4.2 Article

Centrosome amplification in bladder washing cytology specimens is a useful prognostic biomarker for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Journal

CANCER GENETICS
Volume 206, Issue 1-2, Pages 12-18

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cancergen.2012.11.004

Keywords

Centrosome amplification (CA); non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); bladder washing cytology (BWC); disease progression; biomarker

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [23592333]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23592333] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated whether centrosome amplification (CA) obtained from bladder washing cytology (BWC) specimens may be a useful prognostic biomarker for patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The study cohort included 78 patients with pathologically confirmed NMIBC. BWC specimens were obtained from all patients during transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), and CA was evaluated by immunofluorescence staining using a pericentrin polyclonal antibody. A positive case of CA was defined as a specimen in which >5% of cells contained >= 3 centrosomes per cell. CA was detected in 26.9% (21 of 78) of BWC specimens obtained from NMIBC patients. Disease progression was observed in 11.5% (9 of 78) of patients, with a median follow-up of 32 months. In univariate analyses, CA obtained from BWC specimens, initial or recurrent, and washing cytology were significantly associated with progression-free survival (P = 0.009, 0.02, and 0.03, respectively). Multivariate Cox model analyses revealed that CA was the most significant prognostic factor for disease progression (hazard ratio: 2.22, 95% confidence interval: 1.13-4.90, P = 0.022). These data suggest that analysis of CA using bladder washing cytological specimens may provide crucial predictive information regarding disease progression in NMIBC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available