Diagnostic value of Xpert® BC Detection, Bladder Epicheck®, Urovysion® FISH and cytology in the detection of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma
- PMID: 36929411
- DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04350-x
Diagnostic value of Xpert® BC Detection, Bladder Epicheck®, Urovysion® FISH and cytology in the detection of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma
Abstract
Purpose: Following the current guidelines, diagnosis and staging for upper urinary tract tumours (UTUC) can be performed with Computed Tomography, urography, ureterorenoscopy (URS) and selective cytology. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the Xpert®-BC-Detection and the Bladder-Epicheck®-test in the detection of UTUC and compare it with cytology and the Urovysion®-FISH test using histology and URS as gold standard.
Methods: A total of 97 analyses were collected through selective catheterization of the ureter before URS to test for cytology, Xpert®-BC-Detection, Bladder-Epicheck® and Urovysion®-FISH. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated using histology results/URS as reference.
Results: Overall sensitivity was 100% for Xpert®-BC-Detection, 41.9% for cytology, 64.5% for Bladder-Epicheck® and 87.1% for Urovysion®-FISH. The sensitivity of Xpert®-BC-Detection was 100% in both, LG and HG tumours, sensitivity of cytology increased from 30.8% in LG to 100% in HG, for Bladder-Epicheck® from 57.7% in LG to 100% in HG and of Urovysion®-FISH from 84.6% in LG to 100% in HG tumours. Specificity was 4.5% for Xpert®-BC-Detection, 93.9% for cytology, 78.8% for Bladder-Epicheck® and 81.8% for Urovysion®-FISH. PPV was 33% for Xpert®-BC-Detection, 76.5% for cytology, 58.8% for Bladder-Epicheck® and 69.2% for Urovysion®FISH. NPV was 100% for Xpert®-BC-Detection, 77.5% for cytology, 82.5% for Bladder-Epicheck® and 93.1% for Urovysion®FISH.
Conclusion: Bladder-Epicheck® and Urovysion®FISH along with cytology could be a helpful ancillary method in the diagnosis and follow-up of UTUC while due to its low specificity Xpert®-BC Detection seems to be of limited usefulness.
Keywords: Upper urinary tract; Urinary cytology; Urinary markers; Urothelial carcinoma.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Burger M et al (2022) EAU Guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. In: EAU Guidelines. Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam. ISBN: 978–94–92671–16–5
-
- Schoenthaler M, Buchholz N, Farin E et al (2014) The Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS): a multicentric video-based evaluation of inter-rater reliability. World J Urol 32(4):1033–1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1185-1 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Smith AK, Stephenson AJ, Lane BR et al (2011) Inadequacy of biopsy for diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: implication for conservative management. Urology 78:82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.02.038 - DOI - PubMed
-
- D’Elia C, Trenti E, Krause PH, Pycha A, Mian C, Schwienbacher C et al (2022) Xpert bladder cancer detection as a diagnostic tool in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: preliminary results. Ther Adv Urol 14:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872221090320 - DOI
-
- Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI (eds) (2016) The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Springer International Publishing
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
