↓ Skip to main content

A prospective comparison of UroVysion FISH and urine cytology in bladder cancer detection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A prospective comparison of UroVysion FISH and urine cytology in bladder cancer detection
Published in
BMC Cancer, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3227-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugh J. Lavery, Boriana Zaharieva, Andrew McFaddin, Nyla Heerema, Kamal S. Pohar

Abstract

UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization (uFISH) was reported to have superior sensitivity to urine cytology. However uFISH studies are limited by varying definitions of what is considered a positive result, absence of histopathology and small sample size. The aim of our study was to better determine the performance characteristics of uFISH and urine cytology by overcoming some of the deficiencies of the current literature. Intraoperative bladder wash cytology and uFISH were collected prospectively on all patients. Strict definitions for positivity of uFISH and cytology were determined before initiating the study. A re-review of false-negative uFISH specimens was performed to analyze potential sources of error. Sixteen bladder tumors embedded in paraffin were analyzed by uFISH and compared with the result in the urine. One hundred and twenty-nine specimens were analyzed. Sensitivity was 67% and 69% (p = 0.54); specificity was 72% and 76% (p = 1.0), for uFISH and cytology, respectively. Thirty-two false negative uFISH samples were re-reviewed. Low grade tumors often showed cells with abnormal morphology and patchy DAPI staining but diploid chromosomal counts and a few high grade tumors had tetraploid counts but less than needed to interpret uFISH as positive. uFISH study of the tumors revealed three categories; positive in both tumor and urine (9), negative in both tumor and urine (5) and positive in tumor but negative in urine (2). In a pathologically-confirmed analysis of bladder washed urine specimens, uFISH does not outperform urine cytology in cancer detection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 23%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2017.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#6,689
of 8,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,800
of 311,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#102
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,483 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.