A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The simultaneous use of telomerase, cytokeratin 20 and CD4 for bladder cancer detection in urine. | LitMetric

Objective: Because of the low sensitivity of urinary cytological diagnosis of urinary bladder carcinoma, new molecular diagnostic methods have been proposed. We decided to verify the expression of telomerase mRNA coding for the catalytic component (hTRT), cytokeratin 20 (CK20) and CD4 antigen mRNAs in urine as possible diagnostic tool.

Methods: Evaluation of hTRT, CK20, CD4 mRNAs was performed in 50 ml of naturally voided urine of 205 patients of which 153 with bladder cancer (Tis, n = 11; TaGx, n = 4; TaG1, n = 25; TaG2, n = 26; TaG3, n = 8; T1G1, n = 16; T1G2, n = 17; T1G3, n = 20; T2G2, n = 6; T2G3, n = 13; T3G3, n = 7) and 52 controls. A quantitative expression of hTRT at mRNA level versus TRAP (telomeric repeat amplification protocol) assay was performed in 20 patients and 14 controls. The expression of RT-PCR for hTRT, CK20, CD4 versus urinary cytology was analysed in 44 patients with bladder cancer. Evaluating the three molecular markers together, the result was considered correct when at least two of the markers were positive, suspected when only one marker was positive and negative for diagnosis of tumour when all markers were negative. The performance of the diagnostic model resulted from the logistic analysis evaluated with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis.

Results: The sensitivity detected for each tumour marker was as follows: for hTRT 90.8%, for CK20 84.3% and for CD4 was 64.7%, while the specificity was 94.2% for CD4 and 78.8% for both hTRT and CK20. When a simultaneous evaluation of the three tumour markers was considered, 88.2% of the diagnoses were correct, 11.8% were suspected for tumour and none were mistaken. When compared with cytology, the simultaneous use of the three markers allowed reaching a correct diagnosis in 88% of the cases in comparison to 25% by urinary cytology. The sensitivity in the detection of bladder cancer was higher for hTRT at mRNA level in comparison with the enzymatic activity detection with TRAP (90% vs. 35%) while the specificity for both markers resulted very high (100%).

Conclusions: These data show that in the future the diagnostic improvement of urine based molecular markers for the detection of bladder cancer in the urine could improve the sensitivity of urinary cytology reducing the need of a cystoscopy.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.10.007DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bladder cancer
20
ck20 cd4
12
htrt ck20
12
urinary cytology
12
sensitivity urinary
8
htrt mrna
8
mrna level
8
molecular markers
8
tumour markers
8
detection bladder
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!