Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: September 26, 2022
Accepted: November 03, 2022
Published online: December 27, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 1015-2008 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0291 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PAT

Abstract

Introduction: The Paris classification highlights the need to focus on accurately identifying high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC). Herein, we aimed to assess the overall implementation and diagnostic performance of the Paris classification for reporting urinary cytology in a cancer center. Methods: All urinary cytology reports from July 2018 to December 2019 were collected (n = 1,240). Only voided urine samples were included (n = 1,180). Risk of high-grade malignancy (ROHM) was calculated for each Paris category. The diagnostic performance of urinary cytology was assessed, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. Results: The distribution of categories was: 0.3% unsatisfactory, 90.5% negative for HGUC, 5.6% atypical urothelial cells (AUC), 1.6% suspicious for HGUC, 1.9% HGUC, and 0.1% other malignancies. No diagnosis of low-grade urothelial neoplasia was given. The ROHM was 21.4% for negative for HGUC, 66.7% for AUC, 91.7% for suspicious for HGUC, and 100% for HGUC. When using suspicious for HGUC as a cutoff, the diagnostic performance of urinary cytology in identifying HGUC histology was 46% sensitivity, 98% specificity, 96% PPV, 68% NPV, and 74% accuracy. Conclusion: Specificity of urinary cytology was very high (with only 1 false-positive result), which is important since this will trigger a clinical intervention. The ROHM for each category was in accordance with literature, except for AUC where ROHM was slightly higher (66.7%). This may be explained by the study population characteristics (cancer center; many patients treated with intravesical therapies; lack of clinical annotation for patients referred from outside institutions).

© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel

References Tetu B. Diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma from urine. Mod Pathol. 2009;22(S2):S53–9. Sanli O, Dobruch J, Knowles MA, Burger M, Alemozaffar M, Nielsen ME, et al. Bladder cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3(1):17022. Yafi FA, Brimo F, Steinberg J, Aprikian AG, Tanguay S, Kassouf W. Prospective analysis of sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology and other urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(2):66.e25–31. Zhu C-Z, Ting H-N, Ng K-H, Ong T-A. A review on the accuracy of bladder cancer detection methods. J Cancer. 2019;10(17):4038–44. Sciarra A, Di Lascio G, Del Giudice F, Leoncini PP, Salciccia S, Gentilucci A, et al. Comparison of the clinical usefulness of different urinary tests for the initial detection of bladder cancer: a systematic review. Curr Urol. 2021;15(1):22–32. Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DF. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology: Springer; 2016. Danakas A, Sweeney M, Cheris S, Agrawal T. Urinary tract cytology: a cytologic-histopathologic correlation with the Paris system, an institutional study. J Am Soc Cytopathology. 2021;10(1):56–63. Anbardar MH, Monjazeb R. Reclassification of urinary cytology regarding the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology with cytohistological correlation demonstrates high sensitivity for high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Diagn Cytopathology. 2020;48(5):446–52. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Vrbin CM, Geisinger KR. Urine cytology discrepancies: frequency, causes, and outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127(6):946–53. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Adequacy criteria for voided urine cytology using cytospin preparations. Cancer Cytopathology. 2019;127(2):116–9. Wiener HG, Vooijs GP, van’t Hof-Grootenboer B. Accuracy of urinary cytology in the diagnosis of primary and recurrent bladder cancer. Acta Cytol. 1993;37(2):163–9. Rohilla M, Singh P, Rajwanshi A, Gupta N, Srinivasan R, Dey P, et al. Cytohistological correlation of urine cytology in a tertiary centre with application of the Paris system. Cytopathology. 2018;29(5):436–43. Mokhtar GA, Al-Dousari M, Al-Ghamedi D. Diagnostic significance of atypical category in the voided urine samples: a retrospective study in a tertiary care center. Urol Ann. 2010;2(3):100–6. Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DF, Rosenthal DL. We’ll always have Paris the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology 2022. J Am Soc Cytopathology. 2022;11(2):62–6. Phruttinarakorn B, Plumworasawat S, Kayankarnnavee J, Lualon J, Pongtippan A. Application of the paris reporting system for urine cytology: the three-year experience of a single tertiary care Institute in Thailand. Acta Cytol. 2022;66(2):134–41. Pastorello RG, Barkan GA, Saieg M. Experience on the use of the paris system for reporting urinary cytopathology: review of the published literature. J Am Soc Cytopathology. 2021;10(1):79–87. Granados R, Duarte JA, Corrales T, Camarmo E, Bajo P. Applying the paris system for reporting urine cytology increases the rate of atypical urothelial cells in benign cases: a need for patient management recommendations. Acta Cytol. 2017;61(1):71–6. Glass R, Rosca O, Raab S, Szabelska J, Chau K, Sheikh-Fayyaz S, et al. Applying the Paris system for reporting urine cytology to challenging cytology cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 2019;47(7):675–81. Vosoughi A, Ordobazari A, Lora Gonzalez MA, Guido LP, Skiba M, Campuzano-Zuluaga G, et al. The Paris System “atypical urothelial cells” category: can the current criteria be improved? J Am Soc Cytopathology. 2021;10(1):3–8. Onder S, Kurtulan O, Kavuncuoglu A, Akdogan B. Comparison of diagnostic performances of urine cytology before and after the use of the paris system criteria: an institutional experience from Turkey. J Cytol. 2021;38(3):133. Kurtycz DF, Barkan GA, Pavelec DM, Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, VandenBussche CJ, et al. Paris interobserver reproducibility study (PIRST). J Am Soc Cytopathology. 2018;7(4):174–84. Ton Nu TN, Kassouf W, Ahmadi-Kaliji B, Charbonneau M, Auger M, Brimo F. The value of the “suspicious for urothelial carcinoma” cytology category: a correlative study of 4 years including 337 patients. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122(11):796–803. Piaton E, Decaussin-Petrucci M, Mege-Lechevallier F, Advenier AS, Devonec M, Ruffion A. Diagnostic terminology for urinary cytology reports including the new subcategories “atypical urothelial cells of undetermined significance” (AUC-US) and “cannot exclude high grade” (AUC-H). Cytopathology. 2014;25(1):27–38. Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: September 26, 2022
Accepted: November 03, 2022
Published online: December 27, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 1015-2008 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0291 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PAT