Clinical performance of Bladder EpiCheck™ versus voided urine cytology for detecting recurrence of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) has a favorable prognosis but has high propensity for recurrence. Recent development in one of the urinary biomarker tests, Bladder EpiCheck™, offers a noninvasive and accurate method to detect NMIBC recurrence. In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of Bladder EpiCheck™ with urine cytology to detect NMIBC recurrence. METHODS: We performed a systematic review search through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to July 2023. Diagnostic accuracy was defined by sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: A total of 6 studies involving 1588 patients were included. Bladder EpiCheck™ has a sensitivity and specificity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.63-0.91; I2: 43%) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.91; I2: 20%), respectively. On the other hand, urine cytology has a sensitivity and specificity of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.29-0.87; I2: 61%) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.78-1.00; I2: 79%), respectively. EpiCheck™ has a higher NPV (0.94 (95% CI: 0.87-0.97) vs. 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87) though a lower PPV (0.62 (95% CI: 0.45-0.76) vs. 0.87 (95% CI: 0.56-0.97) than urine cytology. In our subgroup analysis, the sensitivity of Bladder EpiCheck™ for detecting high-grade tumors improved to 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83-0.94) while that for urine cytology improved to 0.72 (95% CI: 0.50-0.87). CONCLUSION: Bladder EpiCheck™ has a high sensitivity and NPV for detecting recurrence among patients with NMIBC.

Use of Bladder Epicheck® in the follow-up of high-risk non-muscle-invasive Bladder cancer: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, different urinary markers such as the Bladder Epicheck® have been developed in an attempt to reduce the number of cystoscopies in the follow-up of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). AIM: To provide a systematic review of Bladder Epicheck® and its current clinical utility in the follow-up and detection of recurrence of NMIBC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic review based on a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases until October 2023, according to PRISMA and Quadas-2 criteria. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the marker were calculated. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Fifteen studies were analyzed (n = 3761) including 86.7% prospective studies. Of the patient series, 53.2% had received previous intravesical instillations. The mean Se of the biomarker in the detection of recurrence varied according to tumor grade (87.9%-high grade/HG vs. 44.9%-low grade/LG, respectively). Their weighted mean Se and Sp were 71.6% and 84.5%, respectively. The mean recurrence rate was 29.1%. The weighted mean PPV and NPV were 56.4% and 92.8% (97.7% non-LG), respectively. The mean AUC was 85.63%. CONCLUSION: Bladder Epicheck® is a useful urinary marker in the follow-up of NMIBC, with significantly high Se and NPV in the detection of recurrences, especially in cases of HG disease. Its use can reduce the number of cystoscopies required in the follow-up of NMIBC, improving the quality of life of patients and potentially increasing health economic savings.

The Role of Bladder Epicheck Test In Follow-Up of Patients with Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: EpiCheck is a new urinary test that analyses DNA methylation biomarkers in order to identify high-risk urothelial cancer MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective single centre study was performed. We analysed Epicheck results in a population of 231 patients in follow-up for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The primary endpoint was to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of Epicheck in detecting any type of bladder cancer recurrence. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate specificity and sensitivity of Epicheck in patients with high-risk recurrence and in patients recently treated with endovesical therapy (< 3 months). RESULTS: Negative predictive value (NPV) for cytology was 83 % while for bladder Epicheck it was 89 %, while positive predictive value (PPV) was 67 % and 73 % for cytology and Epicheck respectively. Considering only high grade non muscle invasive bladder cancer the sensitivity of Epicheck was 91 % and for cytology was 81 %, specificity was 85 % and 83 % and negative predictive value of Epicheck outreached 96 % compared to 92 % of cytology. Among patients with an ongoing or recent endovesical treatment it appears that sensitivity of Epicheck was 88% % compared to 73 % of cytology, specificity was 97 % and 85 % and NPV was 92 % compared to 82 % for cytology. CONCLUSION: The EpiCheck (test showed very high diagnostic values, higher than the currently, gold standard. The test might clinically improve the BCa management in terms of, reduced number of inconclusive/suspicious reports of cytology and endoscopy, reduced number of further examinations, reduced associated patient and economic.

Diagnostic performance of the Bladder EpiCheck methylation test and photodynamic diagnosis-guided cystoscopy in the surveillance of high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: A single centre, prospective, blinded clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Currently, bladder cancer (BC) surveillance consists of periodic white light cystoscopy and urinary cytology (UC). However, both diagnostic tools have limitations. Therefore, to improve the management of recurrent BC, novel, innovative diagnostic tests are needed. The primary aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of Bladder EpiCheck (BE) and photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) guided cystoscopy in the surveillance of high-risk BC. A secondary aim was to compare Bladder EpiCheck (BE) and PDD-guided cystoscopy findings with whose of UC to design a diagnostic algorithm that facilitates clinical decision making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, blinded, single-arm, single-visit cohort study. All patients were under surveillance for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and underwent cystoscopy with PDD and a BE test. Those who received a histological diagnosis were used as a reference population. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of BE, PDD-guided cystoscopy, and UC for identifying biopsy-confirmed BC lesions. The diagnostic power of the test was assessed by determining the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled. For BE, the AUC was 0.95, and BC recurrence was detected at a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 90.9%. For PDD, the AUC was 0.51, with a sensitivity and specificity of 61% and 41%, respectively. BE was combined with UC to create a decision-making algorithm capable of reducing the number of follow-up cystoscopies needed. CONCLUSION: BE is a very accurate diagnostic tool that has the potential to be useful in the surveillance of high-risk BC patients. Especially when combined with UC, it may be used to reduce the number of cystoscopies needed throughout follow-up. Conversely, the use of PDD as a diagnostic tool in such patients should be reconsidered. However, due to the small sample size of this study, a larger prospective clinical trial should be performed to confirm findings.

The bladder epicheck test and cytology in the follow-up of patients with non-muscle-invasive high grade bladder carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The management of non-muscle invasive bladder carcinoma (NMIBC) after transurethral resection of a bladder tumor consists of adjuvant intravesical therapy and strict and long surveillance with urine cytology and cystoscopy. The Bladder EpiCheck test (Nucleix Ltd) (BE) is a newly developed urinary markers based on DNA methylation changes in a panel of 15 genomic biomarkers, with a promising performance in term of non-invasive NMIBC detection. METHODS: In this study we prospectively enrolled 151 consecutive patients with high grade NMIBC, treated with intravesical BCG and mitomycin C therapy and evaluated during the follow-up by voided urine cytology and white-light cystoscopy, according to the European Association of Urology Guidelines. The Bladder EpiCheck test was performed at the same time of urine cytology in voided specimen. In all cases with positive cytology the diagnosis was confirmed by histology and a diagnosis was made according to the 2017 tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification and graded using both the 1973 and the 2004 World Health Organization (WHO) classifications. RESULTS: At three months of follow-up, we reported similar overall specificity rates for BE and urine cytology (85,1% vs 86,3%). In the group of patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS), we found the same specificity for BE and urine cytology (81,4%), while in the groups of patients with papillary high grade NMIBC, the specificity of BE was higher compared to cytology (96,3% vs 90,4%). The sensitivity of BE was always higher compared to cytology during all the follow-up both for papillary NMIBC and CIS. CONCLUSION: In the early follow-up of NMIBC the EpiCheck test might replace urinary cytology.

Upper urothelial tract high-grade carcinoma: comparison of urine cytology and DNA methylation analysis in urinary samples.

Numerous studies showed that bladder urothelial carcinoma and upper urothelial tract carcinoma (UTUC) display clinical and genomic similarities. In order to analyze that the same panel of biomarkers used in the diagnosis of bladder urothelial carcinoma could be suitable for early detection of UTUC, we performed a retrospective study in which we analyzed Bladder EpiCheck scores in the urinary samples obtained by selective ureteral catheterization in a high-grade UTUC cohort, correlating the results with urinary cytology and diagnostic urethral biopsies. The present study represents a retrospective analysis of 82 patients with clinically localized high-grade UTUC (60 renal pelvis UTUC, 22 ureter UTUC) who had undergone a radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) at our Urology department from June 2018 to November 2020. Before any surgical procedure, one sample of urine, obtained by selective ureteral catheterization, was collected for each patient for cytological examination, and the remaining material was stored for the Bladder EpiCheck test. Our results showed that the sensitivity of the methylation test for high-grade UTUC was about 97.4%, significantly higher than the sensitivity of urinary cytology either considering the HGUC cytological diagnosis or including in the positive cases the SHGUC cytological diagnosis (97.4% versus 59% or 70.5%). The methylation analysis of urinary samples may represent a valid tool in the diagnostic process of patients with suspected UTUC. In cases with a difficult clinical decision after upper urinary tract biopsy and cytology, the methylation test could assist in the clinical management of UTUC patients.

The Usefulness of Cell-Based and Liquid-Based Urine Tests in Clarifying the Diagnosis and Monitoring the Course of Urothelial Carcinoma. Identification of Novel, Potentially Actionable, RB1 and ERBB2 Somatic Mutations.

Bladder cancer is one of the most common cancers in global statistics. One of the issues associated with this disease is the high incidence of cases with delayed diagnosis and what factors correlate with worse treatment outcomes. A possible reason for this may be the rather limited availability of non-invasive diagnostic tools. This short communication presents a case of a 68 year old male patient after an ineffective therapy, carried on for several years with symptoms commonly associated with prostate overgrowth that masked a carcinoma in situ of the urinary bladder. Implementation of several diagnostic techniques, including urine sediment cytology, immunocytochemistry, the fluorescence in situ hybridisation technique, the Bladder EpiCheck test and whole-genome sequencing, enabled the establishment of a correct diagnosis, implementation of appropriate treatment and provision of patient-friendly monitoring. The described case emphasises the usefulness of cell-based and liquid-based urine tests in bladder cancer diagnostic procedures.

The combination cytology/epichek test in non muscle invasive bladder carcinoma follow-up: Effective tool or useless expence?

OBJECTIVE: To identify in which cases after cytological diagnosis, the Bladder EpiCheck test could represent an effective tool in non-muscle invasive bladder carcinoma or an useless expence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 375 patients diagnosed with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, 269 with high grade urothelial carcinoma and 106 with carcinoma in situ, were treated and followed for 1 year. The treatment was an intravesical instillation of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin in 305 patients and Mitomycin-C in 70 patients. During the follow-up patients were evaluated by voided urine cytology and white-light cystoscopy, according to the European Association of Urology Guidelines. Bladder EpiCheck test was performed together with cytology in all cases. RESULTS: Analyzing Bladder Epicheck results for each category defined by the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology, we found that the Episcore >60 correlates with histological diagnosis of high grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) in atypical urothelial cells and Suspicious for High Grade Urothelial Carcinoma (P = 0.0002 Odds Ratio 0.05926 95% Confidence Interval from 0.01127 to 0.3116 and P = 0.0009 Odds Ratio 0.03155 95% Confidence Interval from 0.001683 to 0.5914, Fisher's exact test, respectively), while in Negative for high grade urothelial carcinoma and HGUC patients Episcore is not helpful to identify cases with histological diagnosis of HGUC (P = 0.101 and P = 0.58 Fisher's exact test, respectively). Considering an Episcore ≥ 90 in the HGUC cytological group, this seems not to be correlated with a histological diagnosis of HGUC (P = 0.090 Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Cytology and Bladder EpiCheck test in combination may have the potential to reduce cystoscopies in the follow-up of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer only for cytological diagnoses of atypical urothelial cells and Suspicious for High Grade Urothelial Carcinoma . Moreover, in patients with a cytological diagnosis of Negative for high grade urothelial carcinoma or HGUC, cytology alone seems to be safe and cost-effective.

Novel urinary biomarkers ADXBLADDER and bladder EpiCheck for diagnostics of bladder cancer: A review.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is accompanied with high incidence and recurrence rates. The extensive need for cystoscopic follow up causes substantial patient discomfort and leads to a high economic burden. Cytology of exfoliated tumor cells in urine is not able to safely reduce or replace the amount of cystoscopies. Here, we give a short overview of established urinary biomarkers and review 2 novel urinary biomarkers, ADXBLADDER and Bladder EpiCheck, for their clinical utility in NMIBC. A Pubmed literature search was performed on the subject of urinary biomarkers for NMIBC. The performance of urinary cytology and established biomarkers Nuclear matrix proteins (NMP22), BTA, UroVysion, and ImmunoCyt was evaluated. The performance of novel biomarkers ADXBLADDER and Bladder EpiCheck was critically reviewed. Based on available clinical studies, established urinary biomarkers have no clear role in the diagnosis or follow-up of NMIBC. Three available prospective studies of ADXBLADDER (2 studying initial diagnosis and 1 follow-up study) reported overall sensitivity (45%-73%) and negative predictive values (NPV) (74%-100%) superior to cytology, with reasonable specificity (70%-73%). Four follow-up Bladder EpiCheck studies reported overall sensitivity (62%-90%) and NPV (79%-97%) superior to cytology, with a high specificity (82%-88%). For detection of high grade recurrences, sensitivity, and NPV of both novel biomarkers were even higher, with a sensitivity and NPV of 76% to 88% and 99% respectively for ADXBLADDER and 79% to 95% and 99% respectively for Bladder EpiCheck - Novel urinary biomarkers ADXBLADDER and Bladder EpiCheck have better sensitivity and NPV, but worse specificity than cytology in the follow-up of NMIBC. In the future, these biomarkers might reduce the amount of follow-up cystoscopies, for instance via an intermittent follow-up scheme alternating between cystoscopy and biomarker testing. The main biomarker objective should be to rule out high grade tumor recurrence without the need for any invasive procedures. Nevertheless, the clinical implementation of these biomarkers in the follow up of NMIBC has to be further investigated in prospective randomized trials for low as well as high grade tumors.