The Nuclear Matrix Protein 22 (NMP22®) BladderChek® Test for the detection of bladder cancer
Article published in Urologia Polska 2008/61/1.

authors

Harm C. Arentsen, Sigrun Langbein, Jean J.M.C.H. de la Rosette, Rob C.M. Pelger, Siebe D. Bos, Jimmy G. Fernandes, Theo M. De Reijke: Department of Urology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Department of Urology, Medical Centre, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Department of Urology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
Department of Urology, Groene Hart Hospital, Gouda, The Netherlands

keywords

urinary bladder, bladder cancer, NMP22® BladderChek® Test, tumour markers, urine cytology

summary

The aim of the study. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the NMP22®BladderChek® Test for the detection of bladder cancer in 2 academic and 2 non-teaching hospitals and to compare these results with the accuracy of cytology.

Material and methods. A total of 145 patients suspected for bladder cancer underwent cystoscopy. Cytology was done in 90 patients on voided urine (VU) and in 55 on bladder washout (BWO) samples, depending on hospital preferences. The NMP22®BladderChek® Test was only done on voided urine. Histopathology and cystoscopy were used as reference standard.

Results. Cystoscopy was positive or suspect in 27% of patients. Histopathology revealed 69% TaG1/G2 and 28% TaG3/≥T1/Tis tumours. Sensitivity for the NMP22®BladderChek® Test was 71% and specificity was 85%. Sensitivity for cytology was 54% (VU) and 64% (BWO). Specificity of cytology was 91% (VU) and 91% (BWO). For the subgroups of cancer stage and grade the sensitivities were for NMP22®BladderChek® Test: Ta 74%, T1 75%, ≥T2 67%, G1 86%, G2 73% and G3 67%, and for urine cytology: Ta 48%, T1 75%, ≥T2 67%, G1 29%, G2 53% and G3 78%. Follow-up cystoscopies in the patients with an initial false positive NMP22®BladderChek® Test (n=15) revealed tumour in 2 patients after 3-12 months.

Conclusions. The NMP22®BladderChek® Test has a better sensitivity and about the same specificity as cytology. Its fast and qualitative properties make it a promising tool in the evaluation of bladder cancer.

references

Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al: Cancer statistics 2006. Ca-A Cancer J Clin 2006, 56106-56130.
Sylvester RJ, van der Meijden APM, Oosterlinck W et al: Predicting recurrence and progression in individual patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer using EORTC risk tables: A combined analysis of 2596 patients from seven EORTC trials. Eur Urol 2006, 49, 466-477.
Grossman HB, Messing E, Soloway M et al: Detection of bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA 2005, 293, 810-816.
Karakiewicz PI, Benayoun S, Zippe C et al: Institutional variability in the accuracy of urinary cytology for predicting recurrence of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. BJU Int 2006,97, 997-1001.
Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VR, Mostofi FK: The World Health Organization International Society of Urological Pathology consensus classification of urothelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary bladder. Am J Surg Pathol 1998, 22, 1435-1448.
Glas AS, Roos D, Deutekom M et al: Tumor markers in the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer. A systematic review. J Urol 2003, 169, 1975-1982.
van Rhijn BWG, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH: Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: A systematic review. Eur Urol 2005, 47, 736-748.
Grossman HB, Soloway M, Messing E et al: Surveillance for recurrent bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA 2006, 295, 299-305.
Moonen PMJ, Kiemeney LALM, Witjes JA: Urinary NMP22 (R) BladderChek (R) test in the diagnosis of superficial bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2005, 48, 951-956.
Tritschler S, Scharf S, Karl A et al: Validation of the Diagnostic Value of NMP22(R) BladderChek(R) Test as a Marker for Bladder Cancer by Photodynamic Diagnosis. Eur Urol 2007, 51, 403-408.
Lotan Y, Svatek RS, Sagalowsky AI: Should we screen for bladder cancer in a high-risk population? A cost per life-year saved analysis. Cancer 2006, 107, 982-990.

correspondence