Nongynecologic Cytopathology
Celik B. ·
Kavas G.
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
Rent via DeepDyve
Unlimited fulltext viewing of this article
Organize, annotate and mark up articles
Printing and downloading restrictions apply
Start free trial
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
Abstract
Introduction: To compare performance of indivisual categories between the Johns Hopkins template and the Paris system for reporting urinary cytology.
Methods: Medical records of patients with bladder biopsy and relevant cytology slides were obtained from archived material. Slides were reclassified according to Johns Hopkins Template and the Paris. Results were compared to histologic diagnoses.
Results: BD SurePath preparations from 205 cases with biopsy follow up (118 benign, 5 dysplasia, 23 low-and 59 malignant urothelial carcinoma (UC)) were reviewed. There were 2 inadequate specimens in each system. According to the Johns Hopkins Template, there were 96 (46.8%) no urothelial atypia or malignancy, 37 (18%) atypical urothelial cells of uncertain significance (AUC-US), 21 (10.2%) atypical urothelial cells, cannot exclude HGUC (AUC-H), 38 (18.5%) high grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) , and 11 (5.4%) low grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC). The Paris System categorized 111 (54.1%) negative for high grade urothelial carcinoma, 29 (14.1%) atypical urothelial cells (AUC), 25 (12.2%) suspicious for HGUC (SHGUC), 36 (17.6%) HGUC and 2 (1%) LGUC. The Johns Hopkins Template had a sensitivity of 95.6%, specificity of 73.6%, Positive Predictive Value of 61.5%, Negative Predictive Value of 96.3, with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 79.8%. The Paris System had a sensitivity of 93.6%, specificity of 77.9%, Positive Predictive Value of 65.6%, Negative Predictive Value of 96.5, with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 82.8%. The Risk of Malignancy (ROM) for atypical category (AUC-US/AUC) in the Johns Hopkins Template was 43.2%, while it has been 24.1% for the Paris System. The ROM for suspicious category was 47.6% and 68.0% respectively. There was a statistically significant differences between negative and atypical, suspicious, and HGUC categories in each system (p
S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
留言 (0)