4.6 Article

Nuclear matrix protein-22: a prospective evaluation in a population at risk for bladder cancer. Results from the UroScreen study

Journal

BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 110, Issue 5, Pages 699-708

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10883.x

Keywords

bladder cancer; early detection; renal function; NMP22; haematuria

Funding

  1. German Social Accident Insurance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the value of nuclear matrix protein-22 (NMP22) in bladder cancer (BC) screening, and its effect on variables in a prospective study in a high-risk population. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 1772 chemical workers (mean age 62 years) exposed to carcinogenic aromatic amines were enrolled in the study. In all, 7091 screening check-ups in 1609 subjects were performed. Urine samples were collected for a quantitative NMP22 immunoassay, urine analysis and creatinine concentration assessment. Cystoscopy and subsequent transurethral resection were performed where there were suspicious findings. RESULTS Histopathological analysis found three papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential, five recurrent BCs and 13 primary BCs. Three tumours were at a muscle-invasive stage (pT2, pT3a or pT3b). We found higher NMP22 concentrations (> 10 U/mL) in 224 patients, which correctly predicted BC in six cases (sensitivity 97.29%, specificity 28.57%; negative predictive value 99.04%, positive predictive value 12.24%). Gross haematuria affected NMP22 results (odd ratio [OR] 3.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81-6.73). Infection also affected NMP22 results (OR 4.13, 95% CI 2.31-7.35). NMP22 was more frequently positive in urine with creatinine concentration > 2.5 g/L (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.91-2.86). CONCLUSIONS NMP22 outcomes are affected by haematuria, infection and concentrated urine. NMP22 alone cannot be recommended for primary screening in a high-risk population nor as an alternative to cystoscopy during follow-up. A NMP22 test might be a useful adjunct to urine cytology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available