Current status of urine cytology: what should the urologist know?

Czech version

Authors: Kristýna Pivovarčíková ^1,2; Tomáš Pitra ³; Milan Hora ³; Marián Švajdler ^1,2; Ondřej Hes ^1,2
Authors‘ workplace: Šiklův ústav patologie LF UK a FN Plzeň ¹; Bioptická laboratoř, s. r. o., Plzeň ²; Urologická klinika LF UK a FN Plzeň ³
Published in: Ces Urol 2018; 22(4): 242-250
Category: Review article

Overview

Major statement:

Review dealing with urine cytology, actual classification system, and basic rules in collection and storage of the urine specimen. Urine cytology is a non-invasive examination, which is used for detection of neoplastic cells in urine. A new classification for reporting urinary cytology was published in 2016 (so called The Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology). Implementation of The Paris System will lead to global standardization and uniformity of urine cytology reports. It is important to get to know the new nomenclature and to remember basic rules of urine cytology. Reliable results in urine cytology can be reached only by close cooperation and understanding between urologist and pathologist.

KEY WORDS

Urine cytology, urothelial carcinoma, Paris classification, liquid based cytology

Sources

1. Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Switzerland Springer; 2016.

2. Koss LG, Deitch D, Ramanathan R, Sherman AB. Diagnostic value of cytology of voided urine. Acta cytol. 1985; 29(5): 810–816.

3. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Vrbin CM, Geisinger KR. Urine cytology discrepancies: frequency, causes, and outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 127(6): 946–953.

4. Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczynski SP, Murphy WM. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer 1999; 87(3): 118–128.

5. Badalament RA, Kimmel M, Gay H, et al. The sensitivity of flow cytometry compared with conventional cytology in the detection of superficial bladder carcinoma. Cancer 1987; 59(12): 2078–2085.

6. Badalament RA, Hermansen DK, Kimmel M, et al. The sensitivity of bladder wash flow cytometry, bladder wash cytology, and voided cytology in the detection of bladder carcinoma. Cancer 1987; 60(7): 1423–1427.

7. Hermansen DK, Badalament RA, Bretton PR, et al. Voided urine flow cytometry in screening high‑risk patients for the presence of bladder cancer. J Occup Med. 1990; 32(9): 894–897.

8. Planz B, Jochims E, Deix T, et al. The role of urinary cytology for detection of bladder cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005; 31(3): 304–308.

9. Keller AK, Jensen JB. Voided urine versus bladder washing cytology for detection of urothelial carcinoma: which is better? Scand J Urol. 2017; 51(4): 290–292.

10. Son SM, Koo JH, Choi SY, et al. Evaluation of urine cytology in urothelial carcinoma patients: a comparison of CellprepPlus(R) liquid‑based cytology and conventional smear. Korean J Pathol. 2012; 46(1): 68–74.

11. Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin‑layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001; 12(5): 306–313.

12. Hwang EC, Park SH, Jung SI, et al. Usefulness of liquid‑based preparation in urine cytology. Int J Urol. 2007; 14(7): 626–629.

13. Laucirica R, Bentz JS, Souers RJ, et al. Do liquid‑based preparations of urinary cytology perform differently than classically prepared cases? Observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 134(1): 19–22.

14. Luo Y, She DL, Xiong H, Yang L, Fu SJ. Diagnostic value of liquid‑based cytology in urothelial carcinoma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. PloS one. 2015; 10(8): e0134940.

15. VandenBussche CJ, Rosenthal DL, Olson MT. Adequacy in voided urine cytology specimens: the role of volume and a repeat void upon predictive values for high‑grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016; 124(3): 174–180.

16. Thiryayi SA, Rana DN. Urine cytopathology: challenges, pitfalls, and mimics. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012; 40(11): 1019–1034.

17. Babjuk M, Koštířová M, Mudra K, et al. Stanovení proteinu blízkého faktoru H komplementu (BTA TRAK A BTA STAT), fragmentů cytokeratinů 8 a 18 (UBC IRMA A UBC RAPID) a cytologie moči při neinvazivní detekci nádorů močového měchýře. Ces Urol 2001; 5(3): 4–8.

18. Babjuk M, Koštířová M, Mudra K, et al. Místo neinvazivních testů (BTA STAT, BTA TRAK, UBC RAPID, UBC IRMA) a cytologie při sledování pacientů s povrchovými nádory močového měchýře. Ces Urol. 2001; 5(3): 9–13.

19. Szakácsová M, Soukup V, Babjuk M, et al. Exprese genů BCL-2 a BAX-1 ve tkáni Ta, T1 uroteliálních karcinomů močového měchýře a jejich prognostický význam. Ces Urol 2013; 17(3): 204–209.

20. Pešl M, Soukup V, Babjuk M, et al. Význam stanovení močové hladiny TATI (tumour associated trypsin inhibitor) pro diagnostiku a prognózu tumorů močového měchýře. Ces Urol. 2015; 19(1): 44–50.

21. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and meta‑analyses. Urology 2003; 61(1): 109–18; discussion 18.

22. Kinders R, Jones T, Root R, et al. Complement factor H or a related protein is a marker for transitional cell cancer of the bladder. Clin Cancer Res. 1998; 4(10): 2511–2520.

23. Soloway MS, Briggman V, Carpinito GA, et al. Use of a new tumor marker, urinary NMP22, in the detection of occult or rapidly recurring transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract following surgical treatment. J Urol. 1996; 156(2 Pt 1): 363–367.

24. Cappellen D, De Oliveira C, Ricol D, et al. Frequent activating mutations of FGFR3 in human bladder and cervix carcinomas. Nat Genet. 1999; 23(1): 18–20.

25. Allory Y, Beukers W, Sagrera A, et al. Telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter mutations in bladder cancer: high frequency across stages, detection in urine, and lack of association with outcome. Eur Urol. 2014; 65(2): 360–366.

26. Rachakonda PS, Hosen I, de Verdier PJ, et al. TERT promoter mutations in bladder cancer affect patient survival and disease recurrence through modification by a common polymorphism. Proc Natl Acad Sciences U S A. 2013; 110(43): 17426–17431.

27. Ward DG, Baxter L, Gordon NS, et al. Multiplex PCR and next generation sequencing for the non‑invasive detection of bladder cancer. PloS one. 2016; 11(2): e0149756.

28. Pivovarcikova K, Pitra T, Vanecek T, et al. Comparative study of TERT gene mutation analysis on voided liquid‑based urine cytology and paraffin‑embedded tumorous tissue. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2016; 24: 7–10.

29. Ward DG, Bryan RT. Liquid biopsies for bladder cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(2): 331–335.

30. Birkenkamp‑Demtroder K, Christensen E, Nordentoft I, et al. Monitoring treatment response and metastatic relapse in advanced bladder cancer by liquid biopsy analysis. Eur Urol. 2017.

31. Pardini B, Cordero F, Naccarati A, et al. MicroRNA profiles in urine by next‑generation sequencing can stratify bladder cancer subtypes. Oncotarget. 2018; 9(29): 20658–20669.

32. Babjuk M, Bohle A, Burger M, et al. EAU guidelines on non‑muscle‑invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol. 2017; 71(3): 447–461.

33. Roupret M, Babjuk M, Comperat E, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2017 update. Eur Urol. 2018; 73(1): 111–122.

34. Kamat AM, Hegarty PK, Gee JR, et al. ICUD‑EAU international consultation on bladder cancer 2012: Screening, diagnosis, and molecular markers. Eur Urol. 2013; 63(1): 4–15.

35. Tan WS, Sarpong R, Khetrapal P, et al. Does urinary cytology have a role in haematuria investigations? BJU Int. 2018 Jul 12. doi: 10.1111/bju.14459. [Epub ahead of print].

36. Meilleroux J, Daniel G, Aziza J, et al. One year of experience using the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018; 126(6): 430–436.

37. Wang Y, Auger M, Kanber Y, Caglar D, Brimo F. Implementing The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology results in a decrease in the rate of the „atypical“ category and an increase in its prediction of subsequent high‑grade urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018; 126(3): 207–214.