Table 1.
Detailed comparison of FITC-CSNRDARRC ligand, UC and FISH for the detection of bladder tumor in relation to tumor stages and tumor grades
| Tumors | UC | FISH | FITC-CSNRDARRC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/N | % | n/N | % | n/N | % | |
| Grade | ||||||
| Low | 1/12 | 8.3 | 6/12 | 41.67 | 7/12 | 58.33 |
| High | 5/17 | 29.41 | 15/17 | 88.24 | 16/17 | 94.12 |
| Stage | ||||||
| pTa + pT1 | 1/8 | 12.5 | 3/8 | 37.5 | 4/8 | 50 |
| pT2 − pT4 | 5/21 | 23.81 | 18/21 | 85.71 | 19/21 | 90.48 |
| Overall sensitivity | 6/29 | 20.69 | 21/29 | 72.41 | 23/29 | 79.31 |
| Overall specificity | 51/51 | 100 | 51/51 | 100 | 51/51 | 100 |
Abbreviations: FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; UC, urinary cytology.