ArticleCancer cell international2023
Technical comparison of Abbott's UroVysion
Article in Cancer cell international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization in detecting lower versus upper tract urothelial carcinoma.The Canadian journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the technical performance of Abbott's UroVysion and Biocare's CytoFISH urine cytology probe panel and position the CytoFISH probe panel as an alternative to UroVysion. The CytoFISH probe panel was developed based on clinically sensitive chromosomes found to be amplified in bladder cancers, as well as a locus-specific probe also seen to be amplified in bladder tumors. After extensive testing comparing CytoFISH to UroVysion, we present here our findings for the two assays. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 216 cases representing a mix of male (ages 36-99) and female (ages 46-91) patients were assayed with both probe sets. The CytoFISH and UroVysion probe panels were tested in accordance with the UroVysion procedure, as outlined in the manufacturer's supplied package insert with the following exception: the probe volume used was 3µL for UroVysion and 5µL for CytoFISH.
resultsThe scoring used for the CytoFISH and UroVysion assays revealed a 95% concordance, suggesting that Biocare's CytoFISH Test has at least the same clinical sensitivity and specificity as claimed by the Abbott UroVysion Kit. We found that the CytoFISH 5p15.2 locus-specific probe was easier to score than UroVysion's 9p21 deletion.
conclusionThe high rate of concordance between the two assays suggests that Biocare's CytoFISH assay is a robust alternative to Abbott's UroVysion in the diagnosis and monitoring of bladder carcinoma.
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.