Advertisement

Evaluation of a bladder tumor antigen test for the diagnosis of lower urinary tract malignancies in dogs

Jean-Philippe H.G. BilletDepartment of Clinical Veterinary Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK.
Present address is Clinique Vétérinaire de Beaulieu, 18 Blvd Gaëtan Rondeau, 44 200 Nantes, France.

Search for other papers by Jean-Philippe H.G. Billet in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 Dr Vét
,
Alasdair Hotston MooreDepartment of Clinical Veterinary Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK.

Search for other papers by Alasdair Hotston Moore in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 VetMB
, and
Peter E. HoltDepartment of Clinical Veterinary Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK.

Search for other papers by Peter E. Holt in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BVMS, PhD

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the use of a human bladder tumor antigen test for diagnosis of lower urinary tract malignancies in dogs.

Sample Population—Urine samples from dogs without urinary tract abnormalities (n = 18) and from dogs with lower urinary tract neoplasia (20) or nonmalignant urinary tract disease (16).

Procedure—Test results were compared among groups and among 3 observers. The effects of urine pH and specific gravity, degree of hematuria, and storage temperature and time of urine samples on test results were also assessed.

Results—Test sensitivity and specificity were 90 and 94.4%, respectively, for differentiating dogs with lower urinary tract neoplasia from dogs without abnormalities. However, specificity decreased to 35% for differentiating dogs with neoplasia from dogs with nonmalignant urinary tract disease. In dogs with neoplasia, results were significantly affected by degree of hematuria. However, addition of blood to urine from dogs without hematuria had no significant effect on test results. Although intraobserver variation was significant, urine pH, specific gravity, or storage time or temperature had no significant effect on results.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Although this bladder tumor antigen test was sensitive for differentiating dogs with malignancies of the lower urinary tract from dogs without urinary tract disease, it was not specific for differentiating dogs with neoplasia from dogs with other lower urinary tract abnormalities. It cannot, therefore, be recommended as a definitive diagnostic aid for the detection of lower urinary tract malignancies in dogs. (Am J Vet Res 2002;63:370–373)

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the use of a human bladder tumor antigen test for diagnosis of lower urinary tract malignancies in dogs.

Sample Population—Urine samples from dogs without urinary tract abnormalities (n = 18) and from dogs with lower urinary tract neoplasia (20) or nonmalignant urinary tract disease (16).

Procedure—Test results were compared among groups and among 3 observers. The effects of urine pH and specific gravity, degree of hematuria, and storage temperature and time of urine samples on test results were also assessed.

Results—Test sensitivity and specificity were 90 and 94.4%, respectively, for differentiating dogs with lower urinary tract neoplasia from dogs without abnormalities. However, specificity decreased to 35% for differentiating dogs with neoplasia from dogs with nonmalignant urinary tract disease. In dogs with neoplasia, results were significantly affected by degree of hematuria. However, addition of blood to urine from dogs without hematuria had no significant effect on test results. Although intraobserver variation was significant, urine pH, specific gravity, or storage time or temperature had no significant effect on results.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Although this bladder tumor antigen test was sensitive for differentiating dogs with malignancies of the lower urinary tract from dogs without urinary tract disease, it was not specific for differentiating dogs with neoplasia from dogs with other lower urinary tract abnormalities. It cannot, therefore, be recommended as a definitive diagnostic aid for the detection of lower urinary tract malignancies in dogs. (Am J Vet Res 2002;63:370–373)