Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Immunocyt and the HA-HAase urine tests for the detection of bladder cancer: A side-by-side comparison

  • Stefan Hautmann(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Marieta Toma
    ,
  • Maria Fernanda Lorenzo Gomez
    ,
  • Martin G. Friedrich
    ,
  • Torsten Jaekel
    ,
  • Uwe Michl
*Corresponding author for this work
  • University of Hamburg
    ,
  • Kiel University
    ,
  • University of Miami
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well

Abstract

Objectives: The reliable detection of bladder cancer from urine specimen remains an unsolved problem. Especially superficial bladder cancer can be missed with urine tests. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the commercial Immunocyt test in a side-by-side comparison with the HA-HAase urine test and cytology. The Immunocyt test measures the immunocytological expression of sulfated mucin-glycoproteins and glycosylated forms of the carcinoembryonic antigen in urine. With the HA-HAase urine test the level of hyaluronic acid (HA) and its degrading enzyme hyaluronidase (HAase) are measured in an ELISA-like test. Methods: A total of 94 consecutive patients were studied and among these 30 patients had bladder cancer and 64 were controls. Among bladder cancer patients, there were 14 pTa, 9 pT1, 5 pT2 and 2 carcinoma in situ (CIS) transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, respectively. The controls consisted of 55 patients with a history of bladder cancer but no evidence of tumor at the follow-up cystoscopy and 9 benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients. The 30 transitional cell cancer specimens had 4 (13%) grade 1 tumors, 15 (50%) grade 2 tumors and 11 (37%) grade 3 tumors. Sensitivity and specificity as well as the positive and negative predictive values of each test were evaluated. Results: The sensitivity of the HA-HAase urine test (83.3%; 25/30) was significantly higher than the Immunocyt at 63.3% (19/30) (p = 0.038, McNemar test) and cytology (73%; p < 0.05). The specificity of the HA-HAase test (78.1%; 50/64), Immunocyt (75%; 48/64) and cytology (79.7%; 51/64) were comparable. The prevalence of bladder cancer in our study was 31%. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the HA-HAase test (64.1%) was significantly higher than the Immunocyt test (54.3%). The negative predictive value (NPV) of the HA-HAase test (90.9%) was also higher than the Immunocyt test (81.3%). The PPV and NPV values for cytology were 62.9% and 86.4%, respectively. False negative patients in the HA-HAase urine test were 5 pTa tumors (2 G1, 2 G2 and 1 G3). False negative patients in the Immunocyt test were 7 pTa tumors (1 G1 and 6 G2), 3 pT1 (2 G2, 1 G3) and 1 pT2 G3, respectively. Conclusions: The sensitivity of the HA-HAase urine test is significantly higher than that of the Immunocyt test to detect bladder cancer. Specificity, as well as the PPV and NPV of the HA-HAase test were higher than that of the Immunocyt test. With a prevalence of 31% bladder cancer patients in all hematuria patients studied, a typical distribution of patients in a urological clinic is presented. Longer follow up of the study patients will give more information on the value of these tests in the detection of bladder cancer.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 466-471 (6 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

European urology (Volume 46, Issue 4)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 10/2004

Publication status

Published - 10/2004

ISSN

0302-2838

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 20844452878
  • PubMed: 15363562

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
SciVal
citations
75
SciVal
FWCI
1.91
SciVal
Author count
10
SciVal
Paper percentile
91
SciVal
Top percentile
10
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.10
Fractional count
9
Fractional count
0.90
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
85
Captures
27

Funding Details

FunderFunding number
NCI
R01CA072821