PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical value of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for diagnosis and surveillance of bladder @entity189 (BUC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 2010 and December 2013, @entity1 suspected of having BUC were examined using urine cytology and FISH assay. Based on histopathological examination results, FISH results were com_pared with urine cytology. In addition, @entity1 with a history of non-muscle invasive BUC were also examined using urine cytology and FISH assay at the first time of visit and then monitored with cystoscopy during follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 162 @entity1 included in this study and 12 @entity1 were excluded due to uninformative FISH assays. The remaining 150 @entity1 consisted of 108 @entity1 suspected for BUC and 42 @entity1 with a history of non-muscle invasive BUC. The sensitivities of FISH analysis and urine cytology were 72.8% and 27.2%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P <.05). Difference between specificity of urine cytology (100%) and FISH assay (85%) was not statistically significant (P >.05). At the first visit, of 42 @entity1 , one @entity1 had positive cystoscopy, and FISH assay was positive in 26 of 41 @entity1 with negative cystoscopy. During the follow-up period (mean, 29.5 months), 18 of 26 @entity1 developed recurrence, and recurrence occurred in only one of 15 @entity1 with negative FISH analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that FISH analysis can be used as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for @entity1 suspect_ed of having new BUC. In addition, FISH analysis may provide important prognostic information to better define the individual risk for BUC recurrence._

The utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization for diagnosis and surveillance of bladder XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity189 :: ('MESH:D002277', 'Disease') :: ['urothelial carcinoma']
@entity189 :: (MESH:D002277,Disease) :: ['urothelial carcinoma']
