Back to Journals » OncoTargets and Therapy » Volume 12

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22), and their combination model in bladder carcinoma detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors Liang Q, Zhang G, Li W, Wang J, Sheng S

Received 1 September 2018

Accepted for publication 8 December 2018

Published 31 December 2018 Volume 2019:12 Pages 349—358

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S186065

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Colin Mak

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Dr XuYu Yang


Qindong Liang,1 Guangjie Zhang,2 Wuxian Li,3 Jing Wang,4 Shangchun Sheng1

1Department of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital & Clinical Medical College of Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China; 2Department of Clinical Laboratory, Chengdu Fifth People’s Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China; 3Department of Clinical Laboratory, Chongqing Health Center for Women and Children, Chongqing, China; 4Department of Blood Transfusion, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

Background: Emerging studies reported that combination of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) could increase the sensitivity and specificity of bladder carcinoma (BC) management. Nevertheless, the reports remain inconsistent. This meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic performance of FISH, NMP22, and their combination model in BC.
Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang database dated up to October 2018. Suitable studies were identified and raw data were extracted. Meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the global sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves for FISH, NMP22, and their combination model, separately. All the meta-analysis estimates were derived using STATA (version 12.0) and MetaDisc (version 1.4) software packages.
Results: Seven eligible studies were included for analysis. The global sensitivities with 95% CI for FISH, NMP22, and their combination model were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75–0.83), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.71–0.81), and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75–0.88); specificities were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76–0.91), 0.70 (95% CI: 0.55–0.81), and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.70–0.97); DORs were 22.215 (95% CI: 10.695–46.144), 7.365 (95% CI: 3.986–13.610), and 41.940 (95% CI: 13.546–129.853); and the areas under the SROC curves were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82–0.88), 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76–0.83), and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.92).
Conclusion: Our systematic review implied that the diagnostic performance of combination model of FISH plus NMP22 may outperform FISH or NMP22 alone in BC detection.

Keywords: bladder cancer, fluorescence in situ hybridization, nuclear matrix protein 22, diagnosis, meta-analysis

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]