Multi-institutional external validation of urinary TWIST1 and NID2 methylation as a diagnostic test for bladder cancer

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 33, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 387.e1-387.e6

  Fantony, Joseph J ^a   Abern, Michael R ^b   Gopalakrishna, Ajay ^a   Owusu, Richmond ^a   Jack Tay, Kae ^a   Lance, Raymond S ^c   Inman, Brant A ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^c Urology of Virginia   (United States)

Author keywords

Diagnostic test; Epigenetic; Sensitivity; Smoking; Specificity; Urothelial carcinoma

Indexed keywords

GENOMIC DNA; CELL ADHESION MOLECULE; NID2 PROTEIN, HUMAN; NUCLEAR PROTEIN; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR TWIST; TUMOR MARKER; TWIST1 PROTEIN, HUMAN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLADDER BIOPSY; CANCER RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYSTOSCOPY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DNA METHYLATION; DNA METHYLATION ASSAY; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; FEMALE; GENE; GENE DOSAGE; GENETIC RISK; GOLD STANDARD; HEMATURIA; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MIDDLE AGED; NID2 GENE; NON MUSCLE INVASIVE BLADDER CANCER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REAL TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SMOKING; TWIST1 GENE; URINALYSIS; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; CARCINOMA, TRANSITIONAL CELL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; GENETICS; METABOLISM; MULTICENTER STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; STATISTICAL MODEL; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS; URINE; VALIDATION STUDY;

AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; CARCINOMA, TRANSITIONAL CELL; CELL ADHESION MOLECULES; COHORT STUDIES; DNA METHYLATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR PROTEINS; REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TWIST TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84940467390     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.04.014     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Miremami J., Kyprianou N. The promise of novel molecular markers in bladder cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2014, 15:23897-23908.
2. Shariat S.F., Karam JA, Lotan Y, Karakiewizc PI, et al. Critical evaluation of urinary markers for bladder cancer detection and monitoring. Rev Urol 2008, 10:120-135.
3. van der Aa M.N., Steyerberg EW, Sen EF, Zwarthoff EC, Kirkels WJ, van der Kwast TH, et al. Patients' perceived burden of cystoscopic and urinary surveillance of bladder cancer: a randomized comparison. BJU Int 2008, 101:1106-1110.
4. Lokeshwar V.B., Habuchi T, Grossman HB, Murphy WM, Hautmann SH, Hemstreet GP, et al. Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: International Consensus Panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology 2005, 66(6 Suppl. 1):35-63.
5. Yafi F.A., Brimo F, Steinberg J, Aprikian AG, Tanguay S, Kassouf W, et al. Prospective analysis of sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology and other urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 2015, 33:66. e25-31.
6. Fridrichova I., Smolkova B, Kajabova V, Zmetakova I., Krivulcik T, Mego M, et al. CXCL12 and ADAM23 hypermethylation are associated with advanced breast cancers. Transl Res 2015, 165:717-730.
7. Ng J.M., Yu J. Promoter hypermethylation of tumour suppressor genes as potential biomarkers in colorectal cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2015, 16:2472-2496.
8. Renard I., Joniau S, van Cleynenbreugel B, Collette C, Naome C, Vlassenbroeck I., et al. Identification and validation of the methylated TWIST1 and NID2 genes through real-time methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction assays for the noninvasive detection of primary bladder cancer in urine samples. Eur Urol 2010, 58:96-104.
9. Abern M.R., Owusu R., Inman B.A. Clinical performance and utility of a DNA methylation urine test for bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 2014, 32:51. e21-6.
10. Li K., Lin T, Fan X, Duan Y, Huang J, et al. Diagnosis of narrow-band imaging in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 2013, 20:602-609.
11. Osborne J.W. Improving your data transformations: applying the Box-Cox transformation. Pract Asses Res Eval 2010, 15:1-9.
12. DeLong E.R., DeLong D.M., Clarke-Pearson D.L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988, 44:837-845.
13. Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett 2006, 27:861-874.
14. Marshall R.J. The predictive value of simple rules for combining two diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1989, 45:1213-1222.
15. McIntosh M.W., Pepe M.S. Combining several screening tests: optimality of the risk score. Biometrics 2002, 58:657-664.
16. Pepe M.S. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction 2003, Oxford University Press, New York.
17. Vickers A.J., Elkin E.B. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006, 26:565-574.
18. Robin X., Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12:77.
19. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2011, R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna.
20. Besaratinia A., Cockburn M., Tommasi S. Alterations of DNA methylome in human bladder cancer. Epigenetics 2013, 8:1013-1022.
21. Yegin Z., Gunes S., Buyukalpelli R. Hypermethylation of TWIST1 and NID2 in tumor tissues and voided urine in urinary bladder cancer patients. DNA Cell Biol 2013, 32:386-392.
22. Mulherin S.A., Miller W.C. Spectrum bias or spectrum effect? Subgroup variation in diagnostic test evaluation. Ann Intern Med 2002, 137:598-602.