期刊文献+

荧光原位杂交在尿路上皮癌诊断中的临床应用价值

The clinical value of fluorescence in situ hybridization in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的探讨荧光原位杂交(FISH)在诊断尿路上皮癌中的临床价值。方法对27例疑似尿路上皮癌患者尿液中的脱落细胞进行FISH检查,并同期进行经内窥镜活组织病理学检查。将FISH检查结果和经内窥镜活组织病理学检查结果进行比较,分析FISH检查尿路上皮癌的敏感度、特异度,并综合检查费用评价FISH检查用于诊断尿路上皮癌的临床价值。结果27例患者中,经内窥镜活组织病理学检查结果阳性11例,FISH检查结果阳性9例,其中7例包括在经内窥镜活组织病理学检查结果阳性患者中,FISH检查敏感度为63.6%(7/11),特异度为87.5%(14/16),而FISH检查费用(3100元)为经内窥镜活组织病理学检查费用(1000元)的3.1倍。结论与经内窥镜活组织病理学检查结果相比,FISH检查诊断尿路上皮癌的敏感度及特异度均较低,且检查成本高,故其在临床中的应用价值尚需进一步证实。 Objective To investigate the clinical value of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma. Methods From September 2010 to October 2011, morning voiding urine of 27 patients with suspected urothelial carcinoma was collected for FISH examination. The results of FISH examination were compared with the results of pathological examination by endoscopic biopsy. Both sensitivity and specificity were compared respectively, and the cost of each kind of examination was also considered. Results Of 27 cases, pathological examination by endoscopic biopsy revealed 11 cases of urothehal carcinoma, FISH examination showed 9 cases of urothelial carcinoma,but only 7 cases in these 11 cases. The overall sensitivity of FISH examination was 63.6% (7/11 ), the specificity was 87.5%(14/16). The cost per case of FISH examination (3100 yuan) was 3.1 times of pathological examination by endoscopic biopsy( 1000 yuan). Conclusions It showed that there is no advantage ofFISH examination for diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma considering both the sensitivity and specificity, and the cost is also higher than that of pathological examination by endoscopic biopsy. It should be evaluated further when FISH examination is widely used in clinic.
出处 《中国医师进修杂志》 2012年第29期3-5,共3页 Chinese Journal of Postgraduates of Medicine
关键词 原位杂交 荧光 泌尿系肿瘤 内窥镜 活组织检查 In situ hybridization,fluorescence Urologic neoplasms Endoscopes Biopsy
  • 相关文献

参考文献13

  • 1Mian C,Mazzoleni G,Vikoler S,et al. Fluorescence in situhybridisation in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract tumours. Eur Urol, 2010,58(2) : 288-292.
  • 2Chuang KL,Chuang HC,Ng KF,et al. Urinary fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for detecting urothelial carcinoma in Taiwan Residents patients. BJU Int, 2010,105( 10): 1413-1416.
  • 3Song MJ, Lee HM, Kim SH. Clinical usefulness of fluorescence in situ hybridization for diagnosis and surveillance of bladder cancer. Cancer Genet Cytogenet,2010,198(2) : 144-150.
  • 4Ding T,Wang YK, Cao YH,et al. Clinical utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization for prediction of residual tumor after transurethral resection of bladder urothelial carcinoma. Urology,2011,77 (4) : 855-859.
  • 5Caraway NP, Khanna A, Fernandez RL,et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for detecting urothelial carcinoma: a clinicopathologie study. Cancer Cytopathol, 2010,118 (5) : 259-268.
  • 6Kamat AM,Karam JA,Grossman HB,et 81. Prospective trial to identify optimal bladder cancer surveillance protocol: reducing costs while maximizing sensitivity. BJU Int, 2011,108 (7) : 1119- 1123.
  • 7Kehinde EO,al-Mulla F,Kapila K,et al. Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of urine cytology, urinary nuclear matrix protein-22 and multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assay in the detection of bladder cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol, 2011,45 (2):113-121.
  • 8曾铮,周晓军.荧光原位杂交技术对膀胱癌诊断价值的Meta分析[J].中华病理学杂志,2010,39(2):75-78. 被引量:7
  • 9Degtyar P,Neulander E,Zirkin H,et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization performed on exfoliated urothelial cells in patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Urology,2004,63 (2) : 398-401.
  • 10Sokolova IA, Hailing KC, Jenkins RB, et al. The development of a multitarget,multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for the detection of umthelial carcinoma in urine. J Mol Diagn, 2000,2 (3): 116-123.

二级参考文献17

  • 1Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R. Pathology of tumors of the urinary bladder//Mikuz G. Clinical pathology of urologic tumors. London: Informa, 2007 : 57 -58.
  • 2Halling KC, Kipp BR. Bladder cancer detection using FISH ( UroVysion Assay). Adv Anat Patho1,2008,15 (5) :279-286.
  • 3Hailing KC, King W, Sokolova IA, et ai. A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. J Urol,2000,164 (5) : 1768-1775.
  • 4Bubendorf L, Grilli B, Sauter G, et al. Multiprobe FISH for enhanced detection of bladder cancer in voided urine specimens and bladder washings. Am J Clin Pathol,2001,116( 1 ) :79-86.
  • 5Placer J, Espinet-B, Salido M, et al. Clinical utility of a multiprobe FISH assay in voided urine specimens for the detection of bladder cancer and its recurrences, compared with urinary cytology. Eur Urol, 2002,42(6) :547-552.
  • 6Skacel M, Fahmy M, Brainard JA, et al. Multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization assay detects transitional cell carcinoma in the majority of patients with bladder cancer and atypical or negative urine cytology. J Urol,2003,169(3) :2101-2105.
  • 7Sarosdy MF, Schellhammer P, Bokinsky G, et al. Clinical evaluation of a multi-target fluorescent in situ hybridization assay for detection of bladder cancer. J Urol,2002,168 (5) : 1950-1954.
  • 8Mian C, Iz)dde M, Comploj E, et al. Liquid-based cytology as a tool for the performance of uCyt + and Urovysion Muhicolour-FISH in the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Cytopathology,2003,14 (6) :338-342.
  • 9Friedrich MG, Toma MI, Hellstern A, et al. Comparison of muhitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization in urine with other noninvasive tests for detecting bladder cancer. BJU Int, 2003,92 (9) :911-914.
  • 10Laudadio J, Keane TE, Reeves HM, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for detecting transitional cell carcinoma: implications for clinical practice. BJU Int,2005,96(9) :1280-1285.

共引文献6

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部