Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Feb;51(2):403-7; discussion 407-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.001. Epub 2006 Aug 15.

Validation of the diagnostic value of NMP22 BladderChek test as a marker for bladder cancer by photodynamic diagnosis

Stefan Tritschler  1 , Sonja Scharf, Alexander Karl, Derya Tilki, Ruth Knuechel, Arndt Hartmann, Christian G Stief, Dirk Zaak
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Validation of the diagnostic value of NMP22 BladderChek test as a marker for bladder cancer by photodynamic diagnosis

Stefan Tritschler et al. Eur Urol. 2007 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to validate the sensitivity and specificity of the new "point-of-care" NMP22 BladderChek test compared to photodynamic diagnosis (PDD).

Methods: Voided urine samples from 100 patients with suspicion of bladder cancer were collected to perform the NMP22 BladderChek test and voided urinary cytology. The nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) levels were measured by a lateral flow immunochromatographic qualitative assay, using 10 U/ml as the cut-off value. Subsequently patients underwent PDD, using 5-aminolevulinic acid or hexyl-aminolevulinate; previous bladder washings for cytology were collected. Sensitivity and specificity of the NMP22 BladderChek test were compared with cytology and PDD.

Results: Forty of the 100 patients had urothelial malignancies (22 pTa, 4 pT1, 3 pT2, 9 carcinoma in situ, 2 pTx; 16 G1, 6 G2, 18 G3). The sensitivity was 65% for the NMP22 BladderChek test, 44% for voided cytology, 75% for washing cytology, and 93% for PDD. Specificity rates were 40%, 78%, 62%, and 43%, respectively. Positive predictive values were 0.42, 0.58, 0.53, and 0.52 and the negative predictive values 0.63, 0.68, 0.82, and 0.9, respectively.

Conclusions: The results demonstrate that the NMP22 BladderChek is an easily applied test, giving diagnostic findings within 30 min. However, validated by the highly sensitive PDD, the NMP22 BladderChek test demonstrates poor specificity and sensitivity and, therefore, cannot be recommended for screening or surveillance in daily clinical routine use. Further studies with careful patient selection are necessary to identify the patient population that might benefit from the NMP22 BladderChek test.

PubMed Disclaimer