 |
|
Detection of Bladder Cancer Using a Proteomic Assay
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: In their study of the accuracy of the NMP22 proteomic assay for detecting bladder cancer,1 Dr Grossman and colleagues provide no description of ultrasonography results in their patients. Although studied mostly in symptomatic patients, ultrasononography has been found to have a sensitivity of 80% to 90%, which is higher than cytology2-3 or the 56% sensitivity for the NMP22 assay reported in this study. When comparing a new assay to standard assessment of high-risk and/or symptomatic subjects, ultrasonography should therefore be one of the compared strategies. Given the low prevalence of cystoscopy-detected cancer in this population (79/1331 [5.9%]), the routine use of cystoscopy might be regarded as too aggressive. It would be interesting to know what the positive predictive value would be for patients who are ultrasonography/cytology positive or negative and what would be the incremental cancer detection rate attributable to the NMP22 assay beyond what would already . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Stefano Ciatto, PhD
s.ciatto@cspo.it
Department of Diagnostic Imaging
Centro per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica
Florence, Italy
RELATED ARTICLES
Detection of Bladder Cancer Using a Proteomic Assay
Donald B. Louria
JAMA. 2005;293(20):2466-2467.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Detection of Bladder Cancer Using a Proteomic Assay—Reply
H. Barton Grossman
JAMA. 2005;293(20):2467.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Detection of Bladder Cancer Using a Point-of-Care Proteomic Assay
H. Barton Grossman, Edward Messing, Mark Soloway, Kevin Tomera, Giora Katz, Yitzhak Berger, and Yu Shen
JAMA. 2005;293(7):810-816.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
