Comparison of the Urinary Melanoma Antigen Gene Expression (MAGE) Test and Urinary Cytology for Bladder Cancer Screening.
10.4111/kju.2009.50.8.739
- Author:
Jung Dam GIM
1
;
Ki Ho KIM
;
Young Jin SEO
;
Chang Ho JEON
;
Kyung Seop LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Dongguk University School of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea. ksleemd@dongguk.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Urinary bladder neoplasms;
MAGE protein;
Sensitivity and specificity
- MeSH:
Cystoscopy;
Gene Expression;
Humans;
Mass Screening;
Melanoma;
Nuclear Matrix;
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Urinary Bladder;
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2009;50(8):739-743
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: In bladder cancer screening, many methods such as urinary cytology, bladder tumor antigen, and nuclear matrix protein-22 are well known. To learn the value of urinary melanoma antigen gene expression (MAGE) in bladder cancer screening, we compared the urinary MAGE test with irrigated urinary cytology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2000 to July 2007, a total of 142 patients were enrolled in this study. We divided these patients into 2 groups. Eighty-eight patients with bladder cancer were included in group I. Group II consisted of 54 patients who had been treated for bladder cancer and had no evidence of tumor by cystoscopy and irrigated urinary cytology. Urinary cytology, urinary MAGE test, and cystoscopy were performed in all patients. The urinary MAGE test was done by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Sensitivity and specificity were investigated according to cancer grade and stage. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the urinary MAGE test and urinary cytology was 69.3% (61/88) and 53.4% (47/88), respectively (p=0.03). The specificity of the urinary MAGE test and urinary cytology was 75.9% (41/54) and 83.3% (45/54), respectively (p=0.34). The sensitivity of each test in superficial tumors (Ta, T1) was 65.5% (38/58) and 46.6% (27/58), respectively (p=0.04). In advanced disease (> or =T2), the sensitivity of the tests was 76.7% (23/30) and 66.7% (20/30), respectively (p=0.39). The sensitivity of the urinary MAGE test in grade 1 tumors (60.5%, 23/38) was significantly higher (p=0.01) than that of urinary cytology (31.6%, 12/38). CONCLUSIONS: The urinary MAGE test was more sensitive than urinary cytology in bladder cancer screening. We consider the urinary MAGE test to possibly be a valuable test together with urinary cytology, especially for Grade 1 and Ta, T1 bladder cancer.
