Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34488763›Full record

ArticleCancer cell international2021

Diagnostic value comparison of CellDetect, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and cytology in urothelial carcinoma.

Donghao Shang, Yuting Liu, Xiuhong Xu, Zhenghao Chen, Daye Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer cell international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Role of Bladder EpiCheckJournal of translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donghao Shang *Department of Urology, Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6624-6834
Yuting Liu *Department of Pathology, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.
Xiuhong XuDepartment of Urology, Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
Zhenghao ChenDepartment of Urology, Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
Daye WangDepartment of Pathology, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China. wangdaye@ccmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3932-2037
Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support (CN) ZYLX201604
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a novel CellDetect staining technique, compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and urine cytology, in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma (UC).

methodsA total of 264 patients with suspicious UC were enrolled in this study. All tissue specimens were collected by biopsy or surgery. Urine specimen was obtained for examinations prior to the surgical procedure. CellDetect staining was carried out with CellDetect kit, and FISH was performed with UroVysion detection kit, according to the manufacturer's instructions. For urine cytology, all specimens were centrifuged using the cytospin method, and the slides were stained by standard Papanicolaou stain.

resultsIn this study, there were 128 cases of UC and 136 cases of non-UC, with no significant difference in gender and age between the two groups. Results for sensitivity of CellDetect, FISH, and urine cytology were 82.8%, 83.6%, and 39.8%, respectively. The specificity of the three techniques were 88.2%, 90.4%, and 86.0%, respectively. The sensitivity of CellDetect and FISH are significantly superior compared to the conventional urine cytology; however, there was no significant difference in specificity among three staining techniques. In addition, the sensitivity of CellDetect in lower urinary tract UC, upper urinary tract UC, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) were 83.3%, 81.8%, 83.5%, and 72.0%, respectively. The screening ability of CellDetect has no correlation with tumor location and the tumor stage. The sensitivity of CellDetect in low-grade UC and high-grade UC were 51.6 and 92.8%. Thus, screening ability of CellDetect in high-grade UC is significantly superior compared to that in low-grade UC.

conclusionsCellDetect and FISH show equal value in diagnosing UC, both are superior to conventional urine cytology. Compared to FISH, CellDetect is cost effective, easy to operate, with extensive clinical application value to monitor recurrence of UC, and to screen indetectable UC.

Indexed as

CellDetectCytologyFluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH)Urothelial carcinoma (UC)

Identifiers

PMID34488763
PMCPMC8419965
OpenAlexW3160369571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.