Urinary Biomarkers for Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Urinary biomarkers may be a useful alternative or adjunct to cystoscopy for diagnosis of bladder cancer.


OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of urinary biomarkers for diagnosis of bladder cancer in adults who have signs or symptoms of the disease or are undergoing surveillance for recurrent disease.


METHODS
Ovid MEDLINE (January 1990 through June 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists.


METHODS
57 studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative or qualitative nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), qualitative or quantitative bladder tumor antigen (BTA), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), fluorescent immunohistochemistry (ImmunoCyt [Scimedx]), and Cxbladder (Pacific Edge Diagnostics USA) using cystoscopy and histopathology as the reference standard met inclusion criteria. Case-control studies were excluded.


METHODS
Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies. Overall strength of evidence (SOE) was also assessed.


RESULTS
Across biomarkers, sensitivities ranged from 0.57 to 0.82 and specificities ranged from 0.74 to 0.88. Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 2.52 to 5.53, and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.21 to 0.48 (moderate SOE for quantitative NMP22, qualitative BTA, FISH, and ImmunoCyt; low SOE for others). For some biomarkers, sensitivity was higher for initial diagnosis of bladder cancer than for diagnosis of recurrence. Sensitivity increased with higher tumor stage or grade. Studies that directly compared the accuracy of quantitative NMP22 and qualitative BTA found no differences in diagnostic accuracy (moderate SOE); head-to-head studies of other biomarkers were limited. Urinary biomarkers plus cytologic evaluation were more sensitive than biomarkers alone but missed about 10% of bladder cancer cases.


CONCLUSIONS
Restricted to English-language studies; no search for studies published only as abstracts; statistical heterogeneity present in most analyses; few studies for qualitative NMP22, quantitative BTA, and Cxbladder; and methodological shortcomings in almost all studies.


CONCLUSIONS
Urinary biomarkers miss a substantial proportion of patients with bladder cancer and are subject to false-positive results in others. Accuracy is poor for low-stage and low-grade tumors.


BACKGROUND
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014013284).
Roger
R
Chou
John L
JL
Gore
David
D
Buckley
Rongwei
R
Fu
Katie
K
Gustafson
Jessica C
JC
Griffin
Sara
S
Grusing
Shelley
S
Selph
D000951:Antigens, Neoplasm / Q000652:urine; D014408:Biomarkers, Tumor / Q000652:urine*; D003558:Cystoscopy; D006801:Humans; D007150:Immunohistochemistry; D017404:In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence; D060787:Neoplasm Grading; D009364:Neoplasm Recurrence, Local / Q000175:diagnosis; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D009687:Nuclear Proteins / Q000652:urine; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D001749:Urinary Bladder Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*
D000951:Antigens, Neoplasm; D014408:Biomarkers, Tumor; D009687:Nuclear Proteins; C112999:bladder tumor-associated antigen; C100379:nuclear matrix protein 22