerase, and BTA in the detection of human bladder cancer. Urology 52:398–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Topsakal M, Karadeniz T, Anac M, Donmezer S, Besisik A (2001) Assessment of Fibrin-Fibrinogen Degradation Products (Accu Dx) test in bladder cancer patients. Eur Urol 39:287–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heicappell R, Schostak M, Mueller M, Miller K (2000) Evaluation of urinary bladder cancer antigen as a marker for diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 60:275–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sanchez-Carbayo M, Herrero E, Megias J, Mira A, Espasa A, Chinchilla V, Soria F (1999) Initial evaluation of the diagnostic performance of the new urinary bladder cancer antigen test as a tumor marker for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 161:1110–1115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Halling KC, King W, Sokolova IA, Meyer RG, Burkhardt HM, Halling AC, Cheville JC, Sebo TJ, Ramakumar S, Stewart CS, Pankratz S, O’Kane DJ, Seelig SA, Lieber MM, Jenkins RB (2000) A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 164:1768–1775

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jung I, Reeder JE, Cox C, Siddiqui JF, Oconnel MJ, Yang Z, Messing EM, Wheeless LL (1999) Chromosome 9 monosomy by fluorescence in situ hybridization of bladder irrigation specimens is a predictive of tumor recurrence. J Urol 162:1900–1903

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pycha A, Mian C, Posch B, Haitel A, El Baz M, Ghoneim MA, Marberger M (1998) Numerical aberrations of chromosomes 7, 9 and 17 in squamous cell and transitional cell cancer of the bladder: a comparative study performed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. J Urol 160:737–740

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klan R, Huland E, Baisch H, Huland H (1991) Sensitivity of urinary quantitative immunocytology with monoclonal antibody 486p3/12 in 241 unselected patients with bladder carcinoma. J Urol 145:495–497

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mian C, Pycha A, Wiener H, Haitel A, Lodde M, Marberger M (1999) ImmunoCyt: a new tool for detecting transitional cell cancer of the urinary tract. J Urol 161:1486–1489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Olsson H, Zackrisson B (2001) ImmunoCytTM a useful method in the follow-up protocol for patients with urinary bladder carcinoma. Scand J Urol Nephrol 35:280–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vriesema JLJ, Atsma F, Kiemeney ALM, Peelen WP, Witjes JA, Schalken JA (2001) Diagnostic efficacy of the ImmunoCyt test to detect superficial bladder cancer recurrence. Urology 58:367–371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fradet Y, Lockhart C (1997) Performance characteristics of a new monoclonal antibody test for bladder cancer: ImmunoCyt. Can J Urol 4:400

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boman H, Hedelin H, Holmang S (2002) Four bladder tumor markers have a disappointingly low sensitivity for small size and low grade recurrence. J Urol 167:80–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lokeshwar VB, Soloway MS (2001) Current bladder tumor tests: does their projected utility fulfil clinical necessity? J Urol 165:1067–1977

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Friedrich MG, Hellstern A, Toma, MI, Hammerer P, Huland H (2003) Are false positive urine tests in the diagnosis of bladder cancer really wrong—or do they predict tumour recurrence? Eur Urol 43:146–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pode D, Golijanin D, Sherman Y, Lebensart P, Shapiro A (1998) Immunostaining of Lewis X in cells from voided urine, cytopathology and ultrasound for noninvasive detection of bladder tumors. J Urol 159:389–392

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mss Ellinghausen, Beutel and Bildhauer for technical assistance. In addition, the authors thank Dr. Jonathan C. Cheng for critically reading the manuscript

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany

    Marieta I. Toma, Martin G. Friedrich, Stefan H. Hautmann, Angelika Hellstern & Hartwig Huland

  2. Institute of Pathology, University of Hamburg, University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany

    K. Thorsten Jäkel & Andreas Erbersdobler

Authors
  1. Marieta I. Toma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin G. Friedrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan H. Hautmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Thorsten Jäkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Erbersdobler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Angelika Hellstern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hartwig Huland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin G. Friedrich.

Additional information

M.I. Toma, M.G. Friedrich contributed equally to this study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Toma, M.I., Friedrich, M.G., Hautmann, S.H. et al. Comparison of the ImmunoCyt test and urinary cytology with other urine tests in the detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. World J Urol 22, 145–149 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-003-0390-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-003-0390-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation