This preprint is under consideration at BMC Urology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Xiong Xiong
Chongqing Medical University First Affiliated Hospital
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: The urinary bladder tumour antigen (BTA) stat test has already been used for the diagnosis and monitoring of bladder cancer (BC). However, more evidence is needed regarding its efficacy and utility in the clinic. In this study, we investigated the influence of haematuria on the performance of the BTA stat test in a clinical cohort.
Methods: Urine samples from 836 subjects, including 50 healthy volunteers, 553 patients with benign urologic disorders, 124 patients with histologically proven BC, and 109 patients with other histologically proven urologic cancers, were analysed by the BTA stat test and urinalysis. We detected the sensitivity and specificity of the BTA stat test in each group, and analysed the effect of haematuria on the specificity.
Results: Our data showed that 58.06% of patients had haematuria in the BC group. Haematuria with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), renal hamartoma (RH) and urolithiasis were identified in 39.01%, 42.86% and 66.49% of patients with benign urologic disorders, respectively. Haematuria was identified in 48.72% of prostatic cancer patients and 67.74% of renal cancer patients. The overall sensitivity of the BTA stat test was 90.32%. The sensitivity was 97.22% in BC patients with haematuria and 80.77% in BC patients without haematuria. The overall specificity in healthy individuals, patients with benign urologic disorders and other urologic cancers was 50.84%. In all patients with haematuria, the specificity of the BTA stat test was 15.82%, while it was 72.6% in patients without haematuria.
Conclusions: Haematuria has a significant influence on the BTA stat test. Thus, this test should not be used for the diagnosis of bladder cancer in patients with haematuria.
Keywords
BTA stat test, bladder cancer, haematuria, diagnostic
Figure 1
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
The most recent version of this article is available here.
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 03 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 31 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 07 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 07 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 07 Jan, 2021
Version 2
Posted 27 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 07 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 27 Nov, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 17 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 12 Sep, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 11 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Aug, 2020
First submitted
On 23 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 23 Aug, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Urology & Nephrology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Urology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Xiong Xiong
Chongqing Medical University First Affiliated Hospital
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
The most recent version of this article is available here.
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 03 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 31 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 07 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 07 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 07 Jan, 2021
Version 2
Posted 27 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 07 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 27 Nov, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 17 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 12 Sep, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 11 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Aug, 2020
First submitted
On 23 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 23 Aug, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Urology & Nephrology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
The most recent version of this article is available here.
Background: The urinary bladder tumour antigen (BTA) stat test has already been used for the diagnosis and monitoring of bladder cancer (BC). However, more evidence is needed regarding its efficacy and utility in the clinic. In this study, we investigated the influence of haematuria on the performance of the BTA stat test in a clinical cohort.
Methods: Urine samples from 836 subjects, including 50 healthy volunteers, 553 patients with benign urologic disorders, 124 patients with histologically proven BC, and 109 patients with other histologically proven urologic cancers, were analysed by the BTA stat test and urinalysis. We detected the sensitivity and specificity of the BTA stat test in each group, and analysed the effect of haematuria on the specificity.
Results: Our data showed that 58.06% of patients had haematuria in the BC group. Haematuria with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), renal hamartoma (RH) and urolithiasis were identified in 39.01%, 42.86% and 66.49% of patients with benign urologic disorders, respectively. Haematuria was identified in 48.72% of prostatic cancer patients and 67.74% of renal cancer patients. The overall sensitivity of the BTA stat test was 90.32%. The sensitivity was 97.22% in BC patients with haematuria and 80.77% in BC patients without haematuria. The overall specificity in healthy individuals, patients with benign urologic disorders and other urologic cancers was 50.84%. In all patients with haematuria, the specificity of the BTA stat test was 15.82%, while it was 72.6% in patients without haematuria.
Conclusions: Haematuria has a significant influence on the BTA stat test. Thus, this test should not be used for the diagnosis of bladder cancer in patients with haematuria.
Figure 1
Loading...