European Urology
Clinical Paper
BTA stat and BTA TRAK: A Comparative Evaluation of Urine Testing for the Diagnosis of Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the BladderIrani J.a · Desgrandchamps F.b · Millet C.a · Toubert M.E.b · Bon D.a · Aubert J.a · LeDuc A.baService d’Urologie et de Médecine Nucléaire, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire La Milétrie, Poitiers; bService d’Urologie et de Médecine Nucléaire, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire St-Louis, Paris, France
Keywords: Bladder cancerTumor markersBTA |
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Subscribe
For eJournal Archive and eJournal Backfiles information please contact Karger service
Article / Publication Details
Published online: February 08, 1999
Issue release date: February 1999
Number of Print Pages: 4
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 3
ISSN: 0302-2838 (Print)
eISSN: 1873-7560 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/EUR
Abstract
Objective: We compared the BTA (bladder tumor antigen) stat test with the BTA TRAK assay in patients highly suspiscious of bladder cancer. Methods: The BTA stat and the BTA TRAK tests are two immunoassays that detect human complement factor H related protein in urine, employing the same antibody pair. The BTA stat is a qualitative test which can be performed in a consultation setting. The BTA TRAK is a quantitative test that is performed in the laboratory. Consecutive patients highly suspicious of bladder cancer were included in this prospective blinded trial to assess the clinical performances of the two methods. Results: A total of 81 patients were tested using BTA stat and BTA TRAK before cystoscopy. A tumor was identified in 49 patients. BTA TRAK (38/49 true-positive cases) was more sensitive than BTA stat (32/49) in detecting bladder cancer (p < 0.05). When considering the subgroups of bladder cancer by stage and grade, the difference remained significant for low-grade and low-stage tumors. There was no significant difference between BTA TRAK and BTA stat as regards specificity (20/32 and 23/32 true-negative cases, respectively; p = 0.2). Conclusion: BTA TRAK with a cutoff of 14 U/ml had a significantly higher sensitivity than BTA stat in the detection of low-grade and low-stage bladder cancer.
Related Articles:
References
- Zein T, Wajsman Z, Englander LS, Gamarra M, Lopez C, Huben RP, Pontes JE: Evaluation of bladder washings and urine cytology in the diagnosis of bladder cancer and its correlation with selected biopsies of the bladder mucosa. J Urol 1984;132:670–671.
-
Kinders R, Root R, Jones T, Bruce CL, Hass GM: Complement factor H-related proteins are expressed in bladder cancers. Cancer Res 1997;38:29.
-
American Joint Committee on Cancer: Staging of cancer at genitourinary sites; in American Joint Committee on Cancer (ed): Manual for Staging of Cancer, ed 3. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1988, pp 194–195.
-
Mostofi FK, Sobin LH, Torloni H: Histological typing of urinary bladder tumors; in: WHO International Histological Classification of Tumors. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1973, pp 9–35.
- Sarosdy MF, Hudson MA, Ellis WJ, Soloway MS, de Vere White R, Sheinfeld J, Jarowenko MV, Schellhammer PF, Schervish EW, Patel JV, et al: Improved detection of recurrent bladder cancer using the Bard BTA stat test. Urology 1997;50:349–353.
- Ellis WJ, Blumenstein BA, Ishak LM, Enfield DL, and the Multicenter Study Group: Clinical evaluation of the BTA TRAK assay and comparison to voided urine cytology and the Bard BTA test in patients with recurrent bladder tumors. Urology 1997;50:882–887.
Article / Publication Details
Published online: February 08, 1999
Issue release date: February 1999
Number of Print Pages: 4
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 3
ISSN: 0302-2838 (Print)
eISSN: 1873-7560 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/EUR
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
