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

Abstract Background To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a novel CellDetect staining technique, compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and urine cytology, diagnosis urothelial carcinoma (UC). Methods A total 264 patients suspicious UC were enrolled this study. All tissue specimens collected by biopsy or surgery. Urine specimen was obtained for examinations prior to surgical procedure. carried out kit, FISH performed UroVysion detection according manufacturer’s instructions. For all centrifuged using cytospin method, slides stained standard Papanicolaou stain. Results In study, there 128 cases 136 non-UC, no significant difference gender age between two groups. sensitivity CellDetect, FISH, cytology 82.8%, 83.6%, 39.8%, respectively. The specificity three techniques 88.2%, 90.4%, 86.0%, are significantly superior conventional cytology; however, among techniques. addition, lower urinary tract UC, upper non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), muscle-invasive (MIBC) 83.3%, 81.8%, 83.5%, 72.0%, screening ability has correlation tumor location stage. low-grade high-grade 51.6 92.8%. Thus, is that UC. Conclusions show equal value diagnosing both cytology. Compared cost effective, easy operate, extensive application monitor recurrence screen indetectable