The aim was to evaluate microsatellite analysis of urine sediment (MAUS) as an alternative method to urine cytology for routine diagnosis of patients with transitional cell tumors (TCT) of the urinary bladder. Urine cytology has the advantage of being non-invasive, fast and cheap, but is of limited value because of its low sensitivity. MAUS has previously been found to be a successful alternative method. However, the experimental set-up of such investigations implied exclusion of samples with unfavorable characteristics and use of a large number of markers. In the present study, MAUS was tested on all samples routinely available and a small panel of markers was selected. The urine sediments of 66 TCT patients and 24 controls were analyzed by MAUS with 16 fluorescent markers and by urine cytology. All samples were analyzed, including the ones of later micturition, with gross hematuria, leukocyturia or absence of visible sediment. In patients with tumors of low grade (grades I-II), MAUS was significantly more sensitive than urine cytology. The two methods were of equivalent diagnostic power in high-grade (grades III-IV), high-stage (pT1-pT4) tumors. A panel of the six most informative markers for MAUS was selected. Although MAUS has an advantage over routine cytology in low-grade, low-stage tumors, an overall sensitivity of 45% is not sufficient for routine clinical use.

Hybrid Capture 2 and cobas human papillomavirus assays perform similarly on SurePath samples from women with abnormalities Objective: In two laboratories (Departments of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospitals of Herlev and Hvidovre), we compared cobas and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) human papillomavirus (HPV) assays using SurePathâ samples from women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) at ≥30 years and women after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Methods: Samples from 566 women with ASCUS and 411 women after treatment were routinely tested with HC2 and, thereafter, with cobas. Histological outcomes were retrieved from the Danish Pathology Data Base. We calculated the overall agreement between the assays, and compared their sensitivity and specificity for ≥CIN2. Results: In women with ASCUS, HC2 and cobas testing results were similar in the two laboratories. The overall agreement was 91% (95% CI, 88-93). After CIN treatment, the overall agreement was 87% (95% CI, 82-91) at Herlev and 88% (95% CI, 82-92) at Hvidovre. There were no significant differences in the sensitivity for ≥CIN2 between the two tests [Herlev, 98% (95% CI, 89-100) for HC2 versus 94% (95% CI, 82-99) for cobas; Hvidovre, 97% (95% CI, 83-100) for HC2 versus 100% (95% CI, 88-100) for cobas]. The differences were also not significant for specificity. Conclusions: In women with the studied well-defined clinical indications for HPV testing, cobas and HC2 performed similarly in terms of the detection of HPV and ≥CIN2.

No abstract