ArticleThe Canadian journal of urology2025
Performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization in detecting lower versus upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
Article in The Canadian journal of urology, 2025. 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.
- Performance of Urine Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization for Diagnosis of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany studies have evaluated the performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in detecting urothelial carcinoma, while few of them compared it in detecting bladder cancer (BC) vs. upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). This study aimed to determine and compare the FISH performance in detecting BC and UTUC.
methodsData of patients with suspected urothelial carcinoma (UC) who accepted FISH from January 2021 to April 2023 were retrieved. The sensitivity and specificity of FISH in detecting BC and UTUC were determined and compared.
resultsA total of 145 BC, 62 UTUC, and 170 non-UC patients were included. No significant differences existed between BC and UTUC cohorts in FISH sensitivity (46.2% vs. 51.6%, p = 0.476) and specificity (100% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.271). FISH sensitivity was significantly higher in high-grade vs. low-grade BC and increased gradually from Ta to ≥T2 group. It was also higher in patients with multiple or large tumors or older age. Similar tendencies were observed in UTUC. FISH sensitivity was higher in BC vs. UTUC in detecting T1 or ≥T2 tumors (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis confirmed the tumor stage and the patient's age as predictors of FISH results in BC.
conclusionsFISH demonstrated overall similar sensitivity and specificity in detecting BC vs. UTUC, while the sensitivity was higher in BC for T1 or ≥T2 tumors. FISH was more sensitive in detecting more invasive or advanced tumors. The tumor stage and the patient's age were predictors of the FISH result in BC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41496535What 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.