ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Clinical value of digital image analysis in the diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer, particularly in aggressive tumors: a preliminary report
Submission date: 2015-11-15
Final revision date: 2016-04-03
Acceptance date: 2016-04-05
Publication date: 2016-08-02
Pol J Pathol 2016;67(2):122-129
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The aim of the project was to evaluate the clinical value of a computer analysis of cytological specimen images obtained from urine and bladder washing samples.
Three sample types (voided urine, catheterized urine and bladder washing) from 59 patients with primary or recurrent tumor were analyzed. All patients underwent cystoscopy and biopsy or resection. The histological results were compared with the results of the image analyzing computer system of collected urine samples.
The consistency between the computer diagnosis and the clinical or histological diagnosis both in the presence and absence of cancer was as follows: 77% for voided urine samples, 72.5% for catheterized urine samples and 78% for bladder washing samples. The specificity of the method at the standard pathology level was 71%, and the sensitivity was 83%. The positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were 87.5% and 63% respectively. The sensitivity for G3 or CIS or T2 or T3 tumors reached nearly 100%.
Computer analysis of urine provided correct diagnoses in cancer and control patients with the sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 71% and gave excellent results in aggressive tumors such as T2, T3, G3 and in CIS.
Three sample types (voided urine, catheterized urine and bladder washing) from 59 patients with primary or recurrent tumor were analyzed. All patients underwent cystoscopy and biopsy or resection. The histological results were compared with the results of the image analyzing computer system of collected urine samples.
The consistency between the computer diagnosis and the clinical or histological diagnosis both in the presence and absence of cancer was as follows: 77% for voided urine samples, 72.5% for catheterized urine samples and 78% for bladder washing samples. The specificity of the method at the standard pathology level was 71%, and the sensitivity was 83%. The positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were 87.5% and 63% respectively. The sensitivity for G3 or CIS or T2 or T3 tumors reached nearly 100%.
Computer analysis of urine provided correct diagnoses in cancer and control patients with the sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 71% and gave excellent results in aggressive tumors such as T2, T3, G3 and in CIS.
REFERENCES (26)
1.
Babjuk M, Burger M, Zigeuner R, et al. EAU Guidelines on Non-Muscle-invasive Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder: Update 2013. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 639-653.
2.
Bergman J, Reznichek RC, Rajfer J. Surveillence of patients with bladder carcinoma using fluorescent in-situ hybrydization on bladder washings. BJU Int 2008; 101: 26-29.
3.
De Bekker-Grob EW, van der Aa MN, Zwarthoff EC, et al. Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer surveillance for which cystoscopy is partly replaced by microsatellite analysis of urine: a cost-effective alternative? BJU Int 2009; 104: 41-47.
4.
Glas AS, Roos D, Deutekom M, et al. Tumour markers in the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer. A systematic review. J Urol 2003; 169: 1975-1982.
5.
Lokeshwar VB, Habuchi T, Grossman HB, et al. Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: international consensus panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology 2005; 66 (6 suppl 1): 35-63.
6.
Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis. Urology 2003; 61: 109-118.
7.
T˜tu B. Diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma from urine. Mod Pathol 2009; 22 Suppl 2: 53-59.
8.
Bohm N, Sandritter W. DNA in human tumours: a cytophotometric study. In: Current Topics in Pathology, Vol. 60, Grundmann E, Kirsten WH (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1975; 151-219.
9.
The Feulgen Procedure for DNA. Available at: http://homepages.gac.edu/~ cellab/chpts/chpt2/ex2-5.html, last access 03.04.2016.
10.
Dulewicz A, Pietka D, Jaszczak P, et al. Value of Digital Image Analysis in Research and Diagnosis of Urine Bladder Cancer. In: Computer Recognition Systems 2. Advances in Soft Computing. 45. Kurzynski M, Puchala E, Wozniak M, Zolnierek A (eds.). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2007; 613-620.
11.
Dulewicz A, Piętka D, Jaszczak P. A Study on Diagnostic Potential of a Computer-Assisted System for Identification of Neoplastic Urothelial Nuclei from the Bladder. In: Information Technologies in Biomedicine. Advances in Soft Computing. 47. Pietka E, Kawa J (eds.). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg; 2008; 403-417.
12.
Dulewicz A, Piętka D, Jaszczak P. Digital image analysis in research and diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer. In: Bladder Cancer: Etymology, Diagnosis and Treatments. Nilsson WE (ed.). Nova Science Biomedical Books, New York 2010; 211-228.
13.
Dulewicz A, Piętka D, Jaszczak P, et al. Computer identification of neoplastic urothelial nuclei from the bladder. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2001; 23: 321-329.
14.
Koss LG, Sherman AB, Adams SE. The use of hierarchic classification in the image analysis of a complex cell population. Experience with the sediment of voided urine. Anal Quant Cytol 1983; 5: 159-166.
15.
Koss LG, Deith D, Ramanthan R, Sherman AB. Diagnostic value of cytology of voided urine. Acta Cytologica 1985; 29: 810-816.
16.
Sherman A, Koss LG, Adams S, et al. Bladder cancer diagnosis by image analysis of cells in voided urine using a small computer. Anal Quant Cytol 1981; 3: 239-249.
17.
Sowter C, Sowter G, Slavin G, et al. Morphometry of bladder carcinoma: definition of a new variable. Anal Cell Pathol 1990; 2: 205-213.
18.
Tanaka N, Ueno T, Ikeda H, et al. CYBEST Model 4. Automated cytologic screening system for uterine cancer utilizing image analysis processing. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1987; 9: 449-454.
19.
de Voogt H, Rathert P, Beyer-Boon M. Urinary Cytology and its Relationship to Histology of the Urinary Tract. Urinary Cytology: Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 1977; 15-41.
20.
Wied G, Koss LG, Reagan J. Compendium on Diagnostic Cytology. Wied G, Keebler CM, Koss LG, Reagan JW (eds). 5th ed. International Academy of Cytology, Chicago 1983; 419-423.
21.
Wiener HG, Vooijs GP, van’t Hof-Grootenboer AE. Accuracy of urinary cytology in the diagnosis of primary and recurrent bladder cancer. Acta Cytol 1992; 37: 163-169.
22.
Wong EK, Liang E, Lin E, et al. A selective mapping algorithm for computer analysis of voided urine cell images. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1989; 11: 203-210.
23.
Zieliński, KW, Strzelecki M. Computer assisted analysis of biomedical images. Introduction to the morphometry and quantitative pathology. Polish Scientific Publishers PWN, Warsaw 2002; 101-153.
24.
Konety BR, Getzenberg RH. Urine based markers of urological malignancy. Journal of Urology 2001; 165: 600-611.
25.
Boon ME, Drijver JS. Routine cytological staining techniques: Theorethical background and Practice. Macmillan Education Ltd., London 1986.
26.
Jarkrans T. Algorithms for cell image analysis in cytology and pathology. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Upsala 1996; 6-26.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2084-9869 |
| ISSN: | 1233-9687 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
