Modified UroVysion scoring criteria increase the urothelial carcinoma detection rate in cases of equivocal urinary cytology

• Published in: Histopathology 2011-06, Vol.58 (7), p.1048-1053
• Main Authors: Huysentruyt, Clément J R, Baldewijns, Marcella M, Rüland, Andrea M, Tonk, Ronald J W, Vervoort, Peter S A M, Smits, Kim M, van de Beek, Cees, Speel, Ernst-Jan M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Carcinoma in Situ - diagnosis; Carcinoma in Situ - genetics; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell - diagnosis; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell - genetics; Cystoscopy; cytology; Diagnosis, Differential; DNA, Neoplasm - genetics; Female; fluorescence in situ hybridization; Humans; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence - methods; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Male; Mass Screening - methods; Medical sciences; Pathology. Cytology. Biochemistry. Spectrometry. Miscellaneous investigative techniques; Predictive Value of Tests; Retrospective Studies; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - diagnosis; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - genetics; Urine - cytology; urothelial carcinoma; Urothelium - pathology; UroVysion
• ISSN: 0309-0167; 1365-2559
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03859.x

Huysentruyt C J R, Baldewijns M M, Rüland A M, Tonk R J W, Vervoort P S A M, Smits K M, van de Beek C & Speel E‐J M
(2011) Histopathology 58, 1048–1053
Modified UroVysion scoring criteria increase the urothelial carcinoma detection rate in cases of equivocal urinary cytology Aims:  UroVysion® is a four‐target fluorescence in situ hybridization technique for the detection of urothelial carcinoma (UC) in urinary cytology. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the UC detection rate of a modified UroVysion test in patients with equivocal urinary cytology. The modification comprised the addition of a cytological prescreening technique and different evaluation criteria. Methods and results:  Thin‐layer slides were prepared from the residual urine samples of 82 patients with equivocal urinary cytology, prestained and prescreened to confirm the presence of atypical urothelial cells. The same slides were used for the UroVysion test, and scored according to different evaluation criteria. The results were compared with the outcomes of cystoscopic and histological findings. UroVysion detected 68% of the UCs when the manufacturer’s evaluation criteria were applied. In cases of altered evaluation criteria, the sensitivity increased to 81% when at least one copy number change of a probe target was considered to be a positive test result. The specificity only decreased from 84% to 82%. Conclusions:  Our data suggest that the sensitivity of the UroVysion test can be increased by the addition of a cytological pre‐screening technique prior to the UroVysion test and a modification of the UroVysion evaluation criteria.