ArticleCytoJournal2015
Comparative study of ProEx C immunocytochemistry and UroVysion fluorescent in-situ hybridization assays on urine cytology specimens.
Article in CytoJournal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urine Cytological Diagnostics: Possibilities and Limitations-A 25-Year Review and Overview at Hannover Medical School.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- MCM4 expression is associated with high-grade histology, tumor progression and poor prognosis in urothelial carcinoma.Diagnostic pathology · 2023Article
- Clinicopathological significance of claspin overexpression and its efficacy as a novel biomarker for the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022Article
- Diagnostic significance of dual immunocytochemical staining of p53/cytokeratin20 on liquid-based urine cytology to detect urothelial carcinoma.CytoJournal · 2020Article
- ProEx C as Diagnostic Marker for Detection of Urothelial Carcinoma in Urinary Samples: A Review.International journal of medical sciences · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetection of urothelial carcinoma (UC) by urine cytology can be challenging. Recently, ProEx C has been studied as a marker to improve detection of UC. ProEx C is an assay targeting expression of topoisomerase IIa and minichromosome maintenance protein-2 and is currently utilized to assist in diagnoses of the gynecological specimens. In this study, we compared the utility of ProEx C and UroVysion in urine specimens. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-seven urine specimens with UroVysion assay analysis and surgical biopsy follow-up were selected. The smears were stained with ProEx C. ProEx C and UroVysion assay results were separated into two categories based on surgical biopsy follow-up (benign or neoplastic). Surgical biopsy diagnoses were used as the gold standard for comparative evaluation of the two assays. The surgical follow-up was 9 benign, 2 low grade, and 16 high grade UCs.
resultsThe sensitivity was 88.9% for ProEx C and 55.6% for UroVysion, while the specificity was 77.8% for ProEx C and 44.4% for UroVysion. Positive predictive value was 88.9% for ProEx C and 66.7% for UroVysion. Negative predictive value was 77.8% and 33.3% for ProEx C and UroVysion, respectively. Using the two-tailed paired t-test, P value of 0.033 was obtained when ProEx C stain was compared with the UroVysion assay.
conclusionProEx C immunocytochemistry has a more favorable performance than fluorescent in-situ hybridization with a significant difference between the two assays using paired two-tail t-test (P = 0.0033).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.