Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to M Sánchez-Carbayo.
High-throughput microarrays are being used in expression profiling analyses with the objectives of gene and pathway discovery, functional characterization of genes, and tumor subclassification. This review summarizes bladder cancer studies dealing with both in vitro models and clinical specimens, using distinct microarray platforms for target discovery.
BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to comparatively analyze the sensitivity and specificity of flow cytometric DNA/cytokeratin 8/18 measurements and the urinary bladder carcinoma antigen (UBC) enzyme linked immunoabsorbent assay (ELISA) test for the detection of bladder carcinoma in voided urine samples. METHODS: Eighty-one fresh urine voided samples, preserved frozen for a maximum period of 3 months, belonging to patients with an active bladder carcinoma (n = 37), patients who were free of disease as confirmed by cystoscopy (n = 19), patients receiving intravesical therapy (n = 17), and individuals with other benign and malignant conditions (n = 8), were collected. Flow cytometry measurements of thawed samples were based on the detection of cytokeratin (CK) 8+ and CK18+ cells using the 3F3 and 6D7 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with the measurement of cell DNA contents, after propidium iodide staining. Urinary bladder carcinoma antigen test was measured by ELISA. RESULTS: Patients were grouped according to the presence (n = 44) or absence (n = 29) of bladder carcinoma as confirmed by cystoscopy, and taking cutoffs of 9.7 microg/L for UBC-ELISA, 75% for the percentage of 3F3 (+) and 6D7 (+) cells, and 10.6% for the proportion of hyperdiplod cells that suggested a specificity of 83%, the individual sensitivity obtained for each parameter was 77%, 5%, 9%, and 77%, respectively. The presence of DNA aneuploid populations showed a relatively low sensitivity (36%) although it was the most specific parameter (93%). Combining UBC antigen test with the proportion of cells showing DNA content higher than 2n increased to 89% the sensitivity of the UBC antigen alone. However, false-positive results for both techniques were found in individuals with urologic diseases other than bladder carcinoma and in patients receiving intravesical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results suggest that the combined use of the UBC antigen test and DNA/cytokeratin flow cytometry double stainings for the analysis of freshly obtained urine voided samples, cryopreserved to assure cellular integrity, is of great clinical utility for the detection of tumor recurrence in patients with bladder carcinoma.
BACKGROUND: Cross-section studies have shown the diagnostic characteristics of certain urinary tumor markers for the detection of bladder carcinoma. However, the role of serial urinary tumor markers in the monitoring of patients with bladder carcinoma in daily clinical surveillance has not been completely defined yet. METHODS: The study comprised 1185 urine samples belonging to 232 patients with a previous bladder carcinoma: 106 patients under follow-up (Group 1) and 126 bladder carcinoma patients receiving intravesic instillations (Group 2). Patients were monitored with urinary tumor markers during a one-year follow-up period. Urine samples were collected before cystoscopies and in the intercystoscopic periods for patients in Group 1 and before intravesic instillations for patients Group 2. Urinary bladder carcinoma antigen (UBC), CYFRA 21-1 and nuclear matrix proteins (NMP22) were measured by immunoassays. RESULTS: Monitoring of the disease with urinary tumor markers could detect recurrence sooner than scheduled cystoscopies in 27 patients (87%) for UBC, 27 patients (87%) for CYFRA 21-1, and 26 patients (84%) for NMP22 out of 31 Group 1 patients who recurred; and in 16 patients (67%) for UBC, 17 patients (71%) for cytokeratin fragments (CYFRA) 21-1, and 13 patients (54%) for NMP22 out of 24 Group 2 patients who recurred. The most relevant finding was that persistence of negative urinary markers during follow-up was largely indicative of disease free status in 65 of 75 (87%) patients of Group 1 and 31 of 102 (30%) cases of Group 2. Although false positive results were present, they were mainly associated with sporadic urinary tract infections in 10 of 75 (13%) cases of Group 1 and in 36 of 102 (35%) patients of Group 2; and with urine samples collected in the first two months at the beginning of intravesic therapy in 35 of 102 patients (34%) in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of bladder carcinoma patients with serial urinary tumor markers could anticipate detection of recurrence. Persistent negative results might postpone and reduce the number of cystoscopies. Once the limitations leading to false positive results are controlled by urinalysis and by starting sample collection when basal levels are reached in patients with intravesic therapy, urinary tumor markers might eventually individualize the intervals between cystoscopies in the surveillance of patients with bladder carcinoma.
PURPOSE: We study the potential diagnostic use of urinary bladder cancer antigen, CYFRA 21-1 and NMP22*; for evaluating symptomatic patients who present with microscopic hematuria and are at risk for bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urinary tumor markers were determined in 187 samples from 112 patients symptomatic of bladder cancer (group 1), and 75 with benign and other urological conditions (group 2). Immunoassays were used to measure the 3 selected biomarkers. Sensitivity and specificity were established by previously defined cut points. Biomarker results were reported as corrected and uncorrected for urinary creatinine. Urinalysis was performed in all samples. RESULTS: Positive and negative predictive values were 85.5%, 80.5% and 81.1%, and 80.8%, 79.2% and 76.5% for urinary bladder cancer antigen, CYFRA 21-1 and NMP22, with the cutoffs 9.7 microg./l., 5.4 microg./l and 10.0 units per ml., respectively. These predictives values were 85.2% and 72.5%, respectively, for urinary cytology. The combination of biomarkers decreased the positive predictive values to 72.3% to 78.6% and increased negative predictive values to 84.2% to 86.1%. Urinary tract infection, inflammation and malignancy associated with other genitourinary organs were the primary cause for false-positive test results in the 3 assays evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: With a single biomarker, around 80% of the positive results would have correctly identified symptomatic patients for cystoscopy. Of the negative results 75% would have correctly reduced the number of cystoscopies. Sensitivity and negative predictive values could be improved with the combination of biomarkers but with a loss of specificity and positive predictive values. Urinary tract inflammation and other genitourinary malignancies might contribute to the reduction in specificity of these tests.
BACKGROUND: The development of urinary tumor markers such as UBC, CYFRA 21-1 and NMP22 appeared to be non invasive alternative methods for the detection of bladder cancer. We compared the individual and combined sensitivity of the urinary tumor markers in the detection of bladder cancer, contrasting them with the conventional diagnostic procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 237 voided urines from subjects under risk for bladder cancer were collected immediately before the endoscopic examinations: 44 patients under suspicion of a primary bladder tumor and 193 patients under follow-up of a previous bladder cancer were included. UBC and NMP22 were measured by enzyme-immunoabsorbent-assays and CYFRA 21-1 by an electro-chemiluminescense-immunoassay. RESULTS: Taking the cutoffs of 9.7 micrograms/l for UBC, 5.4 ng/ml for CYFRA 21-1 and 10.0 U/ml for NMP22 sensitivities were 70%, 69% and 67% for UBC, CYFRA 21-1 and NMP22 at specificities of 95%, 94% y 80%, respectively. All tumor markers showed higher sensitivities than urinary cytology (7%), microhematuria (62%) and gross hematuria (10%) at specificities of 99%, 78% and 99%, respectively. The combinations of NMP22 plus CYFRA 21-1 reached the highest sensitivity (79%), slightly lower than simultaneously measuring the three tumor markers (80%). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivities of the urinary markers UBC, CYFRA 21-1 and NMP22 appeared to be high enough so as to substitute urinary cytology. The diagnostic similarity between cytokeratins individually and in each type of patients might not recommend their simultaneous determination. The combined measurement of NMP22 and one cytokeratin marker (CYFRA 21-1 or UBC) appeared to be the most recommended.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of the urinary measurement of cytokeratin tissue polypeptide-specific antigen (TPS) for the detection of bladder cancer. METHODS: Three hundred thirty-five individuals in five groups were studied: group 1, subjects with microhematuria under suspicion for primary bladder cancer; group 2, patients being followed up with scheduled cystoscopic examinations; group 3, patients in follow-up receiving chemotherapy instillations; group 4, patients with other urologic diseases; and group 5, healthy subjects. Urine samples belonging to subjects from groups 1, 2, and 3 were collected immediately before cystoscopy. Additionally, patients from groups 2 and 3 were monitored with urinary TPS for a minimum period between two cystoscopies. TPS was measured by an enzyme immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis gave a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 84% at a threshold value of 279 U/L. The positive and negative predictive value was 66% and 82%, respectively; accuracy was 77%. TPS could discriminate the presence of bladder tumor sooner than the scheduled cystoscopies in 9 of 19 follow-up patients with recurrence. False-positive results during follow-up were found in 112 urine samples, one third of which were associated with urinary tract infections. TPS did not appear to be specific for bladder cancer, with elevated results in 45% of patients from group 4, which might lead to clinical misinterpretation of urinary TPS results. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary TPS might provide additional information for the detection of bladder cancer as an adjunct to cystoscopy. Considering the false-positive rates, different urologic diseases should be ruled out before making clinical decisions on the basis of elevated urinary TPS results.
Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic value of two new urinary tumor markers, cytokeratin 18 (CK18) and bladder tumor fibronectin (BTF), for the detection and monitoring of bladder cancer. The study comprised 931 urine samples belonging to 402 subjects: 112 individuals under suspicion for a primary bladder tumor (group 1); 104 bladder cancer patients under scheduled follow-up (group 2); 109 bladder cancer patients receiving intravesical instillations (group 3); 45 patients with other urological diseases (group 4); and 32 healthy subjects (group 5). Voided urine samples were collected before cystoscopies, between them and before intravesical instillations. CK18 and BTF tests were measured by chemiluminescent immunoassays. Optimal receiver operating characteristic cutoffs of 7.4 microg/L for CK18 and 52.8 microg/liter for BTF rendered overall sensitivities of 66.2% for CK18 and 80.0% for BTF at specificities of 88.4 and 74.7%, respectively. Urinary cytology provided a sensitivity of 29.2% at a specificity of 99.1%. Sensitivities were 80.8, 74.2, and 82.3% for BTF and 71.1, 77.4, and 64.7% for CK18 for groups 1 to 3, respectively. False positive rates were higher for BTF in all groups of patients. Elevated urinary tumor markers during the monitoring of patients with bladder cancer could detect recurrence sooner than scheduled cystoscopies. Persistence of negative markers was greatly indicative of free of disease status in follow-up. CK18 and BTF in urine may eventually prove to be of benefit for specific patients with bladder carcinoma given its higher sensitivity compared with cytology. In selected patients, namely those with persistent negative urinary CK18 and BTF, the number of cystoscopies could be reduced.
OBJECTIVES: To perform an analytical evaluation of the new electrochemiluminescent immunoassays (ECLIA) for TSH, FT4, and T3 in the Elecsys 2010 immunoassay system. To assess the clinical classification of patients under suspicion of thyroid disease based on these laboratory assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analytical evaluation included the performance of minimum detectable concentrations, within-assay and inter-assay precision for the three analytes, functional sensitivity and linearity studies for TSH, and method comparison with the previous methods of RIA for FT4 and T3, and IRMA for TSH in current protocols of our institution. 102 patients with clinical suspicion of thyroid disease were assayed by ECLIA and radioactive techniques. Their differential clinical classification based on laboratory tests was studied as well. RESULTS: The minimum detectable concentrations coincided with the manufacturer's: <0.005 mU/L for TSH, <0.30 pmol/L for FT4, and <0.30 nmol/L for T3. Functional sensitivity for TSH was 0.044 mU/L. Over the analytical range tested, within-assay imprecision was below 3.2% for TSH, 2.2% for FT4 and 9.6% for T3, and interassay CVs were below 4.0% for TSH, 5.9% for FT4 and 12.9% for T3. Measurement of diluted sera showed the TSH assay to overestimate recoveries by 18.6%. We have compared sera results of the Elecsys ECLIA assays with those obtained from the IRMA (Spectria-Orion Diagnostica) for TSH: TSH (ECLIA) = 0.074+0.953 TSH (IRMA), (r = 0.974; Sy/x = 2.638), and RIA (Coat a Count-DPC) for FT4:FT4 (ECLIA) = 5.043+0.682 FT4 (RIA), (r = 0.770; Sy/x = 4.774) and RIA (Spectria-Orion Diagnostica) for T3: T3(ECLIA) = -0.461+1.084 T3 (RIA), (r = 0.970; Sy/x = 0.412). When sera from 102 patients were processed by both methods, minimal disagreement in the area of diagnostic classification was observed in 8/102 (7.8%) of the cases. CONCLUSION: The Elecsys 2010 is specially attractive as a routine assay because it is fully automated, obtaining results in only 18 minutes. The analytical assay performance for TSH, FT4 and T3 was shown to be acceptable. Using two different sets of diagnostic tests minimal discrepancies were found in the laboratory assessment for the classification of patients with clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.
PURPOSE: We compare the individual and combined sensitivity of urinary CYFRA 21-1, urinary bladder cancer antigen, tissue polypeptide antigen and NMP22 to detect bladder cancer, evaluate the false-positive rates for different pathological conditions, and assess differential sensitivity regarding histological and clinical characteristics of disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 267 subjects entered the study. Sensitivities of the tests were evaluated in 111 patients with active bladder cancer and 76 with no evidence of disease. False-positive rates were evaluated in 80 symptomatic and asymptomatic controls, including patients with benign urological conditions and nonbladder malignancies, and healthy subjects. CYFRA 21-1 was determined by electrochemoluminescent immunoassay in the Elecsys 2010, urinary bladder cancer antigen was quantified by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (IDL Biotech), tissue polypeptide antigen was measured by the Prolifigen TPA-IRMA and NMP22 was assayed by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (Matritech). Cutoffs were obtained by the 95% percentile in patients with no evidence of disease, which gave a 95% specificity for all biomarkers. Differences in sensitivity of urinary biomarkers regarding stage, grade, tumor size, pattern of growth, focality and recurrence were evaluated. RESULTS: At a specificity of 95% cutoffs were 5.4 ng./ml. for CYFRA 21-1, 15.5 microg./l. for urinary bladder cancer antigen, 760.8 U./l. for tissue polypeptide antigen and 14.6 U./ml. for NMP22. Using these cutoffs sensitivities were 75.7% for NMP22, 83.8% for CYFRA 21-1, 73.9% for urinary bladder cancer antigen quantitative and 80.2% for tissue polypeptide antigen. The additional determination of cytokeratins increased the sensitivity of NMP22. Cytokeratins did not appear to be specific for bladder cancer, and false-positives rates were between 20% for urinary bladder cancer antigen and 36% for tissue polypeptide antigen for benign urological conditions, and between 40% and 52%, respectively, for nonbladder malignancies. NMP22 showed lower false-positives rates, mainly for benign diseases. Urinary tumor markers appeared to be associated with some of the most relevant histological and clinical parameters of bladder cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary evaluation showed the tests to be potential noninvasive adjuncts to help determine the need for cystoscopy. The combination of 2 tumor markers, NMP22 and 1 cytokeratin (CYFRA 21-1 or urinary bladder cancer antigen), seemed to be the most effective. Further comparative studies are needed to assess the promising diagnostic role of these markers.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the new noninvasive urinary bladder cancer (UBC) rapid test in selected urine voided samples for the detection of transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder, and to assess the differential sensitivity of the biomarker regarding the most relevant histologic and clinical parameters of bladder cancer. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-seven subjects were entered into the study and classified into five groups: 111 patients with active TCC of the bladder (group 1); 76 follow-up patients with TCC free from disease as confirmed by cystoscopy (group 2); 25 patients with other benign urologic diseases (group 3); 25 patients with other malignant pathologic conditions (group 4); and 30 healthy subjects (group 5). The UBC rapid test was measured by an immunochromatographic method that qualitatively detects the presence of fragments of cytokeratins 8 and 18 in the urine. UBC rapid test differences regarding stage, grade, tumor size, pattern of growth, focality, and recurrence were also evaluated. RESULTS: The sensitivity in group 1 was 78.4% and the specificity in group 2 was 97.4%. Positive and negative predictive values in groups 1 and 2 were 97.4% and 79.0%, respectively, with a global accuracy of 86.1%. False-positive rates were 20.0% and 44.0% for groups 3 and 4, respectively. The sensitivities of the UBC rapid test were associated with the histologic and clinical characteristics of bladder cancer, but not enough to reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The UBC rapid test appears to be a promising noninvasive adjunct that might guide the urologist in the decision to perform cytoscopy for the detection of TCC of the bladder. Further studies appear to be merited to assess its potential diagnostic role.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of urinary nuclear matrix protein-22 (NMP22) in detecting bladder cancer, to compare the diagnostic performance of NMP22 alone and when corrected by urinary creatinine level, and to correlate NMP22 level with the histological and clinical characteristics of bladder cancer. PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study included 267 patients classified into five groups: group 1 comprised 111 patients with active transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder; group 2 included 76 patients who had had bladder TCC but were being followed and were free of disease, as confirmed by cystoscopy; group 3 comprised 25 patients with benign urological diseases; group 4 included 25 patients with other malignant pathological conditions; group 5 constituted a control group of 30 healthy subjects free of urological diseases. Urinary NMP22 was measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to obtain the thresholds which gave optimal sensitivity and specificity for combinations of NMP22 alone and when corrected by urinary creatinine level. Stage, grade, tumour size, pattern of growth, focality and the presence of recurrence were recorded and their associations with NMP22 evaluated. RESULTS: The mean levels of NMP22 were 122.8, 5.1, 3.7, 2.3 and 0.3 U/mL for groups 1-5, respectively; overall, these values were significantly different (P<0.001). The mean (95% CI) optimal combination of 78.2% (69.3-85.5) sensitivity and 95.5% (87.3-99.0) specificity was obtained from the ROC analysis with a threshold value of 13.7 U/mL NMP22. When values were corrected by urinary creatinine levels, the threshold given by the best combination of sensitivity and specificity, at 73.2% (63.2-81.7) and 97.0% (89.6-99.5), respectively, was 3.0 U/mg creatinine. NMP22 level was statistically associated with stage, grade, tumour size and focality. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary NMP22 appeared to be a potential tumour marker for detecting TCC of the bladder; when corrected by urinary creatinine level, it might provide a better interpretation than when used alone. NMP22 correlated with the most relevant variables in bladder cancer. As a noninvasive adjunct, NMP22 might have a role in guiding urologists about the need for cystoscopy in such patients.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the new noninvasive bladder cancer test on voided urine samples from patients with transitional cell carcinoma compared to symptomatic and asymptomatic controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urinary bladder cancer antigen was measured in urine from 86 patients with active transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder (group 1), 76 patients free of transitional cell carcinoma as confirmed by cystoscopy at followup (group 2), 25 patients with other benign urological diseases (group 3), 25 patients with other malignant pathological conditions (group 4) and 30 healthy subjects free of urological diseases (group 5). RESULTS: Mean urinary bladder cancer antigen concentrations were 104.84, 4.57, 11.79, 48.87 and 1.38 microg/l, for groups 1 to 5, respectively, which was statistically different (p = 0.00005) except for groups 1 and 4 (p = 0.187). Sensitivity was 87.0% (95% confidence interval 79.2 to 92.7) and specificity was 86.8% (77.1 to 93.5%), and both were optimized by receiver operating characteristics plot analysis at a threshold value of 9.74 microg/l using asymptomatic (group 2) compared to known cancer (group 1) cases. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary bladder cancer antigen might have a role as a potential tumor marker for diagnosing transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.
BACKGROUND: A new electrochemiluminescent immunoassay (ECLIA) has been developed for the determination of cytokeratin 19 (CYFRA 21-1) in the Elecsys 2010 immunoassay system. Urinary CYFRA 21-1 might have a role in the diagnosis of bladder cancer. METHODS: We performed an analytical evaluation of the CYFRA 21-1 ECLIA for serum and urine samples. The clinical value of urinary CYFRA 21-1 for the detection of bladder cancer was evaluated through its measurement in 226 urine samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic controls. RESULTS: At concentrations of 2-30 microg/L, within-assay imprecision (CV) was below 2.1% for sera and 3.3% for urines, with interassay CVs below 3.3% for sera and 4.9% for urines. The day-to-day CV was <20% at concentrations >0.2 microg/L (functional sensitivity). Measurement of diluted samples showed that the assay estimated CYFRA 21-1 between 98% and 103% for sera and 98% and 105% for urines. Recovery of added CYFRA 21-1 was 99-105% for sera and 96-115% for urines. We separately compared serum and urine CYFRA 21-1 ECLIA results with those obtained with an IRMA (CIS bio international). Regression analysis for sera was: CYFRA 21-1 (ECLIA) = 0.520 + 1.018 CYFRA 21-1 (IRMA); [95% confidence interval (CI) (y-intercept), -0.260 to 1.309]; 95% CI (slope), 0.978-1.060; n = 100; S(y|x) = 3.242; r(2) = 0.987. For urine samples it was: CYFRA 21-1 (ECLIA) = 0.716 + 0.966 CYFRA 21-1 (IRMA); 95% CI (y-intercept), 0.009-1.422; 95% CI (slope), 0.956-0.976; n = 100; S(y|x) = 4.136; r(2) = 0.986. In urine samples voided by patients with and without bladder cancer, the best ROC analysis discrimination provided 81.0% (95% CI, 72.7-87.7%) sensitivity and 97.2% (95% CI, 90.2-99.6%) specificity at a threshold value of 5.7 microg/L. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial evaluation showed reliable analytical performance for urinary CYFRA 21-1, which might assist urologists in the detection of bladder cancer as a noninvasive adjunct to cystoscopy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.