【摘要】 我科自1997.8.1至1998.4.1对120例以血尿为首发症状的病例均用BTA stat与BTA test两种测试方法进行了同一尿样检测,采用非血尿尿样且由同一操作者完成。结果BTAstat与BTA test对上皮来源肿瘤的敏感度分别为65.90％和63.63％(P>0.05),按肿瘤病理分级Ⅰ～Ⅲ级敏感度分别为:Ⅰ级;59.09％、54.54％(P>0.05);Ⅱ级:68.75％、68.75％(P>0.05);Ⅲ级:83.33％、83.33％(P>0.05)。两者特异度分别为82.89％和81.57％(P>0.05)。采用系列试验模式设置的BTA联合组进行比较,其敏感度为63.63％(P>0.05),特异度为94.74％(P<0.05)。BTA stat的阳性预测值为69.05％,BTA test为66.67％,BTA联合组为87.5％(P<0.05)。准确度分别为76.67％,75.0％和83.33％(P>0.05)。BTA stat比BTA test使用更加简便,两者总体及分级诊断的敏感度、特异度、准确度和阳性预测值无明显差异。BTA联合组可以显著提高总体特异度和阳性预测值,以及降低假阳性率。提示联合应用效果显著。更多还原

【Abstract】 We evaluated 120 cases who got haematuria as the initiate symotom from 8. 1.1997 to 4. 1. 1998 with BTAstat and BTAtest. Both assay adopted the same urine sample without haematuria and manipulated by one operator.Overall sensitivities of transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) for BTAstat and BTAtest in 120 samples were 65.90% and 63. 63%(P > 0. 05). respectively. BTAstat sensitivities for tumour grades Ⅰ ~Ⅲ were 59.09%, 68.75% and 83.33%, respectively, versus 54.54%, 68.75% and 83.33% for the BTAtest(P> 0. 05). Specificities were 82. 89% and 81.57%( P>0. 05). We made an experimental design named BTA joint in sequential method: if the analyses of BTAstat and BTAtest were positive in the meantime, BTAjoint would be positive, or it would be negative. In comparison with the BTAstat and the BTAtest, sensitivity for BTAjoint was 63. 63% (P >0. 05) and specificity was 94. 74% ( P <0. 05). The positive predicted value for BTAstat, BTAtest and BTAjoint were 63.05%, 66.67% and 87. 50% ( P <0. 05), and the accuracies were 76.67%, 75.00% and 83. 33%(P>0. 05).The BTAstat is technically more simple to use than the BTAtest. They have equal sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and positive predicted value. If analyze their results synthetically, we will raise sensitivity and positive predicted value. So, use them synthetically better than respectively in clinical diagnosis of TCC.更多还原