Utility of the BTA stat test kit for bladder cancer screening

Urine Biopsy as Dynamic Biomarker to Enhance Clinical Staging of Bladder Cancer in Radical Cystectomy Candidates

PURPOSE

There is significant interest in identifying complete responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before radical cystectomy (RC) to potentially avoid removal of a pathologically benign bladder. However, clinical restaging after NAC is highly inaccurate. The objective of this study was to develop a next-generation sequencing-based molecular assay using urine to enhance clinical staging of patients with bladder cancer.

METHODS

Urine samples from 20 and 44 patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC were prospectively collected for retrospective analysis for molecular correlate analysis from two clinical trials, respectively. The first cohort was used to benchmark the assay, and the second was used to determine the performance characteristics of the test as it correlates to responder status as measured by pathologic examination.

RESULTS

First, to benchmark the assay, known mutations identified in the tissue (MT) of patients from the Accelerated Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, Cisplatin trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01611662, n = 16) and a cohort from University of California-San Francisco (n = 4) were cross referenced against mutation profiles from urine (MU). We then determined the correlation between MU persistence and residual disease in pre-RC urine samples from a second prospective clinical trial (The pT0 trial; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02968732). Residual MU status correlated strongly with residual disease status (pT0 trial; n = 44; P = .0092) when MU from urine supernatant and urine pellet were assessed separately and analyzed in tandem. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 91%, 50%, 86%, and 63% respectively, with an overall accuracy of 82% for this second cohort.

CONCLUSION

MU are representative of MT and thus can be used to enhance clinical staging of urothelial carcinoma. Urine biopsy may be used as a reliable tool that can be further developed to identify complete response to NAC in anticipation of safe RC avoidance.

Urine Biomarkers in the Management of Adult Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction requires lifelong surveillance and management for the perseveration of patients' quality of life and the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. Urine biomarkers are an attractive noninvasive method of surveillance for these patients. The aim of this systematic review is to search for and critically appraise studies that investigate the clinical usefulness of urine biomarkers in the management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) in adults.

METHODS

This review was conducted according to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Search strategy included PubMed, CENTRAL, and Scopus (until October 2022). Studies investigating potential urine biomarkers for the management of adults with NLUTD were included.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies fulfilled the criteria. To date, a variety of different urine molecules have been investigated for the diagnosis and management of neurogenic overactive bladder and detrusor overactivity (nerve growth factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, prostaglandin E2, prostaglandin F2α, transformation growth factor β-1, tissue inhibitor metalloproteinase-2, matrix metalloproteinase-2, substance P, microRNA), diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux (exosomal vitronectin), urinary tract infection (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, interleukin 6) and bladder cancer screening (cytology, BTA stat, survivin) in neurological patients.

CONCLUSION

Further studies are needed to specify the utility of each molecule in the management algorithm of adult NLUTD.

Review of non-invasive urinary biomarkers in bladder cancer

Bladder cancer (BC) is the sixth-most prevalent cancer. The standard diagnostic tool of BC is cystoscopy, whereas cystoscopy has several disadvantages in terms of symptomatic invasiveness and operator-dependency. The urinary markers are attractive because the testing is non-invasive and cost-efficient, and sample collection is easy. Urinary marker is thereby a good tool to detect exfoliated tumor cell in the urine samples for the diagnosis and therapeutic surveillance of BC to supplement the limitations of the cystoscopy. However, they are not recommended as a population-based screening tool because of the low rate of BC prevalence. Although both cystoscopy and urine cytology improve BC diagnostic power, the field still needs additional non-invasive, cost-effective, and highly sensitive and specific diagnostic tools. Various urinary markers with different mechanisms and different targets have been developed and under investigation in these days. However, the accuracy of the urinary marker including its sensitivity and specificity is the most important factor for the diagnosis and surveillance in cancer that this review deals with multiple FDA-approved and non-FDA approved commercialized urinary markers with their accuracy in different purposes for BC. We then discuss more about the potential candidate targets for the future urinary markers in BC

Urinary extracellular vesicle biomarkers in urological cancers: From discovery towards clinical implementation

Urine contains cellular elements, biochemicals, and proteins derived from glomerular filtration of plasma, renal tubule excretion, and urogenital tract secretions that reflect an individual's metabolic and pathophysiologic state. Despite intensive research into the discovery of urinary biomarkers to facilitate early diagnosis, accurate prognosis and prediction of therapy response in urological cancers, none of these markers has reached widespread use. Their implementation into daily clinical practice is hampered by a substantial degree of heterogeneity in performance characteristics and uncertainty about reliability, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness, in addition to several technical limitations. Extracellular vesicles (EV) have raised interest as a potential source of biomarker discovery because of their role in intercellular communication and the resemblance of their molecular content to that of the releasing cells. We review currently used urinary biomarkers in the clinic and attempts that have been made to identify EV-derived biomarkers for urological cancers. In addition, we discuss technical and methodological considerations towards their clinical implementation.

Urinary Biomarkers for Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Urinary biomarkers may be a useful alternative or adjunct to cystoscopy for diagnosis of bladder cancer.

PURPOSE

To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of urinary biomarkers for diagnosis of bladder cancer in adults who have signs or symptoms of the disease or are undergoing surveillance for recurrent disease.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (January 1990 through June 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

57 studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative or qualitative nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), qualitative or quantitative bladder tumor antigen (BTA), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), fluorescent immunohistochemistry (ImmunoCyt [Scimedx]), and Cxbladder (Pacific Edge Diagnostics USA) using cystoscopy and histopathology as the reference standard met inclusion criteria. Case-control studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies. Overall strength of evidence (SOE) was also assessed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Across biomarkers, sensitivities ranged from 0.57 to 0.82 and specificities ranged from 0.74 to 0.88. Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 2.52 to 5.53, and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.21 to 0.48 (moderate SOE for quantitative NMP22, qualitative BTA, FISH, and ImmunoCyt; low SOE for others). For some biomarkers, sensitivity was higher for initial diagnosis of bladder cancer than for diagnosis of recurrence. Sensitivity increased with higher tumor stage or grade. Studies that directly compared the accuracy of quantitative NMP22 and qualitative BTA found no differences in diagnostic accuracy (moderate SOE); head-to-head studies of other biomarkers were limited. Urinary biomarkers plus cytologic evaluation were more sensitive than biomarkers alone but missed about 10% of bladder cancer cases.

LIMITATION

Restricted to English-language studies; no search for studies published only as abstracts; statistical heterogeneity present in most analyses; few studies for qualitative NMP22, quantitative BTA, and Cxbladder; and methodological shortcomings in almost all studies.

CONCLUSION

Urinary biomarkers miss a substantial proportion of patients with bladder cancer and are subject to false-positive results in others. Accuracy is poor for low-stage and low-grade tumors.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014013284).

Molecular markers for bladder cancer screening, early diagnosis, and surveillance: the WHO/ICUD consensus

Due to the lack of disease-specific symptoms, diagnosis and follow-up of bladder cancer has remained a challenge to the urologic community. Cystoscopy, commonly accepted as a gold standard for the detection of bladder cancer, is invasive and relatively expensive, while urine cytology is of limited value specifically in low-grade disease. Over the last decades, numerous molecular assays for the diagnosis of urothelial cancer have been developed and investigated with regard to their clinical use. However, although all of these assays have been shown to have superior sensitivity as compared to urine cytology, none of them has been included in clinical guidelines. The key reason for this situation is that none of the assays has been included into clinical decision-making so far. We reviewed the current status and performance of modern molecular urine tests following systematic analysis of the value and limitations of commercially available assays. Despite considerable advances in recent years, the authors feel that at this stage the added value of molecular markers for the diagnosis of urothelial tumors has not yet been identified. Current data suggest that some of these markers may have the potential to play a role in screening and surveillance of bladder cancer. Well-designed protocols and prospective, controlled trials will be needed to provide the basis to determine whether integration of molecular markers into clinical decision-making will be of value in the future.

Urine markers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer

OBJECTIVES

Bladder cancer detection and surveillance includes cystoscopy and cytology. Urinary cytology is limited by its low sensitivity for low-grade tumors. Urine markers have been extensively studied to help improve the diagnosis of bladder cancer with the goal of complementing or even replacing cystoscopy. However, to date, no marker has reached widespread use owing to insufficient evidence for clinical benefit.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed/Medline search was conducted to identify original articles, review articles, and editorials regarding urine-based biomarkers for screening, early detection, and surveillance of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Searches were limited to the English language, with a time frame of 2000 to 2013. Keywords included urothelial carcinoma, bladder cancer, transitional cell carcinoma, biomarker, marker, urine, diagnosis, recurrence, and progression.

RESULTS

Although several urinary markers have shown higher sensitivity compared with cytology, it remains insufficient to replace cystoscopy. Moreover, most markers suffer from lower specificity than cytology. In this review, we aimed to summarize the current knowledge on commercially available and promising investigational urine markers for the detection and surveillance of bladder cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed protocols and prospective, controlled trials are needed to provide the basis to determine whether integration of biomarkers into clinical decision making will be of value for bladder cancer detection and screening in the future.

[Urine marker systems for diagnosis of urothelial cancer]

Cystoscopy and urinary cytology are standard tools in the diagnostics of urothelial cancer of the urinary bladder; however, cystoscopy is invasive and urinary cytology lacks accuracy for the diagnosis of low grade tumors. More recently several alternative urinary test systems were developed with the aim to make the diagnostics of urothelial tumors more reliable; however, in general all protein-based point of care test systems have a high rate of false positive test results, especially in patients with benign disorders. Fluorescence in situ hybridization, which is highly sensitive and specific, may be a reasonable supplement to the diagnostic spectrum in patients after instillation therapy or bladder replacement. Additionally, there are several new test systems which still need to be tested in large clinical studies with respect to diagnostic accuracy.

Urine-based assays for the detection of bladder cancer

Bladder cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide. Furthermore, nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer has a 70% rate of recurrence, making it a considerable strain to the healthcare system. Patients with bladder cancer require repeat cystoscopic examinations of the bladder to monitor for tumor recurrence. The reason these patients have to undergo these costly, painful, invasive procedures is owing to the absence of accurate urine-based assays to detect the presence of bladder cancer noninvasively. Consequently, the development of a urine-based test to detect bladder cancer would be of tremendous benefit to both patients and healthcare systems. This article reports some of the more prominent urine markers in use today. In addition, the article will highlight some new technologies that are used to investigate novel urinary markers.

Screening for bladder cancer: theoretical and practical issues in considering the treated and untreated natural history of the various forms of the disease

Screening is used to detect disease earlier in its course, allow earlier treatment, and presumably decrease morbidities and potential mortality associated with the later expression of more advanced disease and presumably more complex treatments consequently required. Judicious screening in bladder cancer depends on an understanding of how the different forms of bladder cancer express their biological potential, whether the tools available for screening have sufficient sensitivity and specificity to have accurate predictive value in accurately diagnosing and assessing each cancer diathesis earlier in its course, and how this may influence the morbidities and mortality associated with each. The principles of screening, potential biases that can affect their accuracy and the interpretation of outcomes, tools currently available for screening, their efficacies and pitfalls, and lessons learned from studies of the role of screening in prostate cancer will be reviewed to offer an understanding of the potential role that screening may play in the different forms of bladder cancer in the context of their preclinical and treated natural history.

Urine cytology and urine-based markers for bladder urothelial carcinoma detection and monitoring: developments and future prospects

Bladder cancer is currently diagnosed using cystoscopy and cytology in patients with suspicious signs and symptoms. These tests are also used to monitor patients with a history of bladder cancer. The recurrence rate for bladder cancer is high, thus necessitating long-term follow-up. Urine cytology has a high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of high-grade urothelial carcinoma, but lacks the sensitivity to detect low-grade tumors. Recently, multiple noninvasive urine-based bladder cancer tests have been developed. Many markers (BTA stat®, BTA TRAK®, ImmunoCyt™, NMP22® and UroVysion™) have already been approved by the US FDA for bladder cancer surveillance, while other markers are still undergoing development, preclinical and clinical investigation. An ideal bladder cancer test would be noninvasive, highly sensitive and specific, inexpensive, easy to perform and yield highly reproducible results. Many of the tests reviewed herein meet some, but not all, of these criteria.

Intérêt des marqueurs urinaires dans le diagnostic et le suivi des tumeurs urothéliales de vessie

Urothelial bladder tumours require regular surveillance: cystoscopy associated with urine cytology are reference examinations. Several new markers currently under evaluation or already validated have recently been proposed to replace cytology and potentially reduce or even replace unnecessary cystoscopies. The biological fluid studied for all of these markers is the same as that of urine cytology, i.e. urine. The authors review the results of recent studies on these new urinary markers. The results of these markers demonstrate a better global sensitivity than urine cytology, but often a lower specificity. In the majority of cases, these tests are performed during patient follow-up (NMP22, BTA, CYFRA 21-l., etc.), but do not replace cystoscopy, due to a large number of false-positives. Other techniques, such as FISH, uCyt+ or microsatellites appear to be more promising, especially for the diagnosis of low-grade tumours. The best solution in practice may consist of a combination of several markers to further improve sensitivity and to decrease the false-positive rate responsible for unnecessary cystoscopies.

[Tumor marker tests in bladder cancer]

The gold standard for detecting bladder cancer is cystoscopy which identifies nearly all papillary and sessile lesions. However, it is an invasive procedure causing some discomfort for patients. Urine cytology is the standard non-invasive marker with very high specificity, but unfavourable poor sensitivity for Ta, G1, and T1 bladder tumors. To improve early detection of bladder cancer as well as to monitor treatment response and tumor recurrence, bladder tumor markers are eligible. An ideal bladder cancer test would have the potential to replace or delay cystoscopy in the follow-up of bladder cancer patients. In recent years, the FDA approved non-invasive tumor marker tests ImmunoCyt / uCyt+, BTA TRAK, BTA stat, NMP22, NMP22 BladderChek, and UroVysion have been investigated. The tests demonstrated higher sensitivity for diagnosis of bladder cancer compared to urine cytology. Overall, the mean sensitivity and mean specificity was 64-80% and 71-95% and the mean positive and negative predictive values to detect malignancy were 49-84% and 79-95%, respectively. BTA TRAK, BTA stat, NMP22, and NMP22 BladderChek assays are limited by false-positive results in patients with benign urological diseases such as hematuria, urocystitis, renal calculi or urinary tract infections. Due to low specificity BTA TRAK, BTA stat, NMP22, and NMP22 BladderChek should not be used without first ruling out benign or malignant genitourinary disease other than bladder cancer. With the exception of UroVysion achieving 80% sensitivity and 94% specificity, none of these non-invasive tests revealed a high sensitivity and specificity at the same time, which is a main demand to be made on an ideal tumor marker. Insufficient sensitivity along with limited specificity does not allow replacing cystoscopy in diagnosis of bladder cancer or treatment decisions based on a positive test result.

Molecular markers in bladder cancer: A critical appraisal

The diagnosis of both primary and recurrent bladder tumors currently relies upon the urine cytology and cystoscopy. Neither of these diagnostic tools is completely accurate. Prognostication of bladder cancer is largely based on pathologic tumor grade and stage. Over the past 2 decades, there is accumulating evidence that like many other cancers, bladder cancer, too, has a distinct molecular signature that separates it from other cancers and normal bladder tissue. Bladder tumors of different grades and stages even possess unique, and specific genotypic and phenotypic characteristics. Although recognition of several of these molecular alterations is possible by analyzing tumor tissue, urine, and serum samples, few if any of these "molecular markers" for bladder cancer are widely used in clinical practice. These markers include some that can be applied during the diagnostic work-up of symptoms (e.g., hematuria), those under surveillance for recurrence of superficial disease and forecasting long-term prognosis, or response to chemotherapy. In this review of molecular markers for bladder cancer, effectiveness of markers in each of these categories that are identifiable in the urine of patients with bladder cancer was examined. Many of the diagnostic markers appear to hold an advantage over urine cytology in terms of sensitivity, especially for the detection of low-grade superficial tumors. However, most markers tend to be less specific than cytology, yielding more false-positives. This result is more commonly observed in patients with concurrent bladder inflammation or other benign bladder conditions. Although there are several candidate markers for assessing prognosis or response to chemotherapy, studies of large patient populations are lacking. Further studies involving larger numbers of patients are required to determine their accuracy and widespread applicability in guiding treatment of bladder cancer.

Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: International Consensus Panel on bladder tumor markers

This is the first of 2 articles that summarize the findings of the International Consensus Panel on cytology and bladder tumor markers. The objectives of our panel were to reach a consensus on the areas where markers are needed, to define the attributes of an ideal tumor marker, and to identify which marker(s) would be suitable for diagnosis and/or surveillance of bladder cancer. Our panel consisted of urologists and researchers from Europe, Asia, and the United States who reviewed original articles, reviews, and book chapters on individual bladder tumor markers published in the English language mainly using the PubMed search engine. Panel members also met during 3 international meetings to write recommendations regarding bladder tumor markers. The panel found that the most practical use of noninvasive tests is to monitor bladder cancer recurrence, thereby reducing the number of surveillance cystoscopies performed each year. Markers also may be useful in the screening of high-risk individuals for early detection of bladder cancer. However, more prospective studies are needed to strengthen this argument. Case-control and cohort studies show that several markers have a higher sensitivity to detect bladder cancer. However, cytology is the superior marker in terms of specificity, although some markers in limited numbers of studies have shown specificity equivalent to that of cytology. Our panel believes that several bladder tumor markers are more accurate in detecting bladder cancer than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is in detecting prostate cancer. However, bladder tumor markers are held to a higher standard than PSA. Therefore, use of bladder tumor markers in the management of patients with bladder cancer will require the willingness of both urologists and clinicians to accept them.

Current bladder cancer tests: unnecessary or beneficial?

Bladder cancer is currently diagnosed using cystoscopy and cytology in patients with suspicious signs and symptoms. These same tests are used to monitor patients with a history of bladder cancer for recurrence. The recurrence rate for bladder cancer is high, thus necessitating long-term follow-up. Urine cytology requires an experienced cytopathologist and is costly. It has high specificity, but low sensitivity for low-grade bladder tumors. Recently many non-invasive bladder cancer tests, utilizing markers found in the urine, have been developed. The FDA has approved several of these for the use is bladder cancer diagnosis, and many others are undergoing development and investigation. An ideal bladder cancer test would be non-invasive, highly sensitive and specific, inexpensive, easy to perform, and yield highly reproducible results. Many of the tests reviewed meet some, but not all, of these criteria.

Tumor markers in the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer. A systematic review

PURPOSE

We systematically reviewed the available evidence, and obtained and compared summary estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of cytology and the urine based markers bladder tumor antigen, BTA stat (Polymedco, Redmond, Washington), BTA TRAK (Polymedco), NMP22 (Matritech, Cambridge, Massachusetts), telomerase and fibrin degradation product in detecting primary bladder cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies on the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer published from 1990 through November 2001 in English and German were retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE data bases. In our research we included studies that evaluated 1 or more of the markers, used cystoscopy as the reference standard and allowed the construction of a 2 x 2 contingency table for a per patient analysis. The data plus items on study and clinical characteristics were extracted by 2 observers. Sensitivity and specificity for each marker were estimated using a bivariate random effect meta-analysis. A multivariable analysis was performed to explain study variation.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies were included in our review. Only 2 studies were available on fibrin degradation product, hence a meta-analysis was not possible. Cytology had the best specificity at 94% (95% CI: 90% to 96%). This figure was significantly better than that of the other markers except for telomerase (specificity 86% [71% to 94%]). Telomerase had the best sensitivity (75% [71% to 79%]) but it was not significantly better than that of BTA stat (70% [66% to 74%]). Case control designs yielded lower values for sensitivity for the tumor markers cytology, bladder tumor antigen and BTA stat.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytology has the best specificity and telomerase the best sensitivity. However, none of the markers studied here is sensitive enough to be recommended for daily routine.

[The role of tumor markers in urologic consultation for screening, diagnosis, and follow-up of bladder cancer]

PURPOSE

Review the tumor markers for screening and diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

METHODS

The published literature on bladder cancer markers was identified using a MEDLINE search and critically analyzed. The sensitivity and specificity of the various markers were compared.

RESULTS

Conventional non-invasive methods for diagnosis (symptoms and urine cytology) and for screening and follow-up of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder are not very sensitive and must not be considered sufficient. Some tumor markers seem to be a good alternative to the routine urinary cytology.

CONCLUSION

The role of tumor markers for screening and follow-up of bladder tumors as an alternative to cytology deserve consideration. In the future, more sensitive and specific markers may replace routine cystoscopy.

The BTA stat test is nonspecific for hematuria: an experimental hematuria model

PURPOSE

An experimental hematuria model was designed to determine whether the bladder tumor antigen (BTA) stat test (Bion Diagnostics, Redmond, Washington) is influenced by microscopic or macroscopic hematuria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 25 healthy subjects provided urine and blood samples for the study. All subjects had a negative BTA stat test initially. Normal urine was mixed with autologous blood to cause hematuria of 3 degrees of severity. The test was performed in each sample after the creation of hematuria.

RESULTS

BTA stat assay specificity in the presence of microscopic and gross hematuria was 80% and 24%, respectively. Results varied depending on the severity of hematuria, that is 20% for microscopic and 76% for gross hematuria.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the BTA stat test in the presence of microscopic hematuria must be interpreted in regard to the degree of hematuria. The test is not reliable in urine samples with gross hematuria due to a high false-positive rate.

Detecting recurrent bladder cancer: new methods and biomarkers

In this review, a series of biomarkers and molecular assays are compared with conventional urothelial cytology in their ability to detect recurrent bladder cancer. The tests considered in detail include the BTA test, NMP 22 test, DNA ploidy measurements, telomerase determinations and microsatellite instability assays. Although all of these measurements show some degree of improvement for cancer detection, the microsatellite instability assay shows the highest sensitivity and specificity. Additional biomarkers considered in the review include bladder cancer tumor antigens, growth factors, cell adhesion molecules and various molecular markers including cell cycle regulatory genes and p53 mutations.

Qualitative determination of urinary human complement factor H-related protein (hcfHrp) in patients with bladder cancer, healthy controls, and patients with benign urologic disease

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic quality of human complement factor H-related protein (hcfHrp, BTA STAT(TM)) as a qualitative urinary marker for bladder cancer.

METHODS

Urine samples of 354 individuals (76 healthy volunteers, 111 patients with benign urologic disorders, 167 patients with histologically proven bladder cancer) were examined prior to therapy for the presence of hcfHrp.

RESULTS

Overall test sensitivity was 62.9%. Sensitivity of low-grade/low-stage tumors was <50% and was thus comparable to published sensitivities of urinary cytology. In high-stage, high-grade tumors sensitivity was 100 and 77.3%, respectively. Superficial tumors with high risk of progression (pT1G3) were detected significantly better (88.9% sensitivity) than low-risk superficial tumors (pTa G1-3/pT1G1-2; 48.2%; p < 0.001). The overall specificity (healthy individuals and patients with benign urologic disease) was 93.0%.

CONCLUSION

Since test sensitivity is comparable to urinary cytology and specificity is excellent, hcfHrp should be further evaluated in prospective studies focussing on the follow-up of patients with bladder cancer.

Urine based markers of urological malignancy

PURPOSE

A number of urine based markers have been and are being investigated for the diagnosis and prognostication of urological conditions. A majority of these markers have been evaluated in urological neoplasms, particularly bladder cancer. The diagnosis of bladder cancer currently relies on identifying malignant cells in the urine and subsequently visualizing the tumor on cystoscopy. This diagnosis is further confirmed by transurethral resection or biopsy. While urine cytology is specific, it is not sensitive, especially for detecting low grade disease. This characteristic has prompted the search for more accurate markers of bladder cancer. In this review we critically examine the results of studies evaluating various markers for bladder cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The published literature on urine based markers for all urological diseases, particularly bladder cancer, was identified using a MEDLINE search and critically analyzed. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the various markers were compared. The benefit of using combined markers rather than a single marker was also analyzed from published reports.

RESULTS

Most published literature on urine based markers for urological malignancies involve such markers for diagnosing and prognosticating bladder cancer. Hence, we focused mainly on urine based markers in bladder cancer. Most markers appear to have an advantage over urine cytology in terms of sensitivity, especially for detecting low grade, superficial tumors. However, most markers tend to be less specific than cytology, yielding more false-positive results. This scenario is more common in patients with concurrent bladder inflammation or other benign bladder conditions. However, there is reason to be optimistic about several new markers that appear to provide better specificity. Few urine based markers have been identified and investigated in other urological tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Detecting bladder cancer using diagnostic markers still presents a challenge. A number of new markers are currently available that appear to be significantly more accurate than cytology. However, further studies involving a larger number of patients are required to determine their accuracy and widespread applicability for diagnosing bladder cancer. Urine based markers do not appear to have a significant role in the diagnosis or prognosis of other urological malignancies, such as prostate, kidney or testicular cancer.

Biomarkers for the detection of bladder cancer

In this subject review, a series of morphology-based and molecular markers were compared with urinary cytology for the detection of recurrent urothelial neoplasia. Among the various biomarkers reviewed, the average published sensitivity and specificity for the Bard BTA test was 60% and 77%; the NMP22 Test was 67% and 72%; the telomerase assay was 77% and 85%; and the microsatellite assay was 89% and 100%. DNA ploidy measurements and immunoassays designed to detect keratins, proteins, hyaluronidase, growth factors, cell adhesion molecules, fibrinogen degradation products, cell cycle regulators, and molecular markers were also included. Although the performance features of these biomarkers have varied and the cytologic methods to which they have been compared have not been standardized, several of the procedures have received considerable support from urologists as assisting them in the management of their patients.

Management of superficial bladder cancer: what is new?

The management of superficial bladder cancer has not changed much during the last years. Transurethral resections with adjuvant intravesical instillation to risk groups have been standard therapy. Cystoscopy and cytology have been used for follow-up. Recently combinations of drugs for instillation and new urinary markers for diagnosis and follow-up have been tested. The role of these new modalities has not been easily judged. Thus the timely advent of guidelines with policy recommendations will play an important part in improving the care of patients in the future.

Factor H binding to bone sialoprotein and osteopontin enables tumor cell evasion of complement-mediated attack

Metastatic cancer cells, like trophoblasts of the developing placenta, are invasive and must escape immune surveillance to survive. Complement has long been thought to play a significant role in the tumor surveillance mechanism. Bone sialoprotein (BSP) and osteopontin (OPN, ETA-1) are expressed by trophoblasts and are strongly up-regulated by many tumors. Indeed, BSP has been shown to be a positive indicator of the invasive potential of some tumors. In this report, we show that BSP and OPN form rapid and tight complexes with complement Factor H. Besides its key role in regulating complement-mediated cell lysis, Factor H also appears to play a role when "hijacked" by invading organisms in enabling cellular evasion of complement. We have investigated whether BSP and OPN may play a similar role in tumor cell complement evasion by testing to see whether these glycoproteins could promote tumor cell survival. Recombinant OPN and BSP can protect murine erythroleukemia cells from attack by human complement as well as human MCF-7 breast cancer cells and U-266 myeloma cells from attack by guinea pig complement. The mechanism of this gain of function by tumor cell expression of BSP or OPN has been defined using specific peptides and antibodies to block BSP and OPN protective activity. The expression of BSP and OPN in tumor cells provides a selective advantage for survival via initial binding to alpha(V)beta(3) integrin (both) or CD44 (OPN) on the cell surface, followed by sequestration of Factor H to the cell surface and inhibition of complement-mediated cell lysis.