Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27913867›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2017

Comparison of different concepts for interpretation of chromosomal aberrations in urothelial cells detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization.

Johannes Mischinger, Lutz Philipp Guttenberg, Jörg Hennenlotter, Georgios Gakis, Stefan Aufderklamm, Steffen Rausch, Eva Neumann, Jens Bedke, Stefan Kruck, Christian Schwentner and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Performance of the UroVysionCancer medicine · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Johannes MischingerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Lutz Philipp GuttenbergDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Jörg HennenlotterDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Georgios GakisDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Stefan AufderklammDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Steffen RauschDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Eva NeumannDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Jens BedkeDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Stefan KruckDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Christian SchwentnerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Arnulf StenzlDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Tilman TodenhöferDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler Street 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. tilman.todenhoefer@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
University of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUrine fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has become a broadly used marker for noninvasive detection of bladder cancer (BC). However, it has been discussed whether the interpretation algorithm proposed by the manufacturer could be improved. Aim of the present study was to compare alternative evaluation strategies of FISH for detection of BC.

methodsWe included 1048 patients suspicious for BC, who underwent urine FISH examination before cystoscopy (diagnostic cohort). Herefrom, we selected 122 patients (prognostic cohort) with a history of non-muscle-invasive BC who were cystoscopically tumor free and received FISH analysis ahead of a follow-up period of 24 months. FISH results were interpreted by the algorithms of UroVysion™, Bubendorf et al. and Zellweger et al.

resultsIn the diagnostic cohort, 228 patients (21.8%) had BC at time of evaluation; in the prognostic cohort 39 patients (32.0%) experienced tumor recurrence. Alterations in chromosome 3, 7 and 17 correlated with the presence of BC. Relative loss of 9p21 was associated with BC and higher risk for progression. The evaluation strategy proposed by Zellweger et al. showed highest accuracy of all FISH assessments. Performance of evaluation strategies differed in voided urine samples and samples obtained after mechanical manipulation.

conclusionsThe performance of FISH in BC diagnosis strongly depends on the interpretation criteria. Alternative evaluation methods partly show superior diagnostic performance compared to the manufacturer's algorithm. The introduction of specific cutoffs for tetraploid cells improves specificity. Further modifications of the interpretation algorithm of the Urovysion

Indexed as

Chromosome AberrationsIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUrotheliumYoung AdultBladder cancerDiagnostic and prognostic valueFISHUrine markerUrovysion

Identifiers

PMID27913867
PMCPMC11819138
OpenAlexW2558687427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.