4.4 Article

The predictive value of multi-targeted fluorescent in-situ hybridization in patients with history of bladder cancer

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2007.02.011

关键词

bladder cancer; recurrence; follow-up; fluorescent in situ hybridization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: UroVysion(TM) (Abbott Molecular Inc., Des Plaines, IL) is a multi-target fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) assay that detects aneuploidy of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17, and loss of the 9p21 locus in exfoliated cells in urine. In this study, we evaluated if UroVysion can predict tumor recurrence in patients with negative cystoscopy and urinary cytology at the time of (FISH) assay. Methods: The study population included patients with history of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer treated by transurethral resection. Follow-up included cystoscopy, barbotage, urinary cytology, and UroVysion testing. Patients were followed for at least 6 months after their initial UroVysion testing. Results: A total of 64 patients (37 males) were enrolled into the study. Mean patient age was 62 years (S.D. 13.2 years). Initial highest tumor stage was Ta in 42 patients (65.6%), T1 in 21 patients (33%), and isolated Tis in a single patient. Abnormal UroVysion results were observed in 40 patients (62.5%). After a median follow-tip of 13.5 months, 21 patients (33%) developed tumor recurrence (Ta in 13 patients, T1 in 5, and Tis in 3). Recurrent tumors developed in 45% of the patients with abnormal UroVysion test compared with 12.5% of the patients with normal assay (P = 0.01). An abnormal UroVysion result preceded the diagnosis of tumor recurrence in 18/21 cases (86%), including all high-grade recurrences. Conclusions: This data suggest that UroVysion may be a useful tool for predicting tumor recurrence. Cystoscopy may be spared and surveillance intervals widened in patients with history of low grade tumors and a normal UroVysion test. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据