4.5 Article

Clinical application of NMP22 and urinary cytology in patients with hematuria or a history of urothelial carcinoma

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 401-405

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s003450000124

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For evaluation of the clinical application of immunoassay for nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22 immunoassay) and urinary cytology for early diagnosis and detection of bladder cancer in patients with hematuria and/or a previous history of bladder cancer, 209 urine samples obtained from 137 patients presenting episodes of hematuria or a history of bladder cancer were assayed for NMP22, levels and/or prepared for cytology examination. Biopsy was performed when any visible tumor was identified during cystoscopy examination. The median NMP22 concentrations measured in samples taken from patients with active bladder cancer, from patients with a history of bladder cancer but no active disease, from patients with hematuria, and from healthy volunteers were 18.95, 5.45, 6.39, and 3.75 U/ml, respectively. The urinary NMP22 level recorded for patients with urothelial carcinoma was significantly higher than that noted for individuals without active disease. The sensitivity of the NMP22 assay and of urinary cytology in diagnosing bladder cancer was 69% and 67%, respectively. In contrast, the specificity of these two diagnostic modalities reached 72% and 93%, respectively. The NMP22 assay is slightly more sensitive but less specific than urinary cytology in detecting bladder cancer. This study indicates that determination of urinary NMP22 levels is a useful and noninvasive tool for the detection of bladder cancer because of its high sensitivity. The urinary NMP22 assay may be used as a first-line routine screening method; however, it cannot replace the use of urinary cytology because of its lower specificity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available