Abstract
This chapter will review the molecular diagnosis of bladder and kidney cancer. In current clinical practice, early detection and diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma is based on urinary cytology. UroVysion™ bladder cancer fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has become a useful ancillary test in the detection of urothelial carcinoma for initial diagnosis and recurrence; this test is applicable to routine cytologic urine specimens. Multiple studies have shown that UroVysion™ FISH in voided urine and washing specimens can help in patient management due to its superior sensitivity over cytology in certain situations. Within the renal cortex, molecular studies have not achieved routine use; the most widely available tests are used to identify Xp11.2 translocations/TFE fusions for the subclassification of renal cell carcinoma.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
10.1 Introduction
This chapter will focus on the current clinical molecular diagnosis of neoplasms arising in the urothelium, the specialized form of transitional epithelium that lines the renal pelvis, ureters, bladder, and urethra. The urothelium is composed of a surface layer of large cells, the umbrella cells, and several layers of cells with smaller oval nuclei resting on a well developed basement membrane.
Urothelial carcinoma is more common in males than females [1]. This latter predominance may be explained by a higher prevalence of cigarette smoking in men. Tobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, is one of the leading causes of urothelial carcinoma in the Western hemisphere [1–3]. Additionally, other implicated toxins have been identified including 4-aminobiphenyl, benzidine, 2-naphthylamine and phenacetin-containing analgesics, and cancer chemotherapeutic agents, such as phosphoramide mustards [3]. In the Middle East and parts of Africa, Schistosoma bladder infection is the main cause of squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder [1, 3].
About 70 % of urothelial carcinomas are superficial including non-invasive low-grade papillary (Ta), carcinoma in situ (Tis) [4] and urothelial carcinomas with invasion of subepithelial connective tissue (T1) [5–7]. The remaining 30 % present as muscularis propria invasive disease (≥T2) and are associated with a poor prognosis [6]. Of the superficial urothelial carcinomas, most patients with non-invasive low-grade papillary urothelial neoplasms have a good prognosis [5, 8, 9] yet approximately 70 % of these patients have recurrences [8, 10], and less than 5 % of cases progress to invasive carcinoma [8, 10]. Patients with low-grade and lower pathologic T stage tumors tend to have lower rates of recurrence, progression, and mortality than high-grade and/or higher pathologic stage, suggesting a different biology in tumors that are prone to recurrence [9].
Two main pathways are believed to be involved in urothelial carcinogenesis [11, 12]. One pathway involves the mutation of the Fibroblast Growth Factor receptor 3 gene (FGFR3); this appears to be a favorable pathway giving rise to low-grade non-invasive papillary tumors that may recur but rarely invade [11–13]. The second pathway involves mutation and deletions in the TP53 gene; tumors that harbor TP53 gene mutations are high-grade, including high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma in situ [11–13]. Supporting this genetic profile, expression array (cDNA) analysis shows specific mRNA signatures associated with either one of these two pathways [14]. Additionally, several other chromosomal abnormalities are observed in high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Alterations that involve chromosome 9 are frequent, including monosomy, and deletions of 9p and 9q [4, 15–19]. Loss of chromosomes 4 and 8, deletions of 2q, 8p, 11p, 13q, 14q, and 17p, and gains of chromosomes, 3, 7, and 17 are also reported [15, 16, 18–20]. Furthermore, papillary tumors and intraepithelial urothelial neoplasia show deletions of chromosome 9 [16, 18, 21]. Specifically, 9p21 deletion that affects the tumor suppressor gene p16 (INK4a) is seen [22]. A detailed discussion of the molecular mechanisms of urothelial carcinoma formation is beyond the scope of this review; recent publications are suggested for this purpose [12, 13, 23].
Urinary tract carcinoma presents with painless hematuria making early identification sometimes difficult [6, 24]. Patients with carcinoma in situ present with dysuria, nocturia, urinary frequency and urgency with microscopic hematuria [25]. In the current clinical practice, early detection and diagnosis is based on urinary cytology [6, 26, 27]. Urine cytology is the initial test of choice for screening and follow-up of urothelial carcinoma [27–32]. Cytology is a highly reliable, sensitive, and specific test in the diagnosis of high-grade urothelial carcinoma [27]. However, given the cytomorphologic features of a low-grade urothelial neoplasm, the findings may be equivocal or negative in a large proportion of patients yielding a low sensitivity for low-grade urothelial tumors (Fig. 10.1) [27]. Due to the low sensitivity of a single urine cytology study, several specimens may be needed to detect a tumor, justifying the use of three consecutive urine specimens [27]. Additionally, the diagnosis is difficult in patients with upper urinary tract neoplasms and in patients with urothelial carcinoma treated with bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) [33–35]. Many ancillary studies used in conjunction with urine cytology have been explored to further characterize equivocal cytology [30, 32]. Unfortunately, an ideal ancillary test for screening and monitoring has yet to be created [30, 32, 36, 37].
Once the initial evaluation and detection with cytology is performed using voided urine specimens, the patients undergo cystoscopy with a confirmatory biopsy [32]. However, cystoscopy is invasive and expensive. Therefore, there is a need to the develop markers capable of identifying urothelial carcinoma by a more economical and/or less invasive methodology [8, 28, 31, 32].
10.2 UroVysion™ Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) Test for Urothelial Carcinoma
The FISH technique allows for the visualization of a specific nucleic acid sequence area within a cell by the precise annealing of a fluorescent labeled single strand of DNA fragment, called a probe, to its complementary DNA target sequence on the chromosomes. The hybridization of the probes is visible in a fluorescent microscope as fluorescent dots. Each dot represents a copy of the targeted sequence.
Currently, FISH analysis of urothelial cells from urine has emerged as powerful ancillary technique addressing the limitations of cytopathology [33]. The commercially available UroVysion™ FISH multiprobe (Abbot, DesPlaines, IL) is a molecular test with proven clinical value [22, 33, 34, 38, 39] and it has become a well known and established test to further characterize urine cytology specimens [20, 22, 34, 38–41]. UroVysion™ is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in voided urine specimens from patients with gross or microscopic hematuria and no previous history of urothelial carcinoma and for the detection of recurrent urothelial carcinoma in voided urine specimens from patients with a prior history of urothelial carcinoma [39, 42].
UroVysion™ bladder cancer FISH kit is applicable to routine cytologic urine specimens fixed on slides. This kit consists of a four color, four probe mixture of DNA sequences to determined regions on chromosomes 3, 7, 9, and 17 [22, 39] including three Chromosome Enumeration Probes (CEP), CEP 3 SpectrumRed, CEP 7 SpectrumGreen, and CEP 17 SpectrumAqua, and a Locus Specific Identifier (LSI) 9p21 SpectrumGold (Fig. 10.2) [43]. Therefore, this test is capable of detecting increased copy numbers (polysomy) of the chromosomes 3, 7 and 17 and deletion of 9p21 (Figs. 10.3 and 10.4) [33, 39].
The criteria for a FISH positive result as suggested by the manufacturer of UroVysion™ are as follows: abnormal cells show a gain of multiple chromosomes (three or more signals of CEP 3, CEP 7, or CEP 17) or a homozygous loss of 9p21. This assay requires that a minimum of 25 morphologically abnormal cells are to be analyzed [44]. Specifically, “analysis should continue until either ≥4 cells with gains of multiple chromosomes or ≥12 cells with homozygous loss of 9p21 are detected or the entire sample is analyzed. The total number of chromosomally abnormal cells, i.e. cells with gain of multiple chromosomes or homozygous loss of 9p21, are determined; results are reported as positive or negative” [44]. As such, a positive result is reported when either four or more cells with multiple chromosomal gains or 12 or more cells with loss of both signals for 9p21 are observed. When there is less than four cells with chromosome gain or less than 12 cells with 9q21 loss, a negative result is reported with a comment, indicating how many cells with chromosome gain or how many cells with 9q21 loss. The study may be aided using either FDA cleared systems BioView Duet™ System for Automated FISH scanning of UroVysion™ (Rehovot, Israel) or the oncoFISH® bladder for automated UroVysion™ by Ikoniscope® Digital Microscopy System (Ikonisys, New Haven, Connecticut) [45–47]. When an automated system is used, the assay requires the screening of more cells before a negative result can be issued [48, 49]. In the case of BioView Duet™ System, at least 100 cells are needed to be screened for a negative case [48, 49]. These systems enhance the practice; however, they do not replace the microscopic evaluation by cytology professionals.
UroVysion™ may detect more abnormalities than cytology [20, 50]. Multiple studies have shown that UroVysion™ FISH in voided urine and washing specimens can help in patient management due to its superior sensitivity over cytology in different situations [50]. It can be particularly useful to clarify equivocal cytological findings [33]. UroVysion™ can aid in the clinical follow-up after BCG treatment to identify patients with therapy failure. In this clinical circumstance, UroVysion™ is also better than cytology [20, 41]. UroVysion™ FISH is more sensitive than cytology in diagnosing high-grade tumors than low-grade tumors and flat intraepithelial lesions [51], yet as with any test, clinical correlation is always recommended. Additionally, UroVysion™ may clarify cases with reactive epithelial atypia [35]. In these specimens, the overall sensitivity of cytology improves when coupled with UroVysion™ [52]. In patients followed with UroVysion™ for urothelial carcinoma, 27 % of patients without clinical evidence of tumor will demonstrate a positive UroVysion™ FISH result [53]. Interestingly, about 63 % of these patients will develop a clinically and pathologically recognizable recurrent tumor within 2 years [20, 53]. Although UroVysion™ FISH has a higher sensitivity than cytology, the specificity is reported as similar or higher for cytology [50, 51].
Further molecular applications, such as coupling UroVysion™ FISH and FGFR3 mutational status are in investigation [54]. Although the following tests are not clinically used at this time, they represent a glimpse of future possibilities. Among these are the testing of epigenetic alterations in bladder carcinogenesis involving promoter hypermethylation and aberrant expression of microRNA [14]. Notably, aberrant expression of specific microRNAs is associated with the FGFR3 mutant bladder carcinogenesis pathway [14].
10.3 Other Assays for Urothelial Carcinoma
DNA ploidy has been used as an ancillary study in urine cytology [27, 31, 55–59]. Initially, DNA ploidy was determined using flow cytometry [60–63]. Later, DNA ploidy was performed using image analysis automated systems on Feulgen stained cytology preparations [55, 57, 58]. Of these methods, DNA ploidy by image analysis was found superior to DNA ploidy by flow cytometry [57]. This method also has some value in the follow-up detection of recurrent disease in patients with urinary diversion [55]. UroVysion™ is more specific than DNA ploidy image cytometry for the detection of aneuploid neoplastic cells, identifying twice as many abnormalities, and as a result has become a more popular ancillary test in the detection of urothelial carcinoma [52].
Other tests described in the literature are Bladder Tumor Antigen (BTA stat®, and BTA TRAK®), nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22® BladderCheck®), urinary fibrinogen degradation products (FDP), ImmunoCyt™/uCyt+™, Quanticyt, Hb-dipstick, LewisX, Telomerase, Microsatellite LOH, cytokeratin 19 fragment enzyme link immunoabsorbent assay (CYFRA21-1 ELISA), urinary bladder cancer enzyme link immunoabsorbent assay (UBC ELISA), rt-PCR to determine the expression of cytokeratin 20, hyaluronic acid and hyaluronidase (HA-HAase), urine tissue polypeptide specific antigens (TPS), cDNA microarray and detection of certain microRNAs [13, 43, 64–70].
In addition to UroVysion™ FISH multiprobe (Abbot, DesPlaines, IL), BTA stat® and BTA-TRAK® (polyMedco, Radmond, WA), NMP22® BladderCheck® (Inverness Medical Innovation, Bedford, UK) and ImmunoCyt™/uCyt+™ (Scimedx, Denville, New Jersey) also have FDA approval for bladder cancer surveillance [68, 69, 71, 72].
ImmunoCyt™/uCyt+™ is an immunofluorescent test that uses three monoclonal antibodies labeled with fluorescent markers; two antibodies, M344 and LDQ10, react with a mucin glycoprotein and a third antibody, 19A211, reacts with a glycosylated form of carcinoembryonic antigen [73]. BTA stat® is an immunoassay using two different monoclonal antibodies to human complement factor H related protein (hCFHrp) [25, 72, 74–76]. NMP22® BladderCheck® is based on a lateral flow immunochromatographic method detecting a nuclear matrix protein 22 utilizing two different monoclonal antibodies, one as a capture antibody and one as a reporter antibody [71, 72, 77]. Although numerous other molecular studies have been published and are available, their use is still limited to research studies as their clinical relevance has not been established [13].
Recent advances in the knowledge of the molecular pathways and the pathogenesis of bladder cancer could make targeted therapy in urothelial carcinoma possible and the beginning of personalized or individualized therapy directed towards a specific molecular profile of the tumor [78]. The future in bladder carcinoma may involve the use of molecular studies to determine the diagnosis, individual therapy and prognosis [79, 80]. However, in bladder carcinoma, the era of personalized medicine is yet to begin.
10.4 The Molecular Diagnosis of Kidney Tumors
Currently, the molecular diagnosis of kidney tumors is still evolving. Studies mainly involve the molecular characterization of renal carcinomas to identify Xp11.2 translocations/TFE fusions. These carcinomas typically affect children and young adults and show papillary architecture with clear cells and nested patterns, but may also have cells with granular eosinophilic cytoplasm. Renal carcinomas with the ASPL-TFE3 fusion contain cells with abundant clear to eosinophilic cytoplasm, discrete cell borders, prominent vesicular chromatin, and nucleoli. Psammoma bodies and hyaline nodules are usually present. Renal carcinomas with the PRCC-TFE3 fusion reveal a more nested architecture with cells with a moderate amount of cytoplasm, hyaline nodules and fewer psammoma bodies. Using immunohistochemistry, these tumors have expression of the TFE3 protein, renal cell carcinoma marker antigen and CD10 and they may be cytokeratin and epithelial membrane antigen positive [76, 81]. The diagnosis of these tumors can be established based on morphology with confirmation by immunohistochemistry for TFE3. Tumors with the Xp11.2 translocation, all involving the TFE3 gene [82, 83], include:
-
(a)
t(X;1)(p11.2;q21) with the fusion of PRCC and TFE3 genes
-
(b)
t(X;17)(p11.2;p25) with the fusion of ASPL (RCC17) and TFE3 genes
-
(c)
t(X;1)(p11.2;p34) with the fusion of PSF and TFE3 genes
-
(d)
inv(X)(p11;q12) with the fusion of NonO (p54 nrb) and TFE3 genes
These fusion proteins act as aberrant transcription factors. FISH and other molecular methods may be applied to confirm the specific molecular change in these tumors, although these tests are not widely available [82].
Molecular studies have shown some utility in pediatric tumors such as the cellular variant of congenital mesoblastic nephroma (but not the classic variant); this tumor shows the same t(12;15)(p13;q25) and ETV6-NTRK3 genes fusion as infantile fibrosarcoma [84]. Rhabdoid tumor of the kidney shows a deletion of the hSNF5/INI1 gene [84]. As with molecular diagnostics for renal cell carcinoma, these tests are not in routine clinical use.
Abbreviations
- BCG:
-
Bacillus Calmette-Guerin
- BTA:
-
Bladder Tumor Antigen
- CEP:
-
Chromosome Enumeration Probes
- FDP:
-
Fibrinogen Degradation Products
- FDP:
-
Fibrinogen Degradation
- FGFR3:
-
Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 3
- FISH:
-
Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization
- hCFHrp:
-
Human Complement Factor H Related Protein
- LSI:
-
Locus Specific Identifier
- TPS:
-
Tissue Polypeptide Specific
References
Johansson SL, Cohen SM (1997) Epidemiology and etiology of bladder cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 13(5):291–298
Cohen SM, Johansson SL (1992) Epidemiology and etiology of bladder cancer. Urol Clin North Am 19(3):421–428
Cohen SM, Shirai T et al (2000) Epidemiology and etiology of premalignant and malignant urothelial changes. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 205:105–115
Czerniak B, Chaturvedi V et al (1999) Superimposed histologic and genetic mapping of chromosome 9 in progression of human urinary bladder neoplasia: implications for a genetic model of multistep urothelial carcinogenesis and early detection of urinary bladder cancer. Oncogene 18(5):1185–1196
Heney NM (1992) Natural history of superficial bladder cancer. Prognostic features and long-term disease course. Urol Clin North Am 19(3):429–433
Kaufman DS, Shipley WU et al (2009) Bladder cancer. Lancet 374(9685):239–249
Koch M, McPhee MS et al (1988) Five year follow-up of patients with cancer of the bladder – the Northern Alberta experience. Clin Invest Med 11(4):253–258
Holmang S, Hedelin H et al (1999) Recurrence and progression in low grade papillary urothelial tumors. J Urol 162(3 Pt 1):702–707
Millan-Rodriguez F, Chechile-Toniolo G et al (2000) Primary superficial bladder cancer risk groups according to progression, mortality and recurrence. J Urol 164(3 Pt 1):680–684
Holmang S, Andius P et al (2001) Stage progression in Ta papillary urothelial tumors: relationship to grade, immunohistochemical expression of tumor markers, mitotic frequency and DNA ploidy. J Urol 165(4):1124–1128, discussion 1128–1130
Cheng L, Davidson DD et al (2010) The origins of urothelial carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 10(6):865–880
Chuang S-T, Tracy RA et al (2010) Carcinogenetic pathway of superficial low-grade urothelial carcinoma. In: Coppola D (ed) Mechanisms of oncogenesis, vol 12. Springer, New York, pp 279–284
Cheng L, Zhang S et al (2010) Bladder cancer: translating molecular genetic insights into clinical practice. Hum Pathol 42(4):455–481
van der Kwast TH, Bapat B (2009) Predicting favourable prognosis of urothelial carcinoma: gene expression and genome profiling. Curr Opin Urol 19(5):516–521
Cordon-Cardo C, Cote RJ et al (2000) Genetic and molecular markers of urothelial premalignancy and malignancy. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 205:82–93
Hartmann A, Rosner U et al (2000) Clonality and genetic divergence in multifocal low-grade superficial urothelial carcinoma as determined by chromosome 9 and p53 deletion analysis. Lab Invest 80(5):709–718
Marano A, Pan Y et al (2000) Chromosomal numerical aberrations detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization on bladder washings from patients with bladder cancer. Eur Urol 37(3):358–365
Obermann EC, Junker K et al (2003) Frequent genetic alterations in flat urothelial hyperplasias and concomitant papillary bladder cancer as detected by CGH, LOH, and FISH analyses. J Pathol 199(1):50–57
Tsukamoto M, Matsuyama H et al (2002) Numerical aberrations of chromosome 9 in bladder cancer. A possible prognostic marker for early tumor recurrence. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 134(1):41–45
Bubendorf L, Grilli B et al (2001) Multiprobe FISH for enhanced detection of bladder cancer in voided urine specimens and bladder washings. Am J Clin Pathol 116(1):79–86
Veltman JA, Fridlyand J et al (2003) Array-based comparative genomic hybridization for genome-wide screening of DNA copy number in bladder tumors. Cancer Res 63(11):2872–2880
Sokolova IA, Halling KC et al (2000) The development of a multitarget, multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Mol Diagn 2(3):116–123
Dickinson SI (2010) Carcinogenetic pathway of urothelial carcinoma. In: Coppola D (ed) Mechanisms of oncogenesis, vol 12. Springer, New York, pp 285–293
Amling CL (2001) Diagnosis and management of superficial bladder cancer. Curr Probl Cancer 25(4):219–278
Nese N, Gupta R et al (2009) Carcinoma in situ of the urinary bladder: review of clinicopathologic characteristics with an emphasis on aspects related to molecular diagnostic techniques and prognosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7(1):48–57
Caraway NP, Katz RL (2010) A review on the current state of urine cytology emphasizing the role of fluorescence in situ hybridization as an adjunct to diagnosis. Cancer Cytopathol 118(4):175–183
Koss LG, Deitch D et al (1985) Diagnostic value of cytology of voided urine. Acta Cytol 29(5):810–816
Bischoff CJ, Clark PE (2009) Bladder cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 21(3):272–277
Koss LG, Esposti L et al (1986) The role of cytology in the diagnosis, detection and follow-up of bladder cancer. Prog Clin Biol Res 221:97–108
Lokeshwar VB, Habuchi T et al (2005) Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: international consensus panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology 66(6 Suppl 1):35–63
Murphy WM (1990) Current status of urinary cytology in the evaluation of bladder neoplasms. Hum Pathol 21(9):886–896
Shirodkar SP, Lokeshwar VB (2008) Bladder tumor markers: from hematuria to molecular diagnostics – where do we stand? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 8(7):1111–1123
Bubendorf L (2011) Multiprobe fluorescence in situ hybridization (UroVysion) for the detection of urothelial carcinoma – FISHing for the right catch. Acta Cytol 55(2):113–119
Halling KC (2003) Vysis UroVysion for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 3(4):507–519
Tapia C, Glatz K et al (2011) Evaluation of chromosomal aberrations in patients with benign conditions and reactive changes in urinary cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 119(6):404–410
Murata S, Iseki M et al (2010) Molecular and immunohistologic analyses cannot reliably solve diagnostic variation of flat intraepithelial lesions of the urinary bladder. Am J Clin Pathol 134(6):862–872
Vrooman OP, Witjes JA (2009) Molecular markers for detection, surveillance and prognostication of bladder cancer. Int J Urol 16(3):234–243
Bergman J, Reznichek RC et al (2008) Surveillance of patients with bladder carcinoma using fluorescent in-situ hybridization on bladder washings. BJU Int 101(1):26–29
Halling KC, Kipp BR (2008) Bladder cancer detection using FISH (UroVysion assay). Adv Anat Pathol 15(5):279–286
Ferra S, Denley R et al (2009) Reflex UroVysion testing in suspicious urine cytology cases. Cancer 117(1):7–14
Savic S, Zlobec I et al (2009) The prognostic value of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the follow-up of nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer after intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin therapy. Int J Cancer 124(12):2899–2904
Galvan AB, Salido M et al (2011) A multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization assay: a monitoring tool in the surveillance of patients with a history of non-muscle-invasive urothelial cell carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer Cytopathol 119(6):395–403
Halling KC, King W et al (2002) A comparison of BTA stat, hemoglobin dipstick, telomerase and Vysis UroVysion assays for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Urol 167(5):2001–2006
(2010) UroVysion Bladder Cancer Kit. Retrieved 31 July 2011, from http://www.abbottmolecular.com/us/products/oncology/fish/bladder-cancer-urovysion.html
(2005) FDA 510(k) #K050840: DuetTM System. BioView, Ltd., Retrieved 31 July 2011, from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf5/K050840.pdf
(2007) FDA 510(k) #K062577: Ikoniscope® oncoFISHTM Bladder Test System. Ikonisys, Inc., Retrieved 31 July 2011, from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf6/K062755.pdf
Marganski WA, El-Sirgany Costa V et al (2011) Digitized microscopy in the diagnosis of bladder cancer: analysis of >3000 cases during a 7-month period. Cancer Cytopathol 119(4):279–289
Smith GD, Bentz JS (2010) “FISHing” to detect urinary and other cancers: validation of an imaging system to aid in interpretation. Cancer Cytopathol 118(1):56–64
Smith GD, Riding M et al (2010) Integrating a FISH imaging system into the cytology laboratory. CytoJournal 7:3
Halling KC, King W et al (2000) A comparison of cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 164(5):1768–1775
Karnwal A, Venegas R et al (2010) The role of fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for surveillance of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Can J Urol 17(2):5077–5081
Dalquen P, Kleiber B et al (2002) DNA image cytometry and fluorescence in situ hybridization for noninvasive detection of urothelial tumors in voided urine. Cancer 96(6):374–379
Yoder BJ, Skacel M et al (2007) Reflex UroVysion testing of bladder cancer surveillance patients with equivocal or negative urine cytology: a prospective study with focus on the natural history of anticipatory positive findings. Am J Clin Pathol 127(2):295–301
Wild PJ, Fuchs T et al (2009) Detection of urothelial bladder cancer cells in voided urine can be improved by a combination of cytology and standardized microsatellite analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18(6):1798–1806
Caraway NP, Khanna A et al (2007) Combination of cytologic evaluation and quantitative digital cytometry is reliable in detecting recurrent disease in patients with urinary diversions. Cancer 111(5):323–329
Giella JG, Ring K et al (1992) The predictive value of flow cytometry and urinary cytology in the follow up of patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 148(2 Pt 1):293–296
Koss LG, Wersto RP et al (1989) Predictive value of DNA measurements in bladder washings. Comparison of flow cytometry, image cytophotometry, and cytology in patients with a past history of urothelial tumors. Cancer 64(4):916–924
Mora LB, Nicosia SV et al (1996) Ancillary techniques in the follow up of transitional cell carcinoma: a comparison of cytology, histology and deoxyribonucleic acid image analysis cytometry in 91 patients. J Urol 156(1):49–54, discussion 54–55
Tribukait B, Gustafson H (1980) Impulse cytophotometric studies on DNA in bladder carcinoma. Onkologie 3(6):278–288
Bakhos R, Shankey TV et al (2000) Comparative analysis of DNA flow cytometry and cytology of bladder washings: review of discordant cases. Diagn Cytopathol 22(2):65–69
Jitsukawa S, Tachibana M et al (1987) Flow cytometry based on heterogeneity index score compared with urine cytology to evaluate their diagnostic efficacy in bladder tumor. Urology 29(2):218–222
Murphy WM, Emerson LD et al (1986) Flow cytometry versus urinary cytology in the evaluation of patients with bladder cancer. J Urol 136(4):815–819
Ring KS, Karp F et al (1990) Enhanced detection of bladder cancer using the epithelial surface marker epithelial membrane antigen: a preliminary report. J Occup Med 32(9):904–909
Dyrskjot L, Ostenfeld MS et al (2009) Genomic profiling of microRNAs in bladder cancer: miR-129 is associated with poor outcome and promotes cell death in vitro. Cancer Res 69(11):4851–4860
Dyrskjot L, Zieger K et al (2007) Gene expression signatures predict outcome in non-muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma: a multicenter validation study. Clin Cancer Res 13(12):3545–3551
Guo B, Che T et al (2011) Screening and identification of specific markers for bladder transitional cell carcinoma from urine urothelial cells with suppressive subtractive hybridization and cDNA microarray. Can Urol Assoc J 5(6):E129–E137
Klein A, Zemer R et al (1998) Expression of cytokeratin 20 in urinary cytology of patients with bladder carcinoma. Cancer 82(2):349–354
Tetu B (2009) Diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma from urine. Mod Pathol 22(Suppl 2):S53–S59
van Rhijn BW, van der Poel HG et al (2005) Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur Urol 47(6):736–748
Zieger K (2008) High throughput molecular diagnostics in bladder cancer – on the brink of clinical utility. Mol Oncol 1(4):384–394
Chiong E, Gaston KE et al (2008) Urinary markers in screening patients with hematuria. World J Urol 26(1):25–30
Shariat SF, Karam JA et al (2008) Urine cytology and urine-based markers for bladder urothelial carcinoma detection and monitoring: developments and future prospects. Biomark Med 2(2):165–180
Olsson H, Zackrisson B (2001) ImmunoCyt a useful method in the follow-up protocol for patients with urinary bladder carcinoma. Scand J Urol Nephrol 35(4):280–282
Babjuk M, Kostirova M et al (2002) Qualitative and quantitative detection of urinary human complement factor H-related protein (BTA stat and BTA TRAK) and fragments of cytokeratins 8, 18 (UBC rapid and UBC IRMA) as markers for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol 41(1):34–39
Heicappell R, Wettig IC et al (1999) Quantitative detection of human complement factor H-related protein in transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Eur Urol 35(1):81–87
Thomas L, Leyh H et al (1999) Multicenter trial of the quantitative BTA TRAK assay in the detection of bladder cancer. Clin Chem 45(4):472–477
Gray M, Sims TW (2004) NMP-22 for bladder cancer screening and surveillance. Urol Nurs 24(3):171–172, 177–179, 186
Voutsinas GE, Stravopodis DJ (2009) Molecular targeting and gene delivery in bladder cancer therapy. J BUON 14(Suppl 1):S69–S78
Mitra AP, Bartsch CC et al (2009) Strategies for molecular expression profiling in bladder cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 28(3–4):317–326
Mitra AP, Cote RJ (2009) Molecular pathogenesis and diagnostics of bladder cancer. Annu Rev Pathol 4:251–285
Argani P, Ladanyl M (2004) Renal carcinomas associated with Xp11.2 translocations/TFE gene fusions. In: Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA (eds) Pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs, vol 6. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 37–38
Argani P, Antonescu CR et al (2001) Primary renal neoplasms with the ASPL-TFE3 gene fusion of alveolar soft part sarcoma: a distinctive tumor entity previously included among renal cell carcinomas of children and adolescents. Am J Pathol 159(1):179–192
Heimann P, El Housni H et al (2001) Fusion of a novel gene, RCC17, to the TFE3 gene in t(X;17)(p11.2;q25.3)-bearing papillary renal cell carcinomas. Cancer Res 61(10):4130–4135
Argani P, Ladanyi M (2003) Recent advances in pediatric renal neoplasia. Adv Anat Pathol 10(5):243–260
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leon, M.E., Qin, D., Zynger, D.L. (2014). Molecular Diagnosis of Bladder and Kidney Cancer. In: Coppola, D. (eds) Molecular Pathology and Diagnostics of Cancer. Cancer Growth and Progression, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7192-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7192-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7191-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7192-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)