Background and purpose: Urothelial cancer is the most common malignant neoplasm in the urinary system. Urine cytology is the standard morality to diagnose urothelial cancer. Although cytology has been shown to have a high specificity, the sensitivity is unacceptably low. The count of copies of chromosomes in interphase cells by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays has been successfully used as a screening tool in genetic and cancer studies. In this study, we investigated the value of FISH assay for diagnosis of urothelial cancer. Methods:Voided urine samples from 100 patients with haematuria were analyzed by FISH and cytology; labeled probes for chromosomes 3, 7, 9 and 17 were used to assess chromosomal abnormalities. The gold standard was pathology diagnosis. The overall sensitivity and specificity of FISH were evaluated and compared with cytology. Results: The sensitivity of FISH and cytology in detection urothelial cancer were 74.7% and 46.0% respectively; the specificity was 92.3% and 100% respectively (different not significant). There was a significant difference between the sensitivity of FISH and cytology in detection. Conclusion. The FISH assay has a higher sensitivity than cytology and a similar specificity in the detection of urothelial cancer, and could be used as a new method for diagnosis of urothelial cancer.

Objective:To identify and analyze different proteins expression in the periosteum of congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia (CPT) using tandem mass tags (TMT) proteomics.Methods:The samples were divided into three groups, namely CPT with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) group (NF1-CPT group), CPT without NF1 group (nonNF1-CPT group) and control group (patients with open tibial fracture). A fold change ≥1.5 or ≤0.66 and P-value <0.05 was regarded as the threshold to screen differentially expressed proteins (DEPs). Subsequently, bioinformatics resources such as online tools DAVID and STRING were used to conduct GO annotation, KEGG pathways enrichment and protein-protein interaction (PPI) network with DEPs. Results:A total of 347 proteins differentially expressed in NF1-CPT group, 212 of which were up-regulated and 135 down-regulated. We identified 467 DEPs in nonNF1-CPT group, including 281 up-regulated and 186 down-regulated. Among of them, NF1-CPT group and nonNF1-CPT group shared 231 DEPs, except for HLA-DRB1 which increased in NF1-CPT group but decreased in nonNF1-CPT group. The remaining 230 DEPs showed the same expression trend in the two positive groups, including 117 up-regulated and 113 down-regulated. In particular, a total of 116 proteins were altered only in NF1-CPT group, including 94 up-regulated and 22 down-regulated. However, there were 236 proteins altered only in nonNF1-CPT group, including 164 up-regulated and 72 down-regulated. The results indicated that the pathogenesis of NF1-CPT was similar as nonNF1-CPT largely with a few differences. Finally, compared with nonNF1-CPT, there were 47 proteins changed 1.5-fold and P-value <0.05 in NF1-CPT group. Conclusion:The proteins expression in the periosteum of CPT is different from that of normal tibia. The expression of periosteal protein is also different between NF1-CPT and nonNF1-CPT. The present study will deepen our understanding of the pathogenesis of CPT in the protein level.