Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

The advent of noninvasive urine-based markers as well as other novel modalities has yielded improved diagnostic accuracy. However, the new markers failed to reach higher sensitivity and specificity. We therefore evaluated the potential role of epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) and nuclear matrix protein 52 (NMP-52) singly and combined as noninvasive biomarkers for the detection of bladder cancer (BC).

Methods

A total of 160 individuals including 66 patients with BC, 54 patients with benign urologic disorders and 40 healthy volunteers were investigated. Urinary EMA at 130 kDa and NMP at 52 kDa were identified, purified and quantified by Western blot, electroelution and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The diagnostic performance of each biomarker and their combination were compared using area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC).

Results

Mean urinary EMA, 2.42 µg/mL, and NMP-52, 17.85 µg/mL, were significantly elevated in patients with BC compared to controls, 1.18 and 3.44 µg/mL, respectively (p<0.0001). The combined use of these markers yielded values which were increased 4.4- and 13.7-fold in the benign and malignant disease groups, respectively, with respect to the normal group. The values of EMA and NMP-52 were significantly higher in patients with higher-grade tumors than those with lower-grade tumors (p<0.0001). Moreover, this combination could predict all BC stages and grades with 0.91 AUC, 94% sensitivity and 80% specificity.

Conclusions

EMA and NMP-52 in combination could be promising noninvasive biomarkers for BC detection.

Keywords

Bladder cancer Diagnosis EMA NMP-52 Urine

Introduction

Globally, bladder cancer (BC) is estimated to be the ninth most common malignancy, accounting for 3.3% of all malignancies. It is the second genitourinary cancer in incidence and mortality (1-3). The highest incidence rates are found in industrialized countries such as the United States, Canada and the European Union, while the lowest rates are found in developing countries in Africa and Asia (4, 5). Interestingly, high mortality rates (16.3 per 100,000) were found among Egyptian males. These rates are twice as high as the highest rates in Europe and over 4 times higher than in the United States (2). Only about 20%-25% of tumors are muscle invasive (MIBC, T2+) or metastatic at diagnosis, while the majority (75%-80%) of patients present with non-muscle-invasive tumors (NMIBC, stages <T2) (6-8).

Cystoscopy remains the gold standard procedure for BC diagnosis and monitoring. It is an unpleasant invasive diagnostic approach and expensive, rendering the surveillance program not well received by patients. The gold standard noninvasive BC diagnostic test is urine cytology, which also has its limitations: it is laborious and has suboptimal sensitivity, and there may be interobserver variability in low-grade tumors (1, 9, 10). In the face of the mentioned limitations of cystoscopy and cytology, investigators are searching for novel and better ways for BC diagnosis which should be noninvasive, sensitive, cost-effective and easy to perform (11, 12).

The use of urine samples in this context is a major advantage. Urine can be obtained noninvasively and abundant amounts of sample can be repeatedly obtained. Thus, researchers developed many new urine-based BC tests that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (6, 13). However, more urinary diagnostic tests are needed to reach higher sensitivity and specificity (12).

Nuclear matrix proteins (NMPs) are an important part of the structural framework of the nucleus (12). It has been demonstrated that the NMP-22 concentration is higher in BC cell lines than in urothelium from normal bladder (14, 15). In this respect, Attallah et al (16) identified a urinary NMP marker at 52 kDa (NMP-52) in the urine of BC patients. Epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) is a protein that exists on the exterior cell surface of the body (17). In diagnostic tumor histopathology, EMA has been suggested to be an indicator of epithelial differentiation (18-20). However, to date studies using EMA for urine analysis related to BC have been scarce. The current study was started to study EMA and NMP-52 levels in urine of BC patients compared with the levels in patients with benign bladder conditions and healthy individuals. We assessed the clinical utility of their urine concentrations as diagnostic biomarkers for the detection of BC by means of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Materials and Methods

Patients and Samples

Voided urine samples of 160 individuals enrolled in this study were collected at the Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Egypt. The gold standard method for identification of BC was urine cytology. In case of suspicious findings, a bladder biopsy was taken and the specimen was examined using histopathological techniques. The study participants were classified into 3 groups: 1) 66 BC patients having urothelial cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (including 42 men [63.6%] and 24 women [36.4%] with a mean age of 60.6 ± 10.6 years [range 44-81 years]); 2) 54 patients with noncancerous bladder cystitis (benign group) having inflammatory smears or hematuria (including 38 men [70.4%] and 16 women [29.6%] with a mean age of 58.6 ± 11.2 years [range 45-70 years]); 3) 40 healthy individuals as control group (26 men and 14 women, age range 45-65 years, mean age 56.2 ± 8.2 years). The BC patients were subdivided according to tumor stage into 17 with NMIBC (stages <T2) and 49 with MIBC (stages T2+), and according to differentiation grade into 15 with low-grade tumors (G1) and 51 with high-grade tumors (G2-3). Exclusion criteria were a history of another urological malignancy (kidney or ureter), recent urological surgery, and pelvic malignancy.

Fully informed consent was prospectively obtained from all study participants. The study protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Helsinki Declaration.

Sample Collection

A single, naturally voided, first morning midstream urine sample was obtained prospectively from all patients. The collected samples were centrifuged at 2500-4000 g for 15-20 minutes and separated into supernatants and pellets. The cellular sediment, the pellet, was eliminated and the supernatant was used for subsequent analysis or stored at −20°C with no additions or treatment until tested.

Urinary Protein Separation using gel Electrophoresis

According to the method of Laemmli (21), urine proteins were separated in 0.75-mm-thick, 12% or 16% vertical slab gels. Randomly selected urine samples were mixed with the sample buffer (0.125 M Tris base, 4% sodium dodecyl sulfate, 20% glycerol, 10% mercaptoethanol, and 0.1% bromophenol blue as a tracking dye). A mixture of standard proteins (Sigma Chem Co., St Louis, MO, USA) ranging from 39.2 to 215.0 kDa was run in parallel. The protein pattern was determined by Coomassie blue staining.

Western blot

According to the method of Towbin et al (22), urine samples randomly selected from each set (healthy, cystitis and BC) separated as described above were electrotransferred onto a nitrocellulose membrane (0.45-µm pore size; Sigma). Western blot using EMA was run according to the methods of Attallah et al (23). A similar procedure was used for NMP-52 detection using the specific anti-NMP-52 antibody (ABC Diagnostics, New Damietta, Egypt) and the diluted anti-rabbit IgG alkaline phosphatase conjugate (Sigma). The dilutions of the antibodies and conjugates were adjusted to eliminate the background, i.e., the presence of the target antigen at low concentration.

Gel Electroelution

Using the method described by Attallah et al (23), both EMA and NMP-52 bands were electroeluted separately from unstained preparative gels. The protein content of purified EMA and NMP-52 was determined (24) and the remainder was stored at −20°C until use.

Quantitation of Urinary EMA and NMP-52 using ELISA

Voided urine samples were tested for EMA using the protocol of Attallah et al (23). The optical density (OD) at 405 nm was read using a ∑960 microplate autoreader (∑960, Metertech, Inc., Taipei, Taiwan). Color intensity was proportional to the amount of the target EMA concentration present in the urine sample. In a similar manner, the concentration of NMP-52 in each sample was measured using the specific anti-NMP-52 antibody and anti-rabbit IgG alkaline phosphatase conjugate. Urine samples from healthy volunteers and patients with noncancerous bladder cystitis were used to set the cutoff limit of the ELISA. A standard curve was determined by plot absorbance readings (0.10-0.70) of appropriately serially diluted fractions of the purified antigen within the range of 0.6 to 37.5 µg/mL for EMA and 1.1 to 110 µg/mL for NMP-52. To confirm the accuracy and reproducibility of these assays, using 10 samples the intra-assay variation (test precision) was determined in 3 repeats within 1 experiment. Interassay variation was investigated in 3 different experiments performed on 3 different days. The requirement for precision was acceptable if the coefficient of variation (%CV) did not exceed ±15%, either for intraday or interday assays (25).

Statistical Analysis

All statistical calculations were done with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), v.15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and the GraphPad Prism package, v.5.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Study participants’ characteristics were descriptively summarized and reported as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) or standard deviation (SD). To test the significance of differences between mean EMA and NMP-52 concentrations in different groups we used univariate analyses: Student's t-test and ANOVA. To test these markers in combination, logistic regression analysis was used. The regression coefficients in a logistic regression model were not estimable. Consequently, to develop a simplified score, and based on diagnostic performance, these coefficients were dropped from the model. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the best cutoff values for optimal prediction of BC. The cutoff points were selected according to the point on the curve closest to the (0, 1) point (the minimal (1-sensitivity)² + (1-specificity)²) (26). Common performance indicators of the candidate markers (sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, and positive and negative predictive values) were derived from a 2 × 2 contingency table.

Results

Identification of urinary EMA and NMP using Western Blot

The descriptive data on age, gender and clinicopathological data are shown in Table I. EMA was identified at 130 kDa in the urine of patients with BC. At the same molecular weight, urine samples from patients with benign cystitis showed a faint immunoreactive band. No reactive band was observed in urine from healthy individuals under this condition (Fig. 1A). Similarly, a highly immunoreactive band at 52 kDa was detected using the anti-NMP-52 antibody in the urine of BC patients. In contrast, faint bands in the urine of patients with nonmalignant bladder cystitis were observed and no bands were detected in urine of healthy individuals (Fig. 1B).

Table I

Characteristics of patients and healthy volunteers

Variable	Bladder cancer	Cystitis	Healthy
Number	66	54	40
Age: range	44-81	45-70	45-65
(mean ± SD)	(60.6 ± 10.6)	(58.6 ± 11.2)	(56.2 ± 8.2)
Gender: number (%)
Male	42 (63.6%)	38 (70.4%)	26 (65%)
Female	24 (36.4%)	16 (29.6%)	14 (35%)
Pathology: number
Urothelial cell carcinoma	54	-	-
Squamous cell carcinoma	12	-	-
Inflammatory smear	-	43	-
Hematuria	-	11	-
Tumor grade: number
Low grade (G1)	15	-	-
High grade (G2-3)	51	-	-
Pathological T stage: number		-	-
NMIBC (<T2)	17	-	-
MIBC (T2+)	49	-	-

NMIBC = non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (stage <T2); MIBC = muscle invasive bladder cancer (stage ≥T2).

Fig. 1

Western blots of urine samples randomly selected from bladder cancer patients showing the detection of (A) EMA (130 kDa) and (B) NMP-52 (52 kDa) antigens. Lanes 1-2: urine from healthy individuals was used as negative control. Lanes 3-4: urine from patients with benign cystitis. Lanes 5-6: urine from patients with bladder cancer. Molecular weight markers were myosin (215.0 kDa), phosphorylase B, (120.0 kDa), bovine serum albumin (84.0 kDa), ovalbumin (60.0 kDa) and carbonic anhydrase (39.2 kDa). Faintly immunoreactive bands were observed in urine samples of patients with benign cystitis. No bands were observed in urine of healthy individuals.

Urinary EMA and NMP-52 Concentrations and their Combination for BC Prediction

EMA and NMP-52 were purified separately from urine samples of BC patients using electroelution technique from preparative slab gels. To quantify EMA and NMP-52, their concentrations were determined in all of the urine samples using ELISA and their specific antibodies. For EMA, the intra-assay and interassay %CVs were 1.5% and 3.5%, respectively. For NMP-52, the intra-assay and interassay %CVs were 2% and 3.5%, respectively. The difference in urinary concentration of EMA, NMP-52 and their combination in patients with and without BC indicated potential diagnostic value. A ROC analysis of NMP-52, EMA and their combination gave AUCs of 0.877, 0.836 and 0.909, respectively (Fig. 2A-B-C) to discriminate BC urine samples from samples of normal individuals and cystitis patients combined. These values rose to 0.968, 0.928 and 0.995, respectively, when cancer patients were compared only to normal individuals (Fig. 2D-E-F). The optimal urinary EMA, NMP-52 and combination thresholds for cancer versus noncancer were 1.8, 2.5 and 4 µg/mL, respectively. Use of the EMA cutoff gave 90% sensitivity for all BC patients with a specificity of 80%. The sensitivity for NMIBC and MIBC was 85% and 92%, respectively. On the other hand, use of the NMP-52 threshold gave 87% sensitivity for all BC patients with a specificity of 83%. The sensitivity for NMIBC and MIBC was 85% and 88%, respectively. Remarkably, when urinary EMA was combined with NMP-52 for identifying all BC stages or grades, higher sensitivities and specificities were reached. The performance characteristics of urinary EMA, NMP-52 and their combination are shown in Table II.

Table II

Summary of data generated for bladder cancer patients compared with noncancer controls (54 patients with benign cystitis and 40 healthy individuals)

Cancer patients	Total	NMIBC	MIBC	Low grade	High grade
n	66	17	49	15	51
[EMA]
AUC (95% CI)	0.84 (0.78-0.91)	0.77 (0.64-0.90)	0.86 (0.79-0.93)	0.71 (0.54-0.88)	0.88 (0.81-0.94)
Sensitivity (%)^a	90	85	92	75	94
Specificity (%)^b	80	80	80	80	80
PPV (%)^c	75	37	70	32	71
NPV (%)^d	93	97	95	96	96
Efficiency (%)^e	84	80	84	79	85
[NMP-52]
AUC (95% CI)	0.88 (0.81-0.93)	0.86 (0.72-1.00)	0.88 (0.82-0.94)	0.87 (0.77-0.98)	0.87 (0.81-0.94)
Sensitivity (%)^a	87	85	88	92	86
Specificity (%)^b	83	83	83	83	83
PPV (%)^c	77	41	73	41	73
NPV (%)^d	91	98	93	99	92
Efficiency (%)^e	85	83	85	84	84
[EMA] + [NMP-52]
AUC (95% CI)	0.91 (0.86-0.95)	0.92 (0.86-0.98)	0.91 (0.86-0.95)	0.90 (0.84-0.96)	0.91 (0.86-0.96)
Sensitivity (%)^a	94	85	96	92	94
Specificity (%)^b	80	80	80	80	80
PPV (%)^c	75	37	71	37	71
NPV (%)^d	95	97	97	99	96
Efficiency (%)^e	85	80	85	81	85

Total = all cancer stages/grades combined; NMIBC = non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (stage <T2); MIBC = muscle invasive bladder cancer (stage ≥T2); AUC = area under the curve generated by comparing the bladder cancer group with all non-cancer subjects combined; CI = confidence interval.

Sensitivity = true positive/(true positive + false negative) × 100.

Specificity = true negative/(false positive + true negative) × 100.

PPV (positive predictive value) = true positive/(true positive + false positive) × 100.

NPV (negative predictive value) = true negative/(false negative + true negative) × 100

Efficiency = (true positive + true negative)/(true positive + false positive + false negative + true negative) × 100.

Fig. 2

ROC analysis for EMA, NMP-52 and their combination to calculate the best cutoff point to discriminate bladder cancer urine samples from either (A-C) all non-bladder cancer urine (from normal individuals and cystitis patients combined) or (D-F) urine from only normal individuals (and thus no cystitis). ROC = receiver operating characteristic; AUC = area under curve.

Urinary levels of EMA, NMP-52 and their Combination between Investigated Groups

The distribution of urinary EMA and NMP-52 levels (Fig. 3A and B) and their combination (Fig. 4A) among the study groups is presented as box plots. In BC patients, the concentrations (mean ± SEM) of EMA, NMP-52 and their combination were significantly (p<0.0001) higher (2.42 ± 0.15, 17.85 ± 2.78 and 20.24 ± 2.84 µg/mL, respectively) than those of healthy individuals (0.85 ± .08, 0.70 ± 0.12 and 1.55 ± 0.15 µg/mL) and noncancer patients (1.18 ± 0.08, 3.44 ± 0.93 and 4.62 ± 0.94 µg/mL). There was no significant difference (p = 0.71) between EMA+NMP-52 values in NMIBC (19.8 µg/mL) and MIBC (22.2 µg/mL). However, the values of patients with higher-grade tumors (22.1 µg/mL) were significantly (p<0.0001) higher than those of patients with lower-grade tumors (12.7 µg/mL) (Fig. 4B). The combined use of EMA and NMP-52 yielded values which were increased 4.4-fold and 13.7-fold in the benign and malignant disease groups, respectively, compared with the normal control group (Fig. 4C). The distributions of urine EMA + NMP combination values have a sigmoid pattern, showing the likelihood of patients having BC. The increase in this likelihood was related to EMA + NMP at concentrations greater than 4 µg/mL (Fig. 4D).

Fig. 3

Box plots for (A) EMA and (B) NMP-52 to discriminate patients with bladder cancer from noncancer individuals as measured by ELISA. The box represents the interquartile range. The whiskers indicate the highest and lowest values and the line across the box indicates the median value. P<0.05 is considered significant. All Ca = all cancer stages/grades combined; All non Ca = all non-bladder cancer subjects (normal and cystitis combined).

Fig. 4

Box plots showing the distribution of EMA + NMP-52 values (A) between patients with bladder cancer and non-cancer individuals and (B) between bladder cancer stages and grades. (C) Fold increase in the combination of EMA and NMP-52 concentration in patient groups compared with normal individuals. (D) Relationship between the likelihood of patients having bladder cancer and their EMA + NMP-52 values. An EMA + NMP-52 concentration >4 µg/mL indicated bladder cancer, while values ≤4 µg/mL indicated no cancer. Error bars show the standard error of the mean. P<0.05 is considered significant. All Ca = all cancer stages/grades combined; All non Ca = all non-bladder cancer subjects (normal individuals and cystitis patients combined); NMIBC = non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (stages <T2); MIBC = muscle invasive bladder cancer (stages T2+).

Discussion

On premalignant and malignant cells tumor antigen expression can be detected using monoclonal antibody staining (27). In our study, EMA and NMP-52 were identified in urine of BC patients using specific monoclonal antibodies and Western blot at 130 kDa and 52 kDa, respectively. In contrast to urine of the control group, intense immunoreactive bands appeared in the urine of patients with different types of BC. These results further suggest that EMA and NMP-52 could be used as potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of BC. Therefore, we purified the 2 target antigens and developed a direct ELISA for the quantitation of EMA and NMP-52 separately in urine of patients with BC. To overcome the possible interfering effect of dieresis, the levels were corrected by dividing each concentration of the biomarkers by those of urinary creatinine. Our results revealed a marked increase in the mean ± SEM (µg/mL) of EMA, NMP-52 and their combination in BC patients versus the group with benign bladder disease and the group of normal individuals (p<0.0001). The most likely explanation for these results would be that EMA is expressed at a very low level on normal adenocytes, while the immune system recognizes EMA as a glycoprotein antigen on cancer cells (28, 29). NMP-52 is probably released from the nuclei of tumor cells during apoptosis (16).

Using cystoscopy as the gold standard for urinary sample categorization, ROC analyses rendered an area of 0.836 and 0.877 for EMA at a 1.8 µg/mL cutoff and NMP-52 at a 2.5 µg/mL cutoff, respectively. In the evaluation of urinary EMA as a diagnostic biomarker for BC, EMA was detected in all types of BC with an overall sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 80%. Conversely, NMP-52 could be utilized as a diagnostic tool to distinguish patients with BC from controls with a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 83%. In comparison, urine cytology has a high diagnostic specificity (78%-100%), but lacks robust sensitivity (12.2%-84.6%), especially for low- and intermediate-grade tumors (8, 29). The presence of NMP-22 in urine represents the most sensitive protein-based noninvasive test for early-stage BC. It has a sensitivity of 46%-48% for stages <T2. Since its sensitivity for stages <T2 does not exceed 50%, its diagnostic utility for NMIBC is limited (8). A number of other investigational urine markers have been described in recent reviews (13, 30-33). However, to date no marker has reached widespread use. Although several urinary markers have shown higher sensitivity than cytology, most suffer from low specificity. Another limitation is that every setting (e.g., screening/early detection and surveillance) has different requirements. Finally, each marker has to prove its cost-effectiveness. Interestingly, the combined use of EMA and NMP-52 revealed higher diagnostic value (AUC of 0.909) at a 4 µg/mL cutoff with higher sensitivity (94%) and specificity (80%). Higher-grade tumors were associated with higher mean values of the urinary EMA+NMP-52 combination than lower-grade tumors (p<0.0001). Since low-grade tumors undergo less apoptosis than more advanced tumors (34), the NMP-52 release might also be expected to be less. The overexpression of EMA by carcinomas is usually hypoglycosylated and is related to greater tumor aggressiveness (35). Very low urinary EMA+NMP-52 levels (1.5 µg/mL) were found in the healthy control samples. Similarly, in the noncancer samples there were low levels of EMA+NMP-52 (4.5 µg/mL). A low baseline level is an advantage that may allow a clear distinction between a healthy and disease state.

Future studies are needed to clarify the prospective biological behavior of these markers in different pathological types of BC. To our knowledge, this study is among the first to use EMA as a urine marker for BC. Taken together, our results highlight the potential utility of the combined use of EMA and NMP-52 as a urinary biomarker for BC.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Biotechnology Research Center for their involvement in the experimental work.

Financial support: None.

Conflict of interest: The authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

Chen

Lin

Tsai

et al. Identification of potential bladder cancer markers in urine by abundant-protein depletion coupled with quantitative proteomics. J Proteomics 2013; 85:28–43

Ferlay

Shin

Bray

Forman

Mathers

Parkin

Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127(12):2893–2917

Bhagirath

Abrol

Khan

Sharma

Seth

Sharma

Expression of CD147, BIGH3 and Stathmin and their potential role as diagnostic marker in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Clin Chim Acta 2012;41319-20:1641–1646

Kobeissi

Yassine

Jabbour

Moussa

Dhaini

Urinary bladder cancer risk factors: a Lebanese case- control study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14(5):3205–3211

Jemal

Bray

Center

Ferlay

Ward

Forman

Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61(2):69–90

Larré

Catto

Cookson

et al Screening for bladder cancer: rationale, limitations, whom to target, and perspectives. Eur Urol 2013;63(6):1049–1058

Goodison

Rosser

Urquidi

Bladder cancer detection and monitoring: assessment of urine- and blood-based marker tests. Mol Diagn Ther 2013;17(2):71–84

Morgan

Bryan

Javed

et al. Expression of Engrailed-2 (EN2) protein in bladder cancer and its potential utility as a urinary diagnostic biomarker. Eur J Cancer 2013;49(9):2214–2222

Khadjavi

Notarpietro

Mannu

et al. A high-throughput assay for the detection of Tyr-phosphorylated proteins in urine of bladder cancer patients. Biochim Biophys Acta 2013;1830 3664–9

10.

Bischoff

Clark

Bladder cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2009; 21(3):272–277

11.

Kandimalla

Masius

Beukers

et al. A 3-plex methylation assay combined with the FGFR3 mutation assay sensitively detects recurrent bladder cancer in voided urine. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19(17):4760–4769

12.

Parker

Spiess

Current and emerging bladder cancer urinary biomarkers. ScientificWorldJournal 2011;11:1103–1112

13.

Tilki

Burger

Dalbagni

et al. Urine markers for detection and surveillance of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2011;60(3):484–492

14.

Carpinito

Stadler

Briggman

Urinary nuclear matrix protein as a marker for transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract. J Urol 1996;156(4):1280–1285

15.

Jamshidian

Kor

Djalali

Urine concentration of nuclear matrix protein 22 for diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of bladder. Urol J 2008;5(4):243–247

16.

Attallah

Sakr

Ismail

Abdel-Hady

El-Dosoky

An office-based immunodiagnostic assay for detecting urinary nuclear matrix protein 52 in patients with bladder cancer. BJU Int 2005;96(3):334–339

17.

Ormerod

Steele

Westwood

Mazzini

Epithelial membrane antigen: partial purification, assay and properties. Br J Cancer 1983;48(4):533–541

18.

Sloane

Ormerod

Imrie

Coombes

The use of antisera to epithelial membrane antigen in detecting micrometastases in histological sections. Br J Cancer 1980;42(3):392–398

19.

Ormerod

Monaghan

Easty

Asymmetrical distribution of epithelial membrane antigen on the plasma membranes of human breast cell lines in culture. Diagn Histopathol 1981;4(1):89–93

20.

Dearnaley

Ormerod

Canti

Coleman

Epithelial membrane antigen. Its use in the cytodiagnosis of malignancy in serous effusions. Am J Clin Pathol 1982;78(2):214–219

21.

Laemmli

Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 1970;227(5259):680–685

22.

Towbin

Staehelin

Gordon

Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from polyacrylamide gels to nitrocellulose sheets: procedure and some applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1979; 76(9):4350–4354

23.

Attallah

Abdallah

El Sayed

et al. Non-invasive predictive score of fibrosis stages in chronic hepatitis C patients based on epithelial membrane antigen in the blood in combination with routine laboratory markers. Hepatol Res 2011;41(11):1075–1084

24.

Lowry

Rosebrough

Farr

Randall

Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 1951; 193(1):265–275

25.

Shah

Midha

Findlay

et al. Bioanalytical method validation—a revisit with a decade of progress. Pharm Res 2000;17(12):1551–1557

26.

Perkins

Schisterman

The inconsistency of “optimal” cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163(7):670–675

27.

Foresman

Messing

Bladder cancer: natural history, tumor markers, and early detection strategies. Semin Surg Oncol 1997;13(5):299–306

28.

von Mensdorff-Pouilly

Snijdewint

Verstraeten

Verheijen

Kenemans

Human MUC1 mucin: a multifaceted glycoprotein. Int J Biol Markers 2000;15(4):343–356

29.

Yuan

Wang

et al. Expression of MUC1 and its significance in hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma tissue. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11(30):4661–4666

30.

Budman

Kassouf

Steinberg

Biomarkers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. Can Urol Assoc J 2008;2(3):212–221

31.

van Rhijn

BWG

van der Poel

van der Kwast

Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2005;47(6):736–748

32.

Alvarez

Lokeshwar

Bladder cancer biomarkers: current developments and future implementation. Curr Opin Urol 2007;17(5):341–346

33.

Xylinas

Kluth

Rieken

Karakiewicz

Lotan

Shariat

Urine markers for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 2014;32(3):222–229

34.

King

Matteson

Jacobs

Kyprianou

Incidence of apoptosis, cell proliferation and bcl-2 expression in transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: association with tumor progression. J Urol 1996;155(1):316–320

35.

ten Berge

Snijdewint

von Mensdorff-Pouilly

et al. MUC1 (EMA) is preferentially expressed by ALK positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma, in the normally glycosylated or only partly hypoglycosylated form. J Clin Pathol 2001;54(12):933–939

Combined use of Epithelial Membrane Antigen and Nuclear Matrix Protein 52 as Sensitive Biomarkers for Detection of Bladder Cancer

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Patients and Samples

Sample Collection

Urinary Protein Separation using gel Electrophoresis

Western blot

Gel Electroelution

Quantitation of Urinary EMA and NMP-52 using ELISA

Statistical Analysis

Results

Identification of urinary EMA and NMP using Western Blot

Urinary EMA and NMP-52 Concentrations and their Combination for BC Prediction

Urinary levels of EMA, NMP-52 and their Combination between Investigated Groups

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

References