Clinical comparison of noninvasive urine tests for ruling out recurrent urothelial carcinoma

Objective Patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC) undergo rigorous surveillance for recurrence. Noninvasive urine tests are not currently recommended by guideline panels owing to insufficient clinical benefit. The objective of this study was to prospectively compare the performance of the Cxbladder Monitor test to other commonly available urine markers and cytology for surveillance of patients with UC. Methods and materials A total of 1,036 urine samples were collected from 803 patients undergoing surveillance for UC. Of these, 1,016 samples were directly assessed using cytology, NMP22 Bladderchek and NMP22 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the clinically validated Cxbladder Monitor test. An exploratory analysis was also performed comparing data from 157 samples where UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis was performed locally. Results The sensitivity of Cxbladder Monitor (0.91) significantly outperformed cytology (0.22), NMP22 ELISA (0.26), and NMP22 BladderChek (0.11). The negative predictive value of Cxbladder Monitor was also superior at 0.96 compared with cytology (0.87), NMP22 ELISA (0.87), and NMP22 BladderChek (0.86). All false-negative results (n = 14) observed using Cxbladder Monitor were also negative for cytology, NMP22 ELISA, and NMP22 BladderChek. In the more limited set, UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization also had inferior sensitivity (0.33) and negative predictive value (0.92). Conclusions The Cxbladder Monitor test significantly outperforms current Food and Drug Administration-approved urine-based monitoring tests, as well as cytology, in a large representative population undergoing surveillance for recurrent UC. This supports using Cxbladder Monitor as a confirmatory negative adjunct to cystoscopy or to justify postponing cystoscopic investigations in patients with a low risk of recurrence.