ArticleBMC cancer2017
A prospective comparison of UroVysion FISH and urine cytology in bladder cancer detection.
Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urinary Tumor DNA to Identify Candidates for Repeat Transurethral Resection in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.Cancer science · 2026Article
- Performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization in detecting lower versus upper tract urothelial carcinoma.The Canadian journal of urology · 2025Article
- An assessment of chromosomal alterations detected by FISH in urothelial carcinoma and its correlation to liquid-based urine cytology and histopathology.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2025Article
- Relapse and Survival in Bladder Cancer Patients Undergoing microRNA-129 and microRNA-145 Assays.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Bladder cancer detection in patients with neurogenic bladder: are cystoscopy and cytology effective, and are biomarkers pertinent as future diagnostic tools? A scoping review.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- The Development of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Tools in Bladder Cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2022Review
- KIF22 promotes bladder cancer progression by activating the expression of CDCA3.International journal of molecular medicine · 2021Article
- Keratin 17 Is a Novel Cytologic Biomarker for Urothelial Carcinoma Diagnosis.American journal of clinical pathology · 2021Article
- Improvement of the Collection, Maintenance, and Analysis of Neoplastic Cells from Urine Specimens with the Use of CytoMatrix.Methods and protocols · 2021Article
- Diagnostic value comparison of CellDetect, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and cytology in urothelial carcinoma.Cancer cell international · 2021Article
- Review
- A urine-based DNA methylation assay to facilitate early detection and risk stratification of bladder cancer.Clinical epigenetics · 2021Article
- UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization in urothelial carcinoma: a narrative review and future perspectives.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- A Multiplex Test AssessingJournal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Biomarkers for Bladder Cancer Diagnosis and Surveillance: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Urine biopsy technologies: Cancer and beyond.Theranostics · 2020Review
- Evaluation of UroVysion for Urachal Carcinoma Detection.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
- Incidence and distribution of UroSEEK gene panel in a multi-institutional cohort of bladder urothelial carcinoma.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019Article
- Detection of Bladder Cancer in Urine Sediments by a Novel Multicolor Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (Quartet) Test.European urology focus · 2019Article
- Keratin 17 is a sensitive and specific biomarker of urothelial neoplasia.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization (uFISH) was reported to have superior sensitivity to urine cytology. However uFISH studies are limited by varying definitions of what is considered a positive result, absence of histopathology and small sample size. The aim of our study was to better determine the performance characteristics of uFISH and urine cytology by overcoming some of the deficiencies of the current literature.
methodsIntraoperative bladder wash cytology and uFISH were collected prospectively on all patients. Strict definitions for positivity of uFISH and cytology were determined before initiating the study. A re-review of false-negative uFISH specimens was performed to analyze potential sources of error. Sixteen bladder tumors embedded in paraffin were analyzed by uFISH and compared with the result in the urine.
resultsOne hundred and twenty-nine specimens were analyzed. Sensitivity was 67% and 69% (p = 0.54); specificity was 72% and 76% (p = 1.0), for uFISH and cytology, respectively. Thirty-two false negative uFISH samples were re-reviewed. Low grade tumors often showed cells with abnormal morphology and patchy DAPI staining but diploid chromosomal counts and a few high grade tumors had tetraploid counts but less than needed to interpret uFISH as positive. uFISH study of the tumors revealed three categories; positive in both tumor and urine (9), negative in both tumor and urine (5) and positive in tumor but negative in urine (2).
conclusionIn a pathologically-confirmed analysis of bladder washed urine specimens, uFISH does not outperform urine cytology in cancer detection.
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.