Current status of urine cytology: What new does The Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology bring?
Authors:
Kristýna Pivovarčíková 1; Tomáš Pitra 2; Ondřej Hes 1
Authors‘ workplace:
Šiklův ústav patologie LF UK a FN Plzeň
1; Urologická klinika LF UK a FN Plzeň
2
Published in:
Čes.-slov. Patol., 55, 2019, No. 1, p. 34-41
Category:
Reviews Article
Overview
Urine cytology is used for detection of neoplastic cells in urine. It has high sensitivity and specificity in detection high-grade urothelial carcinoma, but it is low sensitive in detection of low-grade carcinoma. Different classification systems were published in the past, need for a more standardized terminology results in Paris System for Reporting Urine cytology. This classification was published in 2016, and it is based on clear diagnostic criteria. Implementation of The Paris System will lead to global standardization and uniformity of urine cytology reports.
Keywords:
Urine – cytology – urothelial carcinoma – Paris classification
Sources
1. Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC; 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, Lenel JC, Cohen MB. Low grade transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cytologic diagnosis by key features as identified by logistic regression analysis. Cancer 1994; 74(5): 1621-1626.
4. Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczynski SP, Murphy WM. The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer 1999; 87(3): 118-128.
5. Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Switzerland Springer; 2016.
6. Barrett DL, King EB. Comparison of cellular recovery rates and morphologic detail obtained using membrane filter and cytocentrifuge techniques. Acta Cytol 1976; 20(2): 174-180.
7. Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001; 12(5): 306-313.
8. Hwang EC, Park SH, Jung SI, et al. Usefulness of liquid-based preparation in urine cytology. Int J Urol 2007; 14(7): 626-629.
9. 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.
10. Linder J. Recent advances in thin-layer cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1998; 18(1): 24-32.
11. 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.
12. Straccia P, Bizzarro T, Fadda G, Pierconti F. Comparison between cytospin and liquid-based cytology in urine specimens classified according to the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2016; 124(7): 519-523.
13. Luthra UK, Dey P, George J, et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: urine cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1999; 21(5): 364-366.
14. Nassar H, Ali-Fehmi R, Madan S. Use of ThinPrep monolayer technique and cytospin preparation in urine cytology: a comparative analysis. Diagnostic Cytopathol 2003; 28(3): 115-118.
15. Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Wu HH. Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens. Cancer 2006; 108(3): 144-149.
16. Kim JY, Kim HJ. A Comparison Between ThinPrep Monolayer and Cytospin Cytology for the Detection of Bladder Cancer. Korean J Urol 2014; 55(6): 390-394.
17. Granados R, Butron M, Santonja C, et al. Increased risk of malignancy for non-atypical urothelial cell groups compared to negative cytology in voided urine. Morphological changes with LBC. Diagn cytopathol 2016; 44(7): 582-590.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Prather J, Arville B, Chatt G, et al. Evidence-based adequacy criteria for urinary bladder barbotage cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2015; 4(2): 57-62.
21. Wojcik EM. What should not be reported as atypia in urine cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2016; 4(1): 30-36.
22. Owens CL, Vandenbussche CJ, Burroughs FH, Rosenthal DL. A review of reporting systems and terminology for urine cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121(1): 9-14.
23. Renshaw AA, Nappi D, Weinberg DS. Cytology of grade 1 papillary transitional cell carcinoma. A comparison of cytologic, architectural and morphometric criteria in cystoscopically obtained urine. Acta Cytol 1996; 40(4): 676-682.
24. Ondič O, Slunéčko R, Švajdler M. Postavenie a význam cytológie moča v diagnostike uroteliálnych nádorov. Cesk Patol 2014; 50(4): 142-145.
25. Babjuk M, Burger M, Compérat E, et al. EAU Guidelines on Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (TaT1 and CIS). Edn presented at the EAU Annual Congress London 2017. Arnhem: EAU Guidelines Office; 2017.
26. Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Burger M, et al. EAU Guidelines on Urothelial Carcinoma of the Upper Urinary Tract Edn presented at the EAU Annual Congress London 2017. Arnhem: EAU Guidelines Office; 2017.
27. Witjes JA, Compérat E, Cowan NC, et al. EAU Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer. Edn presented at the EAU Annual Congress London 2017. Arnhem: EAU Guidelines Office; 2017.
28. Koss LG, Bartels PH, Sychra JJ, Wied GL. Diagnostic cytologic sample profiles in patients with bladder cancer using TICAS system. Acta Cytol 1978; 22(5): 392-397.
29. Murphy WM, Soloway MS, Jukkola AF, Crabtree WN, Ford KS. Urinary cytology and bladder cancer. The cellular features of transitional cell neoplasms. Cancer 1984; 53(7): 1555-1565.
30. Ooms EC, Veldhuizen RW. Cytological criteria and diagnostic terminology in urinary cytology. Cytopathology 1993; 4(1): 51-54.
31. Eble JN, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours Pathology and Genetics Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. IARC Press Lyon. 2004.
32. Mostofi FK, Sobin LH, Torloni H. International histological classification of tumors. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1973.
33. Grossfeld GD, Litwin MS, Wolf JS Jr, et al. Evaluation of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria in adults: the American Urological Association best practice policy--part II: patient evaluation, cytology, voided markers, imaging, cystoscopy, nephrology evaluation, and follow-up. Urology 2001; 57(4): 604-10.
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. Sullivan PS, Nooraie F, Sanchez H, et al. Comparison of ImmunoCyt, UroVysion, and urine cytology in detection of recurrent urothelial carcinoma: a “split-sample” study. Cancer 2009; 117(3): 167-173.
36. 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.
37. 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) :363-7.
38. Knowles MA, Hurst CD. Molecular biology of bladder cancer: new insights into pathogenesis and clinical diversity. Nat Rev Cancer 2015; 15(1): 25-41.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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 Sci U S A 2013; 110(43): 17426-17431.
43. 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.
44. Ward DG, Bryan RT. Liquid biopsies for bladder cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6(2): 331-335.
45. 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 In press 2017.
46. Lindsey KG, Chajewski OS, Wojcik EM. Urine Cytology: Purpose, Practice, and Paris. AJSP: Reviews & Reports 2016; 21: 279-283.
Labels
Anatomical pathology Forensic medical examiner ToxicologyArticle was published in
Czecho-Slovak Pathology
2019 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
- Current issues in fine needle aspiration biopsy of thyroid gland
- Current status of urine cytology: What new does The Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology bring?
- Noonan syndrome from a fetopathologist perspective
- Cytodiagnostics in Pneumology – State of the Art 2019