Urinary markers in bladder cancer

Urinary proteomics: ready for prime time in urological cancer diagnostics?

The impact of clinical proteomics on the diagnosis and treatment of urological malignancies is modest in comparison with the high expectations of the past. However, most available studies suffer from flawed clinical designs rather than from technical limitations. This article will briefly introduce the main technological approaches taken, their advantages and disadvantages and will highlight the different challenges associated with urinary proteome analysis. Furthermore, several examples of the successful application of urinary clinical proteomics in the field of prostate and bladder cancer will be introduced. These examples suggest careful validation of novel biomarkers, appropriate study designs using blinded cohorts enrolled from appropriate target populations and the standardization of techniques as key elements required for successful urinary proteomics studies. These prerequisites are essential for turning the old promise of a personalized medicine approach into a new reality to optimize patients’ preventive and therapeutic care.

Challenges of using mass spectrometry as a bladder cancer biomarker discovery platform

INTRODUCTION

Bladder cancer (BCa) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide, mostly due to its high recurrence rates. In consequence, the necessity of repeated screening for reappearance demonstrates the urgent need for novel biomarkers as alternatives to invasive standard procedures.

METHODS

Proteomic technologies have emerged as powerful platforms for unbiased biomarker discovery and revolutionized the classical "target-driven" analysis of single marker candidates. Although proteome profiling is still far from demonstrating its full potential in clinical diagnosis, first studies clearly denote its significant potential.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a discussion of the challenges related to clinical proteomics using mass spectrometry, emphasizing bladder cancer biomarker discovery. An outline of the technological prerequisites for reliable proteome profiling, data mining and interpretation, as well as, reflections on future trends in the field are provided.

Comparison of cytokeratin 20 RNA and angiogenin in voided urine samples as diagnostic tools for bladder carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of urinary angiogenin (ANG) and cytokeratin 20 (CK-20) mRNA in comparison with voided urine cytology in the detection of bladder cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

A total of 97 Egyptian patients provided a single voided urine sample for ANG, CK-20 and cytology before cystoscopy. Of the 97 cases, 63 were histologically diagnosed as bladder cancer; 33 with transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) and 30 with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), whereas the remaining 34 had benign urological disorders. A group of 46 healthy volunteers were also included in this study. Voided urine was centrifuged and the supernatant was used for estimation of ANG by EIA and confirmed by Western blotting (WB). The urine sediment was used for cytology and RNA extraction. CK-20 RNA was detected by RT-PCR.

RESULTS

The best cutoff value for ANG was calculated by a ROC curve as 322.7 ng/mg protein. The median urinary ANG level in bladder carcinoma, benign urological disorders and healthy volunteer groups was: 802.7, 425 and 33 pg/mg protein, respectively. The positivity rate for urinary CK-20 mRNA of the control, benign and malignant groups was 0%, 2.9% and 82.3%, respectively (P = 0.000); while the rates for ANG were 11.6%, 54.8% and 75.4%, respectively (P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in positivity rates of CK-20 and ANG with respect to sex, smoking, schistosomiasis, urine cytology, tumor grade, tumor stage, hematuria or pus cells. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 71.4% and 90% for voided urine cytology, 75.4% and 70.3% for ANG, and 82.3% and 98.8% for CK-20. Combined sensitivity of voided urine cytology with ANG and CK-20 together (98.2%) was higher than either the combined sensitivity of voided urine cytology with ANG (96.5%) or with CK-20 (91.6%) or than that of the biomarker alone. We demonstrated significant positive correlation between CK-20 positivity with age (P = 0.043) and nodal involvement (P = 0.037); however, there was no significant correlation between CK-20 and ANG with the other clinicopathological parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that CK-20 and ANG in voided urine had higher sensitivities compared to voided urine cytology. However, when specificity was considered, CK-20 alone had superior sensitivity and specificity compared to ANG and voided urine cytology.